43 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

Just the way it should be in all Omnis. Force people to choose: Are the Set of 8 Quirks worth keeping, or is it still better to mix and match.

The problem here is the quirks don't make up for the poor hardpoint placement or lack of inflation compared to IS battlemechs (which is pretty much what set of 8 quirks encourage, minus super customization). I mean on a matter of principle I find set of 8 quirks to be a waste of time because they are trying to encourage you to not use the sole advantage Omnimechs have over Battlemechs (the whole reason they have such huge customization restrictions in the first place). Seems to run counter to the whole concept.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 February 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[FireStoat]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Seems to run counter to the whole concept.

By putting in the 8/8 quirk restriction, PGI is basically telling Omnimech players that they should enjoy their mechs like a Battlemech, but simply not swap out jump jets, endo steel, ferro fibrous, or engine sizes and completely ignore that mechs like the Hunchback IIC and Marauder IIC exist.

Edited by FireStoat, 07 February 2017 - 12:55 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 February 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

I mean, looking at things in a vacuum I can see how one could take the "You can't have your cake and eat it too" stance, but some mechs can't even have their cake let alone eat it, without some help.

And "most" is certainly up for debate... we don't really know.

whether a mech needs heavier quirks than another is irrelevant as far as I am concerned about whether they are a set of 8. In most cases, the complaints is really just minmaxxers complaining because they can't minmax that much more. And since at any given time the meta crowd ignores 90% of the chassis in the game anyhow, and will almost ALWAYS gravitate to whichever is the most OP at any given moment... honestly, what the rest of the plebian masses do with plebian chassis really shouldn't rustle anyone's jimmies, anyhow.

FireStoat, on 07 February 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

By putting in the 8/8 quirk restriction, PGI is basically telling Omnimech players that they should enjoy their mechs like a Battlemech, but simply not swap out jump jets, endo steel, ferro fibrous, or engine sizes and completely ignore that mechs like the Hunchback IIC and Marauder IIC exist.

No, but hey, nice story.

Since in many cases, you are still better off mixing and matching (I know at least 3/4 of mine are mixed)... you just can't quite twist them as much on the God Tier chassis as before. Oh, breaks my heart.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 February 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

The problem here is the quirks don't make up for the poor hardpoint placement or lack of inflation compared to IS battlemechs (which is pretty much what set of 8 quirks encourage, minus super customization). I mean on a matter of principle I find set of 8 quirks to be a waste of time because they are trying to encourage you to not use the sole advantage Omnimechs have over Battlemechs (the whole reason they have such huge customization restrictions in the first place). Seems to run counter to the whole concept.

Always going to be some weaker chassis, and some stronger ones, regardless. A truly gimped chassis, should simply have a better set of 8 quirks. Yeah, some will suffer, admittedly. Better that then the unfettered minmax ******** that'll happen otherwise with the top tier robots.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

whether a mech needs heavier quirks than another is irrelevant as far as I am concerned about whether they are a set of 8. In most cases, the complaints is really just minmaxxers complaining because they can't minmax that much more. And since at any given time the meta crowd ignores 90% of the chassis in the game anyhow, and will almost ALWAYS gravitate to whichever is the most OP at any given moment... honestly, what the rest of the plebian masses do with plebian chassis really shouldn't rustle anyone's jimmies, anyhow.

Well, for guys like me who like making the most of all mechs even if they aren't meta mechs, I must protest. The idea of a Gargoyle or Executioner or Adder or Ice Ferret or Kit Fox or Mist Lynx, etc losing their quirks just because they switched some omni-pods doesn't make sense to me.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 07 February 2017 - 01:27 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

Better that then the unfettered minmax ******** that'll happen otherwise with the top tier robots.

That's kind of the point though when you only have omnipods to customize your mech and have no hardpoint inflation. That's actually part of the reason they never got hardpoint inflation in the first place. I just have trouble justifying the time they waste coming up with these just to make them on average weak battlemechs. If they don't want min/max to be a thing, then don't allow it rather than trying to go some roundabout way to incentivize the other way.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 February 2017 - 01:29 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

Better that then the unfettered minmax ******** that'll happen otherwise with the top tier robots.

There are no top tier minmaxed omni-mechs that make use of quirks, so I don't really know what you are talking about. We had it a little with the Summoner... but, well.. its gone!

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 February 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

There are no top tier minmaxed omni-mechs that make use of quirks, so I don't really know what you are talking about. We had it a little with the Summoner... but, well.. its gone!

and with good reason. Minmaxing went and got another otherwise subpar chassis nailed. GG, that.

