26 replies to this topic

[Requiemking]

So, I'm not really certain where to put this, as it's not a feature per se, but it is important, and I actually would like to talk about this. Quirks, the band-aid balancing mechanic used by PGI to make some mechs better (or worse) than others. However, as far as I've seen, it hasn't really been working out too well. It's had it's moments, such as making the otherwise worthless Black Knight into something worthwhile, but beyond that, it hasn't made anyone want too use anything other than what they would have used without them. For example, the Vindicator has some of the best quirks of any IS mech, yet the only one that shows up is the Trial version. So, how does one deal with quirks, now that they are not really a solution, but have become part of the problem. The solution, from my point of view, is surprisingly simple.

What I'm calling for is something most people will probably not like, but it is necessary in my opinion. What we need is a great Requirkening. Now, this process would take a while and would probably make a large number of elitist tryhards angry, but hear me out. It would occur in a series of steps spanning several months.

Step one-Dequirk everything.
Now, I know some tryhard somewhere will probably be going livid at the thought of his precious stomping boat losing it's quirks, but this step is important. For this to work, we need a completely blank slate, like it was before the first great Quirkening. As such,everything, and I mean Everything, needs to have their quirks removed. This is essential for the next step.

Step two-Data gathering
After the great Dequirkening, the next span of months need to be dedicated towards carefully monitoring all the current and upcoming in-game mechs. On PGI's end, data needs to be gathered, specifically relating to what mechs are being used, and what the average match score is for that mech (this includes specific variants). PGI also needs to put out surveys about each mech, asking what players think about each mech, what their strong and weak points are. Once all of that data is gathered, then we can move on to step three.

Step three- the great Requirkening
And thus we come to the final step. With all that data in hand, PGI can then requirk mechs based on that info. For example, if a mech has nothing but arm hardpoints, give it quirks that make is harder to remove the arms. If a mech is too slow for it's weight, such as the Highlander, give it mobility quirks to make up for this. These quirks should be doled out based on a mech's shortcomings.

Did I do a good job, or am I horribly wrong. Feel free to leave some feedback, and suggestions of your own.

[Bilbo]

Requiemking, on 01 August 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

So, I'm not really certain where to put this, as it's not a feature per se, but it is important, and I actually would like to talk about this. Quirks, the band-aid balancing mechanic used by PGI to make some mechs better (or worse) than others. However, as far as I've seen, it hasn't really been working out too well. It's had it's moments, such as making the otherwise worthless Black Knight into something worthwhile, but beyond that, it hasn't made anyone want too use anything other than what they would have used without them. For example, the Vindicator has some of the best quirks of any IS mech, yet the only one that shows up is the Trial version. So, how does one deal with quirks, now that they are not really a solution, but have become part of the problem. The solution, from my point of view, is surprisingly simple.

What I'm calling for is something most people will probably not like, but it is necessary in my opinion. What we need is a great Requirkening. Now, this process would take a while and would probably make a large number of elitist tryhards angry, but hear me out. It would occur in a series of steps spanning several months.

Step one-Dequirk everything.
Now, I know some tryhard somewhere will probably be going livid at the thought of his precious stomping boat losing it's quirks, but this step is important. For this to work, we need a completely blank slate, like it was before the first great Quirkening. As such,everything, and I mean Everything, needs to have their quirks removed. This is essential for the next step.

Step two-Data gathering
After the great Dequirkening, the next span of months need to be dedicated towards carefully monitoring all the current and upcoming in-game mechs. On PGI's end, data needs to be gathered, specifically relating to what mechs are being used, and what the average match score is for that mech (this includes specific variants). PGI also needs to put out surveys about each mech, asking what players think about each mech, what their strong and weak points are. Once all of that data is gathered, then we can move on to step three.

Step three- the great Requirkening
And thus we come to the final step. With all that data in hand, PGI can then requirk mechs based on that info. For example, if a mech has nothing but arm hardpoints, give it quirks that make is harder to remove the arms. If a mech is too slow for it's weight, such as the Highlander, give it mobility quirks to make up for this. These quirks should be doled out based on a mech's shortcomings.

Did I do a good job, or am I horribly wrong. Feel free to leave some feedback, and suggestions of your own.

We started with no quirks, data was gathered, and we ended up with what we have now. What, exactly, makes you think repeating the process will get us to someplace different?

[Vlad Striker]

It was already done 5 month ago.

[Yellonet]

Yup, I'd sure enjoy losing match after match in my then completely worthless IS mechs. Clan mechs are already OP now...

