162 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Quirks ARE a wacky inconsistent system too

not really. quirks give specific mechs bonuses in specific areas. it allows them to diversify mechs and make different mechs better at different things.

they just used quirks wrong in the past. that doesnt mean they cant use them properly moving ahead. the only thing quirks should be used for is diversifying mechs, they shouldnt be used for balancing IS vs Clan tech which is the mistake PGI made before. when they tried to use them for balancing they got out of hand and became a total mess.

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 10:09 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

makes more sense to start all 65 tonners out at the same agility then use quirks to adjust the agility where it needs to be for each particular mech. then you know exactly how that mech compares to the baseline for agility.

Except everyone hates red quirks which WOULD come back that way. These are just hidden quirks essentially which I'm fine with, since we don't have max engine rating quirks, nor do we have twist radius quirks for those with a naturally larger base radius. If they had a baseline for all of those, then sure we could do some quirks (though I would separate them out so we don't see the sea of letters like we did with the skill tree PTS).

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

not really.

How so?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 10:10 AM.

[razenWing]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

Ummm, what? The Linebacker is not as good as either the Hellbringer or the Ebon Jag, so it getting buffed while the other two are nerfed should come as a surprise to no one.

Which, as my reply to MechaBatter states, it's totally fine. If PGI just wants to come out and say, LBK is performing poor, so we are buffing it (essentially twice, cause PGI is simultaneously nerfing everyone else), then fine... I have no problem with it.

But PGI is selling this as an ENGINE DECOUPLING. It's on THEIR FOKING FRONT PAGE and how they literally tell everyone how they intend to do this.

After ALL that, it turns out, that's not the case????? WTF??????? These discussion shouldn't be focused around whether you think a certain mech is underpowered, cause that's a separate issue. It should be whether this is the "decoupling" that PGI promised, or is it like a bait and switch bullsh7t.

[Bud Crue]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

I am confused...

So I multiply 4.75*65 for my EBJ and got around 308. Which, I believe EBJ with 325, is getting a nerf.

But comparing this to Linebacker, which is only faster and more agile now because of the 390 currently... is now even more buffed (more agile) to 422.5 because... why? (and shouldn't it have lower ETR because 65/390 is way lower than 65/325????)

This whole thing is wacked... I thought the whole point of decoupling is that all 65 tonners will handle the same regardless of engine. All 60 tonners will handle the same, etc and etc.

Why are there obvious mobility differences within the same class? How is this "decoupling" if the factor is obviously based on a ENGINE TO TONNAGE ratio? That means it's MORE coupled if anything. WTF? I don't get it...

Can someone explain this to me?

So rather than having control over your own agility, PGI is now just arbitrary telling you which mechs is now going to perform better? So if you have a switchable engine with high ETR, than you are f-ing set. Why would you ever consider buying any other mech with low ETR? Why is PGI just straight up murdering Omni mechs? WTF? Because of Heat limitation, it's not like Omni mechs are really enjoying the ability to swap pods.

I don't get it. If THIS is how they are going to do it, they can go suck it, cause this system blows donkey balls.

Well, first go read Chris's post on page 3. Read it carefully. Consider the statement about mechs with agility quirks getting a bump in the new system. Then go look at the nerf pdfs cited in the OP.

Now with that as the basis of understanding I believe the way it will work is based on two classic principles of modern education in the western world today:

1) a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
2) Emerson is no longer assigned reading (apparently in Canada too).

-Rimshot-

I see some general trends of trying to maintain consistency in the manner you mention. But then there are so many exceptions wherein rather than "bump" a mech that currently has agility quirks, they are simply removing those quirks (in other words: no bump). The only concistency I am seeing is their inconsistency. I mentioned Quickdraws and Catapults in a post above but there are other examples as well. Looking at just tonnage classes (look at IS 70 toners) they are all over the map with some "agile" mechs getting a bump but others getting outright ignored or made the same as their chassis mates. It's just kind of a mishmash really.

So while I don't think it is necessarily going to "blows donkey balls", I also don't see an answer to your question other than to say: "arbitrarily" or maybe "with a vague consistency across chassis and sort-of a broader range across tonnage with some head scratching inconsistency within both of which some examples sure as hell look foolish to me". Put another way: It's PGI being PGI

[Quicksilver Aberration]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

But PGI is selling this as an ENGINE DECOUPLING. It's on THEIR FOKING FRONT PAGE and how they literally tell everyone how they intend to do this.

WTF are you even on about? They don't need to start the engine decoupling process with EVERYTHING set to the baseline, we know they can make some educated guesses about what will need help and what won't. Expecting them to start from the bare minimum and naive and honestly stupid.