Admittedly, Clan Battlemechs, by lore, really shouldn't be able to switch Engines, Structure or armor, either, being meant for second line and garrison troops.... customization simply isn't really allowed.

And if PGI were smart.. they would have left them such, what with C-XLs, and superior Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc, all more than being a more than even tradeoff for IS Battlemechs swapping engines, and such. But alas, Russ and Paul, and that is that.

Regardless, I have been running plenty enough Omnis, in fact, until the BSW came out, I had only been running Clan Mechs for the last 6 months. And in truth... you protest too damn much. But whatever.

I'm never going to convince you guys that the sky is blue, let alone anything else.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

...
Always going to be some weaker chassis, and some stronger ones, regardless. A truly gimped chassis, should simply have a better set of 8 quirks. Yeah, some will suffer, admittedly. Better that then the unfettered minmax ******** that'll happen otherwise with the top tier robots.

What was wrong with pod-specific quirks for weaker pods?

If one pod has zero hardpoints, but another pod has three hardpoints, why should the null-hardpoint pod be tied to a base configuration to get an up?

Set-of-8 should be for offering options to Super Stock guys who like to do things like run Summoner Primes, amplifying the abilities of an otherwise exceptionally weak overall loadout. Individual weak-as-hell pods still need to be adjusted accordingly, or they just vanish into the chaff.

And again - why should we try and punish people for breaking the stock pod layout on OmniMechs designed and intended to break their stock layout? Why do folks who want to mix-and-match pods on OmniMechs get smacked upside the face with a brick, whilst folks who want to swatch around engines and upgrades and all the rest on BattleMechs get to do so absolutely free and clear whilst enjoying triple inflation on most of their hardpoints these days?

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 07 February 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

What was wrong with pod-specific quirks for weaker pods?

If one pod has zero hardpoints, but another pod has three hardpoints, why should the null-hardpoint pod be tied to a base configuration to get an up?

Set-of-8 should be for offering options to Super Stock guys who like to do things like run Summoner Primes, amplifying the abilities of an otherwise exceptionally weak overall loadout. Individual weak-as-hell pods still need to be adjusted accordingly, or they just vanish into the chaff.

And again - why should we try and punish people for breaking the stock pod layout on OmniMechs designed and intended to break their stock layout? Why do folks who want to mix-and-match pods on OmniMechs get smacked upside the face with a brick, whilst folks who want to swatch around engines and upgrades and all the rest on BattleMechs get to do so absolutely free and clear whilst enjoying triple inflation on most of their hardpoints these days?

Firstly, there are no variants the WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED.

This obviously ain't that.

And why? Because all that happens with that is the strong gets stronger, the weak gets weaker. We HAD the quirks you speak of before. And the separation between Meta Haves and MEta Have Nots, was far wider than it is now, but hey, I guess I'm the only one who remembers that.

Damn I need MW5 and Battletech 2017 to get here, so I can put all this PvP ********, with all the minmaxers making every excuse under the sun to push metas in the dust.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

And if PGI were smart.. they would have left them such, what with C-XLs, and superior Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc, all more than being a more than even tradeoff for IS Battlemechs swapping engines, and such.

Not really, because you would still end up with the same situation as with the Clan Omnis where some are just optimized nicely to the point the lack of customization isn't really a detriment (for example the Black Python). That's where the problem stems from, most of the stock mechs in this game, specifically the IS ones, are poorly optimized compared to their Clan counterparts (and especially given the tech base divide). Customization allows you to fix that. This is why the Omni construction rules has been such an issue since they introduced them because they only allow you to customize hardpoints to make up for the crappy stock configs for some of the mechs which as we well know, isn't enough for some.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 February 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

and with good reason. Minmaxing went and got another otherwise subpar chassis nailed. GG, that.

Admittedly, Clan Battlemechs, by lore, really shouldn't be able to switch Engines, Structure or armor, either, being meant for second line and garrison troops.... customization simply isn't really allowed.

And if PGI were smart.. they would have left them such, what with C-XLs, and superior Endo, Ferro, DHS, etc, all more than being a more than even tradeoff for IS Battlemechs swapping engines, and such. But alas, Russ and Paul, and that is that.

Regardless, I have been running plenty enough Omnis, in fact, until the BSW came out, I had only been running Clan Mechs for the last 6 months. And in truth... you protest too damn much. But whatever.

I'm never going to convince you guys that the sky is blue, let alone anything else.