[J0anna]

Requiemking, on 01 August 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

.....
Did I do a good job, or am I horribly wrong. Feel free to leave some feedback, and suggestions of your own.

This has been done not once, but twice. We've had the original quirking, then the re-quirking, not to mention the fairly consistent 'modifying' of quirks. Soon we'll have "ghost heat 2.0" which will (no doubt) lead to the third "quirking" (though hopefully just removing most of the quirks). Additionally, Russ has already hinted that Tech 2 IS weapons are coming - so no, we don't need another "re-quirking" in between....

[cazidin]

J0anna, on 01 August 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

This has been done not once, but twice. We've had the original quirking, then the re-quirking, not to mention the fairly consistent 'modifying' of quirks. Soon we'll have "ghost heat 2.0" which will (no doubt) lead to the third "quirking" (though hopefully just removing most of the quirks). Additionally, Russ has already hinted that Tech 2 IS weapons are coming - so no, we don't need another "re-quirking" in between....

Citation requested. I believe you, I just want to see the tweet (let's be honest, it was a probably a tweet) for myself.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Vlad Striker, on 01 August 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

It was already done 5 month ago.

Of course the survivability data collected is basically worthless after the rescale so more data needs collecting. Not saying you need to necessarily strip away all quirks but... it would eliminate all variables besides engine size, hit boxes, and hard points.

[Davers]

I preferred this thread when Bishop wrote it.

[Pjwned]

Requiemking, on 01 August 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

So, I'm not really certain where to put this, as it's not a feature per se, but it is important, and I actually would like to talk about this. Quirks, the band-aid balancing mechanic used by PGI to make some mechs better (or worse) than others. However, as far as I've seen, it hasn't really been working out too well. It's had it's moments, such as making the otherwise worthless Black Knight into something worthwhile, but beyond that, it hasn't made anyone want too use anything other than what they would have used without them. For example, the Vindicator has some of the best quirks of any IS mech, yet the only one that shows up is the Trial version. So, how does one deal with quirks, now that they are not really a solution, but have become part of the problem. The solution, from my point of view, is surprisingly simple.

What I'm calling for is something most people will probably not like, but it is necessary in my opinion. What we need is a great Requirkening. Now, this process would take a while and would probably make a large number of elitist tryhards angry, but hear me out. It would occur in a series of steps spanning several months.

Step one-Dequirk everything.
Now, I know some tryhard somewhere will probably be going livid at the thought of his precious stomping boat losing it's quirks, but this step is important. For this to work, we need a completely blank slate, like it was before the first great Quirkening. As such,everything, and I mean Everything, needs to have their quirks removed. This is essential for the next step.

Step two-Data gathering
After the great Dequirkening, the next span of months need to be dedicated towards carefully monitoring all the current and upcoming in-game mechs. On PGI's end, data needs to be gathered, specifically relating to what mechs are being used, and what the average match score is for that mech (this includes specific variants). PGI also needs to put out surveys about each mech, asking what players think about each mech, what their strong and weak points are. Once all of that data is gathered, then we can move on to step three.

Step three- the great Requirkening
And thus we come to the final step. With all that data in hand, PGI can then requirk mechs based on that info. For example, if a mech has nothing but arm hardpoints, give it quirks that make is harder to remove the arms. If a mech is too slow for it's weight, such as the Highlander, give it mobility quirks to make up for this. These quirks should be doled out based on a mech's shortcomings.

Did I do a good job, or am I horribly wrong. Feel free to leave some feedback, and suggestions of your own.

You've only been here a few months now, so I guess you wouldn't know, but PGI actually tried this sort of thing last year. You can still see the post detailing what PGI wanted to do too, but unfortunately they didn't follow through at all with what they said because...they're hacks.

You might also be wondering if PGI's incompetence is a recent development or not, and I can tell you for sure that PGI has been rocking the incompetence, laziness, and lying for quite a while now.

[Chuck Jager]

Before quirks ever hit, there was still a similar issue.
You had fewer weapons that were taken and mechs with high weapon mounts were king.

The quirks are pretty minimal compared to the first pass, but at that time clan laser went to 800w mods and zero quirks.

If you buy a mech that you like do not expect it to do as well as a mech that is proving itself ATM. Yes it will probably get nerfed, but its OPness with premium time will usually grant you enough Cbills for the next batch.

