24 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

I realize quirks are needed to help out many mechs.. But this is one that i can't stand.. It makes weapons so much harder to balance, making them great on one mech, and sub par on another.

another big issue with them is just using the weapon system in general.. get one mech that has a huge velocity quirk, your timing is completely different than one with out. Aiming is hard enough, we shouldn't have to relearn and use a different method on different mechs, just because of some quirk.

My guess is requirking is going on now.. and i hope this is kept in mind..


Balance weapons for what they are.. Shorter cooldowns, or tweaking heat can raise or lower DPS.. that's fine and helps with balance, but this quirk IMO just breaks more things, and makes very few mechs major OP with that weapon.

[MrVei]

like the PPCs? i feel the same way

[LennStar]

Thats one thing I said since they introduced speed quirks.

I like to rotate my mechs often, and I have more then 100, so it is ARRRRGGGHHH that I cant be sure where to aim because the speed differs on nearly every PPC-meant mech.
PPC heat bonuses are way better (lore and usablity) then speed quirks and actually help instead of hurt.

Also I LIKE it that you can dodge PPC if you are small or fast and outside of the range of other weapons.


The thing ERPPC need tweaks is hitting close lights. As it is now, you have to 1) aim in front of the little guy and 2) consider where your weapon sits and how far it is you are aiming at and adjust even more. Because if not you are just shooting airholes where the light was half a second before.

[Steve Pryde]

MrVei, on 03 October 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

like the PPCs? i feel the same way

Yeah, at the moment ppcs are only viable on mechs with (big) ppc-quirks. Why not increase burning time for lasers by 100% and give laser duration quirks for specific mechs? Would be funny lol.

And the hitboxes of ppcs is just a mess. How often I hit (invisible) walls with it while lasers go through tiny holes...

Edited by Steve Pryde, 04 October 2016 - 04:58 AM.

[PitchBlackYeti]

I have a better idea, drop all weapon quirks so weapons can be balanced properly again and not nerfed to oblivion because of one overquirked chassis. Structure/armor/movement quirks are perfectly fine to serve as a chassis balancing method.

Edited by PitchBlackYeti, 04 October 2016 - 07:51 AM.

[MrVei]

if ppc are only used on mechs with a 50% speed + then drop the quirks and bump up PPC speed for all. to make a mech like the marauder lore happy with PPCs then give it heat - quirks and maybe range?

[FupDup]

JC Daxion, on 02 October 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

...
another big issue with them is just using the weapon system in general.. get one mech that has a huge velocity quirk, your timing is completely different than one with out. Aiming is hard enough, we shouldn't have to relearn and use a different method on different mechs, just because of some quirk.
...

I've never understood this particular argument against quirks...aren't mechs supposed to feel different to drive? Isn't one of the complaints on the forum that mechs feel all the same, like gunbags? Isn't relearning a GOOD thing because it adds replay value to the game, instead of every mech having the same required skill set?

Even in the real world, different vehicles like cars have different properties that require a big of re-learning.

It's true that all weapons should have a baseline viability on an unquirked mech, but that doesn't mean the weapon quirks should be deleted from the picture. These aren't mutually exclusive things.

[Cy Mitchell]

FupDup, on 04 October 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

I've never understood this particular argument against quirks...aren't mechs supposed to feel different to drive? Isn't one of the complaints on the forum that mechs feel all the same, like gunbags? Isn't relearning a GOOD thing because it adds replay value to the game, instead of every mech having the same required skill set?

Even in the real world, different vehicles like cars have different properties that require a big of re-learning.

It's true that all weapons should have a baseline viability on an unquirked mech, but that doesn't mean the weapon quirks should be deleted from the picture. These aren't mutually exclusive things.