Eh I would only protest if they went and nerfed the Executioner, for example, by enforcing set of 8 quirks to keep the agility. I'm not really losing sleep over the minor set of 8 quirks they are using now. Yeah, my dual gauss, er PPC Night Gyr doesn't need the cooldown quirk given by the -B variant 8/8 config, but some of the less optimal builds can use it and thats cool.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

Firstly, there are no variants the WAY THEY ARE DESIGNED.

This obviously ain't that.

And why? Because all that happens with that is the strong gets stronger, the weak gets weaker. We HAD the quirks you speak of before. And the separation between Meta Haves and MEta Have Nots, was far wider than it is now, but hey, I guess I'm the only one who remembers that.

Damn I need MW5 and Battletech 2017 to get here, so I can put all this PvP ********, with all the minmaxers making every excuse under the sun to push metas in the dust.

The 'Strong' get stronger by using strong pod configurations. The idea is take pods that are not strong, such as all the preponderance of 'empty' pods for given sections, and give them something to possibly make them a niche choice over the 'meta' pod.

Take the Hellbringer. is there a single Hellbringer in the entire game that doesn't use the Prime LT? Three high-mounted energy hardpoints AND ECM? Not even a contest! The HBR-B LT, with one single lonely E hardpoint, may as well not exist. But what if that LT had some extra torso yaw and, in point of fact, some extra structure? Make it more durable than the much more heavily armed prime LT, so players could have the choice of taking a Hellbringer with less weaponry but sturdier shoulders. No meta guy ever would, but maybe somebody out there would enjoy the opportunity.

And even then, it has nothing to do with Set of 8, which doesn't accomplish anything at all when it's not emphasizing a unique trait of an otherwise piss-poor pod layout. Set of 8 quirks don't matter to most players, but it's still a cheap stunt in a lot of ways since Piranha consistently fails to execute it properly. It doesn't affect the Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Meta, good or bad. All it does is make players feel bad for breaking the stock pod layouts on 'Mechs designed to break the stock pod layouts. Or just further emphasize cases like the Huntsman Prime, which doesn't need to break its stock pods to do a goodly few rather potent builds.

C'mon, man. You're smarter than this.

[Hit the Deck]

Omnimechs quirking does create a bit of tricky situation regarding balancing the game in my mind.

It should be considered that the players are going to mix and match Omnipods because of Omnis' nature and then apply the necessary adjustments (buffs or nerfs) if necessary. This means that Omnis shouldn't be released with quirks becasue it's impossible to predict before release how a chassis (Omni) will perform.

PGI could release an Omni with a set of quirks to reward (not incentivize!) players who want to run stock pods (chassis alternates) but the OmniMech in question shouldn't be balanced based on this. Making the set of quirks giving major rewards also defeat the purpose of Omnis (as has been mentioned before by other posters), thus they shoud be small to moderate.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 07 February 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

I'd be more inclined to see omnipods with no or limited hardpoints (relative to other options available) have mild quirks applied to them, rather than quirk ALL the things or the set of 8 bonus. For example, if a mech has a 2E ST, 1E ST, and 1M ST, only the 1E side torso omnipod should get a mild quirk to compensate for the reduced number of energy hardpoints relative to the other side torso hardpoint with twice the slots for energy. Omnipods with no hardpoints whatsoever should provide a more significant benefit, such as extra armor, heat related, or mobility quirks.

I want hard choices here. Why take the omnipod with 1 slot when I can take the omnipod with 3 slots? Why take the omnipod with no slots? Is it worth giving up a hardpoint for it? Two?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 07 February 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

I'd be more inclined to see omnipods with no or limited hardpoints (relative to other options available) have mild quirks applied to them, rather than quirk ALL the things or the set of 8 bonus. For example, if a mech has a 2E ST, 1E ST, and 1M ST, only the 1E side torso omnipod should get a mild quirk to compensate for the reduced number of energy hardpoints relative to the other side torso hardpoint with twice the slots for energy. Omnipods with no hardpoints whatsoever should provide a more significant benefit, such as extra armor, heat related, or mobility quirks.

I want hard choices here. Why take the omnipod with 1 slot when I can take the omnipod with 3 slots? Why take the omnipod with no slots? Is it worth giving up a hardpoint for it? Two?