[Khobai]

Quote

Except everyone hates red quirks which WOULD come back that way.

whats the difference between a -X% red quirk and starting off with X% lower base agility? its the same exact thing

except with red quirks the fact you have a lower base agility isnt being obfuscated.

if a 65 tonner has less agility than other 65 tonners I would like to KNOW THAT by seeing it has a red quirk.

Rather than having to compare all 65 tonners together and have to research which ones have worse agility.

Its simply a matter of that information being readily available instead of having to look up data charts or compare mechs together...

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 10:13 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

not really. quirks give specific mechs bonuses in specific areas. it allows them to diversify mechs and make different mechs better at different things.

they just used quirks wrong in the past. that doesnt mean they cant use them properly moving ahead. the only thing quirks should be used for is diversifying mechs, they shouldnt be used for balancing IS vs Clan tech which is the mistake PGI made before.

What exactly is your basis for the belief that PGI can/will/has any desire to use quirks "properly" in the future? For that matter how -if not with quirks- do you make a mech like the Dragon, or Victor or even Atlas viable? Seriously? Imagine playing an Atlas without ANY quirks. How long do you think it would last?

I admire your faith, I just want to know the source of it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

whats the difference between a red quirk and starting off with a lower base agility? its the same thing

Perception.

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

except with red quirks the fact you have a lower base agility isnt being obfuscated.

That's kinda the point, just like the fact that certain mechs have less twist radius than other mechs is obfuscated, or how lower engine caps are somewhat obfuscated. I'm fine with this being a quirk so long as all the other things are quirks too (engine cap, natural twist/arm radius, agility, etc).

[Khobai]

Quote

What exactly is your basis for the belief that PGI can/will/has any desire to use quirks "properly" in the future? For that matter how -if not with quirks- do you make a mech like the Dragon, or Victor or even Atlas viable? Seriously? Imagine playing an Atlas without ANY quirks. How long do you think it would last?

I admire your faith, I just want to know the source of it.

PGI has in the past demonstrated their ability to get things right after doing it wrong 4-5 times

Quote

Imagine playing an Atlas without ANY quirks

to be fair, if the Atlas was scaled properly it probably wouldnt need quirks. the only reason it needs substantial armor/structure quirks is because its horrendously scaled even when compared to other 100 tonners.

again quirks shouldnt be used to fix things like bad scaling or tech imbalances. they need to just fix the atlas' scaling instead. it should not tower over other 100 tonners...

just like all mechs of the same tonnage should have the same base agility, all mechs of the same tonnage should also have the same approximate size/volume dimensions.

Edited by Khobai, 29 March 2017 - 10:25 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

PGI has in the past demonstrated their ability to get things right after doing it wrong 4-5 times

Repackage that, trademark it and I believe you have a motto that you could sell PGI.
(Inside joke: to bad it is merely descriptive)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 29 March 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

to be fair, if the Atlas was scaled properly it probably wouldnt need quirks

Lolno, the scale is far from the Atlas's main problem.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 10:24 AM.

[razenWing]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

WTF are you even on about? They don't need to start the engine decoupling process with EVERYTHING set to the baseline, we know they can make some educated guesses about what will need help and what won't. Expecting them to start from the bare minimum and naive and honestly stupid.

Are you dense?

Tell me in your mind, how is what they have with the ETR decoupling?

This is a direct quote of what they wrote:

"With the above issues in mind, we are breaking baseline Mobility characteristics away from Engines. Mobility will instead be determined by the overall tonnage of the chassis. It’s important to note that this will not affect the speed of a ‘Mech, which will remain tied with Engine size. This change was specifically designed in the context of the Skill Tree, but was omitted from the first PTS as we continued to finalize some work required for implementing it."

It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with you because all you care about is whether one mech got nerfed/buffed. What do you mean by starting a minimal baseline is not necessary? Tell me this, how exactly is the new system different from PGI simply just adding random quirks? It's the exact same f-ing thing except now you don't see those quirk numbers, and balance is done with a number in the dark. If you don't see the similarity by now, then there's no point talking to you.

Starting a minimal baseline fulfill that promise (in exact quote) without making anything overtly complicated. How is it better to manually assign an ETR number to EVERY single mech, than to have a baseline across the board for all mechs of the same tonnage?

---------------

Bud Crue, I read Chris' reply, admittedly I didn't read the whole middle pages before going on about my calculation. And while I understand that the numbers are not final, his reply doesn't solve any of the issues that we were discussing.

Ok, so after they read my reply, they change it... LBK is now 400, HBR and EBJ is now 350. But who cares? The point is that, it's still just fudging with numbers. I don't care about individual numbers (something that Quicksilver has a hard time of understanding)

I care about a system. A flat baseline is what they promised, and is the only way to make it fair. Khobai is right, this system is not "decoupling," it's just an assumption of a default "stock" engine where rather than YOU fudging with the numbers, they are going to fudge the number FOR YOU.