You mount a 50 caliber machine gun in the bed of a Toyota pick-up truck and it fires exactly the same as a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of a M1 Abrams tank. The vehicles do not handle anything alike but if you are shooting the machine gun they shoot exactly the same. You have to learn to drive the tank rather than the truck. Now, transpose that example into MWO and two different Mech chassis, one with weapon velocity quirks and one without. Is it reasonable or does it really add something to the game that you have to relearn how to fire the exact same weapon in addition to the speed and agility of the chassis that you are using? IMO, no.

I can see their point about velocity quirks that affect weapons when mounted on different chassis.

[FupDup]

Rampage, on 06 October 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

You mount a 50 caliber machine gun in the bed of a Toyota pick-up truck and it fires exactly the same as a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of a M1 Abrams tank. The vehicles do not handle anything alike but if you are shooting the machine gun they shoot exactly the same. You have to learn to drive the tank rather than the truck. Now, transpose that example into MWO and two different Mech chassis, one with weapon velocity quirks and one without. Is it reasonable or does it really add something to the game that you have to relearn how to fire the exact same weapon in addition to the speed and agility of the chassis that you are using? IMO, no.

I can see their point about velocity quirks that affect weapons when mounted on different chassis.

Velocity differences can be potentially explained by longer barrels and/or rifling the barrels in different ways on a per-mech basis. With the level of tech available, there might even be a little bit of magnetic acceleration along the barrels even for non-Gauss weapons.

For some weapons like Gauss or PPCs it can be explained by internal layouts that allow greater energy flow to the weapons.

If we really want to go far, some mechs might even have different manufacturers of the weapons that have different properties.

Edited by FupDup, 06 October 2016 - 12:40 PM.

[Kuaron]

That's what someone suggested another place:
Instead of skills (!) having better manufacturers' models for additional XP.

[Chados]

Please, just no. Unless autocannon and PPC velocity are being jacked up radically. The only mechs I run PPCs on are 3R Marauders and Clan mechs as it is. And I can always tell when I'm being hit by Clan ER PPCs. They're the overwhelming majority of PPCs, first, and they do splash damage, second.

PPCs are particle-beam cannon. They really ought to be hitscan, like a laser only with different effects. Short duration, more powerful, strips ECM, but range limitations due to atmospheric effects, splash damage, minimum range limits due to field inhibitors, tons hotter.

[JC Daxion]

PitchBlackYeti, on 04 October 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

I have a better idea, drop all weapon quirks so weapons can be balanced properly again and not nerfed to oblivion because of one overquirked chassis. Structure/armor/movement quirks are perfectly fine to serve as a chassis balancing method.

while this is good in therory... movement and armor only go so far for many mechs.. Some mechs also need a DPS boost

Chados, on 07 October 2016 - 03:50 AM, said:

Please, just no. Unless autocannon and PPC velocity are being jacked up radically. The only mechs I run PPCs on are 3R Marauders and Clan mechs as it is.

So you don't see a problem with that? You basically just admited the only mechs worth using PPC's on are the ones with GIANT velocity quirks.

If that is the route the game should go, as in only certain mechs should use certain weapons, then drop the OMNI hard points, and add LOCKED hard points by weapon type and size..

Though i have said, sized hard points should be added anyway for a very long time.. It would help curb boating big time.

[JC Daxion]

FupDup, on 04 October 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

I've never understood this particular argument against quirks...aren't mechs supposed to feel different to drive? Isn't one of the complaints on the forum that mechs feel all the same, like gunbags? Isn't relearning a GOOD thing because it adds replay value to the game, instead of every mech having the same required skill set?

Even in the real world, different vehicles like cars have different properties that require a big of re-learning.

It's true that all weapons should have a baseline viability on an unquirked mech, but that doesn't mean the weapon quirks should be deleted from the picture. These aren't mutually exclusive things.

Yes they are.. But i don't think screwing weapons to useless unless you have a certain quirk is good for balance at all..