Then you run into the same predicament the Summoner just ran into and that the Nova still runs into like how the Summoner used the Prime right arm to buff torso mounted PPCs to the point it was stupidly powerful or how the Nova can use the A arms to buff torso mounted PPCs. In the end, Omnimech construction rules are a headache that simply aren't worth it, I would much rather they just be treated like Battlemechs and we just give everything harder restrictions, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 February 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 February 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

Then you run into the same predicament the Summoner just ran into and that the Nova still runs into like how the Summoner used the Prime right arm to buff torso mounted PPCs to the point it was stupidly powerful or how the Nova can use the A arms to buff torso mounted PPCs.

That depends on the specific mechs in question and what kind of benefits the crap pods are getting. I don't think that fear over the Thor and Black Hawk should be used to flat out nuke every single quirk that isn't part of the full 8-set.

I already gave my idea of negative ERPPC quirks on the Thor's loyalty side torsos, and you can apply that to the Nova if it's really a problem.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 07 February 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

That depends on the specific mechs in question and what kind of benefits the crap pods are getting. I don't think that fear over the Thor and Black Hawk should be used to flat out nuke every single quirk that isn't part of the full 8-set.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that is why they are such a problem to balance, because of all the different permutations you have to consider.

FupDup, on 07 February 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

I already gave my idea of negative ERPPC quirks on the Thor's loyalty side torsos, and you can apply that to the Nova if it's really a problem.

Which works until suddenly laser vomit is a thing again, etc, etc. The point I make above is really the problem.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 February 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that is why they are such a problem to balance, because of all the different permutations you have to consider.

Well, at least structure and agility buffs are hard to "exploit" in this regard. Only weapon ones really pose this "threat," and even then it's fairly chassis dependent (i.e. I'm pretty sure that the individual pod balancing approach is impossible to exploit on a Mist Lynx).

I think that putting forth some effort and dealing with the added difficulty is a lot better of an alternative than PGI's easy mode solution of relying mostly on 8/8 set quirks.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 February 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Which works until suddenly laser vomit is a thing again, etc, etc. The point I make above is really the problem.

For the Thor, laser vomit will never be a real problem since the other Clam heavies (and even some mediums) beat it in that regard.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 07 February 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

The 'Strong' get stronger by using strong pod configurations. The idea is take pods that are not strong, such as all the preponderance of 'empty' pods for given sections, and give them something to possibly make them a niche choice over the 'meta' pod.

Take the Hellbringer. is there a single Hellbringer in the entire game that doesn't use the Prime LT? Three high-mounted energy hardpoints AND ECM? Not even a contest! The HBR-B LT, with one single lonely E hardpoint, may as well not exist. But what if that LT had some extra torso yaw and, in point of fact, some extra structure? Make it more durable than the much more heavily armed prime LT, so players could have the choice of taking a Hellbringer with less weaponry but sturdier shoulders. No meta guy ever would, but maybe somebody out there would enjoy the opportunity.

And even then, it has nothing to do with Set of 8, which doesn't accomplish anything at all when it's not emphasizing a unique trait of an otherwise piss-poor pod layout. Set of 8 quirks don't matter to most players, but it's still a cheap stunt in a lot of ways since Piranha consistently fails to execute it properly. It doesn't affect the Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Meta, good or bad. All it does is make players feel bad for breaking the stock pod layouts on 'Mechs designed to break the stock pod layouts. Or just further emphasize cases like the Huntsman Prime, which doesn't need to break its stock pods to do a goodly few rather potent builds.

C'mon, man. You're smarter than this.

The irony of this post.

We had what you are asking for until recently. It didn't work. Balance was WORSE, with far more ingrained metas. Yet you want to return to that, and play the "smart guy" card.

SMFH

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 February 2017 - 04:26 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 07 February 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

Well, at least structure and agility buffs are hard to "exploit" in this regard.

That's because they are generally specific to a set location, in other words their impact is static rather than dynamic like weapon quirks are.

FupDup, on 07 February 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

Only weapon ones really pose this "threat," and even then it's fairly chassis dependent (i.e. I'm pretty sure that the individual pod balancing approach is impossible to exploit on a Mist Lynx).

This is true, but if the Mist Lynx ever gets torso pods with weapon hardpoints, all of the quirks have to be redone. That seems problematic imo.

FupDup, on 07 February 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

I think that putting forth some effort and dealing with the added difficulty is a lot better of an alternative than PGI's easy mode solution of relying mostly on 8/8 set quirks.

I don't think either are really optimal because for good balance those quirks have to be made with optimal layouts in mind of which there could be many. Basically it makes balancing these sorts of things as metas change a convoluted mess that should be avoided altogether.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 February 2017 - 04:08 PM.