Cause if they are going to do that, I rather we just have the system we have now.

-----------------------------
One last thought.

Let's say a new mech came out in the future. If the change is implemented, and maybe PGI just not tell you the ETR. How would you know how it will perform? You can't read it from the engine number anymore. You can't expect a performance from similar mech of the same weight. You buy it, only then do you realize that it's a total piece of shat because PGI had assigned an ETR number of 2.

Grats, that's the new system for ya.

Edited by razenWing, 29 March 2017 - 10:50 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I would rather PGI make their guesses for the sake of balance. Rather than retain the current state of things.

[Athom83]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Starting a minimal baseline fulfill that promise (in exact quote) without making anything overtly complicated. How is it better to manually assign an ETR number to EVERY single mech, than to have a baseline across the board for all mechs of the same tonnage?

Emphasis on starting. Once they put all the mechs of the same tonnage equal to each other, then they can start slightly varying them based on lore, ratios (torso weight vs leg weight), balance, and other things.

[razenWing]

Athom83, on 29 March 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Emphasis on starting. Once they put all the mechs of the same tonnage equal to each other, then they can start slightly varying them based on lore, ratios (torso weight vs leg weight), balance, and other things.

I used the word "starting," not PGI...

Also, if we did it Khobai's way, that doesn't violate in any shape or form, the meaning of the word "starting."

[Bud Crue]

RazenWing,

I understand where you are coming from. This is PGI however. You are looking for consistency in the mechanism and consistency in their message. You are not going to get such a thing. Consider the mechcon announcement regarding the skills tree. One aspect that was absolutely black and white: "quirks removed". Then a week later it was "quirks are replaced with base line value changes to help under performers". Then it was "no some quirks will remain". Then in the PTS it was "a drastic reduction in offensive quirks". What do you suppose the stance on quirks will be when the skills tree comes back? Engine decoupling, both the message and the mechanism will be exactly the same. So at least they are consistent in that regard.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Starting a minimal baseline fulfill that promise (in exact quote) without making anything overtly complicated. How is it better to manually assign an ETR number to EVERY single mech, than to have a baseline across the board for all mechs of the same tonnage?

You don't need to do all of that because you CAN make educated guesses on what will need buffs/nerfs off of that baseline based on existing quirks.

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I care about a system. A flat baseline is what they promised, and is the only way to make it fair. Khobai is right, this system is not "decoupling," it's just an assumption of a default "stock" engine where rather than YOU fudging with the numbers, they are going to fudge the number FOR YOU.

Well I guess it is good they don't listen to you then because a flat baseline would be stupid just like getting rid of all quirks would be stupid. They HAVE to adjust on a case by case basis for all the mechs (it isn't purely based on stock engine either).



Let me make this clear, the difference between the system we have now is how it impacts builds for a variant that use different sizes of engines, that and how visible the difference in agility is between another mech (though with it being constant regardless of engine, it is easier when comparing the two).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 11:02 AM.

[razenWing]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

You don't need to do all of that because you CAN make educated guesses on what will need buffs/nerfs off of that baseline based on existing quirks.


Well I guess it is good they don't listen to you then because a flat baseline would be stupid just like getting rid of all quirks would be stupid. They HAVE to adjust on a case by case basis for all the mechs (it isn't purely based on stock engine either).

If you are a/gainst a flat baseline, then why are you against the current system then? They are ALREADY adjusting all mechs case by case. Why move from one case by case system to another case by case system?

You seem very reluctant to acknowledge the similarity between what they are doing and what they will be doing.

As for part 1, how do you make educated guess on unreleased mechs then? Psychic?

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

Well I guess it is good they don't listen to you then because a flat baseline would be stupid just like getting rid of all quirks would be stupid. They HAVE to adjust on a case by case basis for all the mechs (it isn't purely based on stock engine either).

Yes within weight classes I don't care if their is variation (I believe this is razenWing's primary beef). I don't want a Warhammer to be the same agility as the supposedly agile Grasshopper. But I would like to see some exceptions within the chassis to make some lesser mechs better. Consider making the 5J more agile than its chassis mates for example. It is this later aspect...much like with their inconsistent application of quirks where I think the decoupling system as currently presented failing. We shall see if they address this in the manner that Chris hints at, but I for one am not hopeful...cuz ya know, PGI's history.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

razenWing, on 29 March 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

If you are a/gainst a flat baseline, then why are you against the current system then? They are ALREADY adjusting all mechs case by case. Why move from one case by case system to another case by case system?

Because of how it is dependent on engine ratings rather than being a static amount per variant. This reduces the reliance on quirks for low engine cap mechs since the baseline factors in tonnage AS WELL AS stock engine (or lore design).

For example any IS (and any Clan battlemech) mech could have a serious variance across several builds with regards to its agility.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2017 - 11:05 AM.