Besides the balance issues, which IMO are pretty big.. Just go look at meta mechs, and read the list of top tier mechs, and how many of them have insane velocity quirks For the most part, any with a large one, is a top mech.. sure their are a few outliers, but a couple bad ones, just doesn't make up for how many get turned into monsters

and yes, i want mechs to feel and drive different, which is again why i say sized hard points.. But it is a game after all, and aiming is part of it. Having 5 different variations on one weapon for lead time IMO is bad for a game that is about aiming, and practice. think of it like football.. You have Just one QB.. and you rotate all the other players out from time to time.. But You NEVER use 4 or 5 QB's in a game, because if you did, the timing would be so off a team would never move and the game would be insanly harder. It's basically the same thing

[Koniving]

FupDup, on 06 October 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

Velocity differences can be potentially explained by longer barrels and/or rifling the barrels in different ways on a per-mech basis. With the level of tech available, there might even be a little bit of magnetic acceleration along the barrels even for non-Gauss weapons.

For some weapons like Gauss or PPCs it can be explained by internal layouts that allow greater energy flow to the weapons.

If we really want to go far, some mechs might even have different manufacturers of the weapons that have different properties.

Why not simply have Weapon Variants, and each mech has an affable list of weapon variants? That is what longer barrels, shorter this, internal layouts, etc. would be is it not?

It would also give us choice and variety without saying "The only good loadout on a Thunderbolt is this."
Or "That metamechs build is the only way you should ever run it."

What if this mech gave us some choices between preferred styles of weapon i.e. hard hitting but slow to reload FLD or far reaching, fast to fire DPS and some options in between all for the same weapon?
Even better, what if we could mix and match.

For example lets take a Grasshopper.
What would you use a Grasshopper for? Energy weapons... practically your only option.
What if this brand of ML has slightly longer reach for slightly lousier recharge time?
And what if those ML has rapid recharge time but kinda crappy range?
Bam you got options.

Furthermore, rather than "-50% energy heat gen"... which gets exploited to hell and back as a free pass to alpha striking in the face of ghost heat, a specific weapon variant could have that reduced energy heat. Another could have reduced beam duration. Another could have better range. Another might have a bit more crit health. The list goes on.

So many more options and so much more flexibility means we could have that much more variety on the field.
Rebalancing would be as simple as adding or removing specific weapon variant options to that specific mech variant.
And a change to those weapon variants would affect all mechs... and not just that one mech that PGI has **** on again and again and again and again.

[Reno Blade]

While the idea of different manufacturers is great way to provide diversity, the forum is filled with negative feedback for even the slightest value tests or nerfs on the PTS that it will take ages before we can even try such ideas.

[Graugger]

Drop AC velocity quirks and have their default velocities again!

[Koniving]

Reno Blade, on 09 October 2016 - 12:14 AM, said:

While the idea of different manufacturers is great way to provide diversity, the forum is filled with negative feedback for even the slightest value tests or nerfs on the PTS that it will take ages before we can even try such ideas.

I think this is because of PGI's idea of values.

[General Solo]

Single Energy slot Cicada 3C disagrees

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Koniving, on 08 October 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

What would you use a Grasshopper for? Energy weapons... practically your only option.
What if this brand of ML has slightly longer reach for slightly lousier recharge time?
And what if those ML has rapid recharge time but kinda crappy range?
Bam you got options.

The problem is one option is generally going to be superior across the board, the point of quirks is essentially to restrict certain manufacturers to certain mechs which would make more sense but require a lot more coding and thought on inventories.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2016 - 01:48 PM.

[Koniving]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

The problem is one option is generally going to be superior across the board, the point of quirks is essentially to restrict certain manufacturers to certain mechs which would make more sense but require a lot more coding and thought on inventories.

If you balance the 'better' feature with an equally 'inferior' feature, the superiority will be situational rather than absolute.

If one has better FLD, it would have the drawback of not getting up to rating (i.e. if an ML does 5 damage in 5 seconds, then this one might only manage 4 damage), while one that's much more DPS-oriented than the 'middle ground' might actually do 6 to 7 damage in that same 5 seconds.

The key to the word balance is that something is taken for what is given.
Give = take.