[Bilbo]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 01 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Of course the survivability data collected is basically worthless after the rescale so more data needs collecting. Not saying you need to necessarily strip away all quirks but... it would eliminate all variables besides engine size, hit boxes, and hard points.

Why is the survivability data worthless? The changed the volume of mechs with the exception of a couple remodels. Compare the data before and after the resize and adjust accordingly. Or do you think they just quit collecting the data at all?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bilbo, on 01 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Why is the survivability data worthless? The changed the volume of mechs with the exception of a couple remodels. Compare the data before and after the resize and adjust accordingly. Or do you think they just quit collecting the data at all?

Ok not worthless, but less useful than it would be because they changed sizes, quirks, movement profiles and bunch of other **** at the same time. Basically you can't really identify what factors are actually hurting the mech just by comparing the two data sets. Yes you can figure out which chassis are underperforming now but any quirks or changes you make will have to be made somewhat blindly as a result.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 01 August 2016 - 02:57 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

PGI is likely does collect data but it is not as simple as we like to believe. Is the data tabulated from all queues or done per queue then compared? Is the data also reflecting the which faction the larger/more active merc units are located during that time frame for FP? Team work is OP, meaning they tend to survive longer than any pugs being faced, changing how the datapoints. I am sure there are other factors I am missing.

What I would prefer, is from the the data and the quirk history would be to have the weapon baseline reviewed and updated instead of relying on putting weapon quirks on almost everything. Then use weapon quirks for actual flavor, but it IS or Clan. It is likely though PGI is hesitate doing that, as may "appear" easier to play with the quirks to change the "FLAVOR" of the month/quarter.

The above was for weapon quirks. For structural quirks, it may be better off removing them then add them back on as "FLAVOR" while changing armor/is from 2x the base to 2.5x base.

The above should also see the isXL made durable as the cXL but with greater movement/agility penalties, or even change how C.A.S.E works and allow a pair to protect an isXL engine from being disabled from the loss of a side torso.

Do quirks for the solo queue really matter? There are exceptions but most quirk changes tend to have a greater value in FP (and likely group queue) more so than the solo queue.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 August 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[FupDup]

The problem isn't quirks so much as generally derpy balancing choices made with those quirks. Specifically, the people making those choices tend to derp things up. Starting from scratch won't fix anything if the current balance team/person is still in charge of the experiment. The end result of Dartboard-Style-Balancing will remain the same with or without quirks. You'll change the specific numbers but not the end result.

The current approach would work fine if PGI was actually better at choosing the quirks needed for Gundams and if they put more effort to update the quirks continuously for mechs that need them. On the other hand, the approach outlined in the OP could also work fine as long as PGI wasn't in charge of it. Notice the common denominator here...

Edited by FupDup, 01 August 2016 - 03:32 PM.

[J0anna]

cazidin, on 01 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Citation requested. I believe you, I just want to see the tweet (let's be honest, it was a probably a tweet) for myself.

Actually wasn't a tweet. Think it was on Sean Lang's 7/25 twitch stream. He talked about how Russ wanted to bring in some Tech 2 weapons, just wanted to make sure they didn't grossly effect balance. Also that the "timeline" really wasn't. You can find it on youtube.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 01 August 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

The problem isn't quirks so much as generally derpy balancing choices made with those quirks. Specifically, the people making those choices tend to derp things up. Starting from scratch won't fix anything if the current balance team/person is still in charge of the experiment. The end result of Dartboard-Style-Balancing will remain the same with or without quirks. You'll change the specific numbers but not the end result.

The current approach would work fine if PGI was actually better at choosing the quirks needed for Gundams and if they put more effort to update the quirks continuously for mechs that need them. On the other hand, the approach outlined in the OP could also work fine as long as PGI wasn't in charge of it. Notice the common denominator here...

Balance would be fine without quirks if equipment was properly tuned to compensate.

The other problem is that many mechs have quirks (or as many quirks as they do) simply because other mechs have quirks, which ramps up power creep to hell and back and is not any good for the game.

Of course, PGI being the common denominator is still a problem that I'm not going to dispute, but that's another issue.

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 01 August 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

Balance would be fine without quirks if equipment was properly tuned to compensate.

The other problem is that many mechs have quirks (or as many quirks as they do) simply because other mechs have quirks, which ramps up power creep to hell and back and is not any good for the game.

Of course, PGI being the common denominator is still a problem that I'm not going to dispute, but that's another issue.

Let's be honest with ourselves here, there are some innate mech design problems that weapon/equipment changes cannot fix.

Most notably, no amount of gun rebalancing will ever make low hardpoints stop being inferior to high hardpoints.

Equipment changes won't make a 25 ton mech suddenly be as competitive as a 30-35 ton mech (no, bigger tonnage mech shouldn't mean superior all the time).

Equipment changes won't change the fact that mechs with a medley of hardpoints (e.g. Victor, Vindicator) aren't as effective as mechs with hardpoints that are more specialized (because specialized builds kill targets faster than bracket builds).

Weapon changes won't change the fact that spread out hardpoints are inferior to clustered hardpoints.

Equipment changes won't fix mechs with bad hitboxes or geometry (and BTW not all of these can be truly fixed by just tweaking hitbox shapes, e.g. Mist Lynx arms will always be really weak).

Weapon changes sure as hell can't save the Spider 5V. :\


To be frank, BT's system of interchangeable parts makes it nearly impossible to balance individual units because every equipment change is a global change that effects every single mech in the game. In a normal game, we can buff or nerf the health, speed, or damage of a specific character without directly impacting any other character. MW games throw a wrench into this...

We can't do that in MWO (without quirks) because, for example, buffing LRMs "to make the Archer better" will still leave the Catapult as superior to the Archer.

There are times when I wish some game developer would start their own IP that was "inspired" by MW, e.g. taking a lot of the mechanics, but also having some mech-specific stats. For example, two mechs that weigh 65 tons in this ripoff game might have different internal structure values by default. In BT, those two 65-tonners will always have identical structure without quirks. All 50 ton mechs with a 300 engine will have identical speed, etc. Too many shared parts.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 01 August 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Let's be honest with ourselves here, there are some innate mech design problems that weapon/equipment changes cannot fix.

Most notably, no amount of gun rebalancing will ever make low hardpoints stop being inferior to high hardpoints.

Equipment changes won't make a 25 ton mech suddenly be as competitive as a 30-35 ton mech (no, bigger tonnage mech shouldn't mean superior all the time).

Equipment changes won't change the fact that mechs with a medley of hardpoints (e.g. Victor, Vindicator) aren't as effective as mechs with hardpoints that are more specialized (because specialized builds kill targets faster than bracket builds).

Weapon changes won't change the fact that spread out hardpoints are inferior to clustered hardpoints.

Equipment changes won't fix mechs with bad hitboxes or geometry (and BTW not all of these can be truly fixed by just tweaking hitbox shapes, e.g. Mist Lynx arms will always be really weak).

Weapon changes sure as hell can't save the Spider 5V. :\


To be frank, BT's system of interchangeable parts makes it nearly impossible to balance individual units because every equipment change is a global change that effects every single mech in the game. In a normal game, we can buff or nerf the health, speed, or damage of a specific character without directly impacting any other character. MW games throw a wrench into this...

We can't do that in MWO (without quirks) because, for example, buffing LRMs "to make the Archer better" will still leave the Catapult as superior to the Archer.

There are times when I wish some game developer would start their own IP that was "inspired" by MW, e.g. taking a lot of the mechanics, but also having some mech-specific stats. For example, two mechs that weigh 65 tons in this ripoff game might have different internal structure values by default. In BT, those two 65-tonners will always have identical structure without quirks. All 50 ton mechs with a 300 engine will have identical speed, etc. Too many shared parts.

There would still be plenty of things to do after addressing quirks and equipment such as adding more equipment & weapons, addressing info warfare & convergence properly, adding sized hardpoints to address hardpoint discrepancies and such, etc.

Do I expect all that to be done though? Of course not.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 01 August 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

To be frank, BT's system of interchangeable parts makes it nearly impossible to balance individual units because every equipment change is a global change that effects every single mech in the game. In a normal game, we can buff or nerf the health, speed, or damage of a specific character without directly impacting any other character.

[Chuck Jager]

Another game had an equalizer for pug play so that it would bring equipment and armor to under 5% difference in damage output and defense bonus.

It was a great idea, but the players just shifted to other areas to maximize advantages. It actually eliminated a wider range of choices. OF course the company took the hit from the player base, but they were already taking it before for not doing anything.

I have just grown to love the fact that mechs and gameplay will change, and it will be in part both to the player base as well as the company.

Also lights had to grow in size so that they would take the damage aimed at them. The agility was as much of a find the baseline plus the fact that the Jenner IIc has an enormous alpha. So instead of double nerfing the Jenner they met in the middle and will hopefully rebuff the others that are truly sub par. Remember sub par is below average not doing as well as the top1-3.