69 replies to this topic

[dario03]

A different amount of skill nodes would be the best for customization but would make balance changes harder on the players. Look at mechs like the locust and oxide that lost about half of their quirks. If that happened in the skill tree you would need to go through and respec them.

Doing something else like a skill multiplier would simplify that a lot. So have every mech have the same amount of nodes but also have every node or maybe sections of the nodes multiplied by an amount determined by how good the mech at base is. Set the base to something like 1.0x but good mechs would be a bit lower and weak mechs a bit higher. That way you could just change the multiplier to buff and nerf.

Or just have some base quirks on the mechs. Simple though less customizable.

[Khobai]

the whole skill tree is stupid anyway

they shouldve expanded on the module system instead and made all the skills into modules

and given each mech 5-6 module slots but with a bunch of different categories of module slots that could only equip certain modules (like weapon/defense/mobility/sensor/support/etc...)

that wouldve made every mech different since every mech would have different numbers of module slots for each category

instead they got rid of the best idea theyve probably ever had for this game (the modules) and replaced it with one of the most generic and most convoluted skill trees ever created for any game.

Edited by Khobai, 23 April 2017 - 08:56 PM.

[slide]

There are also many mechs that are losing extra module slots. Many of the Founders, Heroes and a few select others have extra module slots to make give them an edge. A lot are under performing now (Awesome 8Q for example). New skill tree will rob these even more.

Don't know what a module is worth in skill nodes but my guess is these mechs should get an extra 5-6 nodes each to make up for it.

[chucklesMuch]

Have been spending time gaining xp for my clan mechs for post ST if IS lose all there offence quirks... will re look at them once new tech drops or if some IS mechs survive... oh and lots of cicada drops... for fun

[Valhallan]

From what i remember of the pts their intended formula was, Requirkening then Defensive quirks will remain, structure will be visible and movement will be "baked in" into the chasis numbers. ALL offensive quirks (barring a select pitiful few) would be terminated. Since Clans had the best on all fronts, clans had weaker node bonuses (20% less or something). The result being cheetoh/hbk2c/ngyr/mad2c/kdk3 (basically the quirkless lords) getting relatively better, bad mechs getting shafted, IS getting even more shafted, bad IS mechs getting tossed out the airlock.

[Erronius]

Prosperity Park, on 23 April 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

You can't just take away quirks.

[Carl Vickers]

I believe the offensive quirks are going away, select defensive quirks are staying, still not going to help IS which will become a ghost town in FP once this hits.

[Juodas Varnas]

Carl Vickers, on 23 April 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

IS which will become a ghost town in FP once this hits.

You mean it isn't already?

[Carl Vickers]

Juodas Varnas, on 23 April 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

You mean it isn't already?

Touche, it is in the oceanic TZ most days of the week, weekend is good in NA prime time but drops off after that.

[Pjwned]

Pjwned, on 14 March 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

Still not convinced by any of those reasons to justify quirks.

1) Hardpoint imbalances could largely be solved by sized hardpoints.

2) Tech imbalance isn't a reason for quirks, because that should be addressed directly instead of quirk band-aid fixes, which is actually part of the goal of the new tech coming later this year. Tech imbalance is the worst possible justification for quirks and it's obvious you're a huge quirk apologist if you think that.

3a) A lot of mech design issues have to do with mechs having low slung arms, and that should be addressed by allowing mechs to move their arms somehow (e.g arms raised up in front of them) instead of arms just being completely static which is stupid.

3b) If all else fails, the design of the mech itself could be altered slightly; a good example would be the Dragon, which is actually supposed to have a nice, high mount for its ballistic arm, except for some reason it doesn't have that in MWO, and in addition the lower arm actuator could be removed on 1 (or more) of the DRG variants to allow more space for ballistics and more importantly mount an AC20.

If none of that could make a mech worth using--without drastically altering the mech itself anyways--then at that point quirks could be a valid consideration.

Same thing applies to free nodes since they would just be quirks by another name.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

The skill tree quirk system is better because you can choose what weapon quirks you want.

[chucklesMuch]

Teer Kerensky, on 23 April 2017 - 11:40 PM, said:

The skill tree quirk system is better because you can choose what weapon quirks you want.

Better for mechs that didn't have them... and can have them going forward, better for the mechs with a reduced number of module slots but not so much for the mechs that need there existing offensive quirks and or currently have extra module slots...

Will wait and see the next iteration.. last version screamed play clams or go home... but then again, looking at all terrible IS nostagia mechs getting voted for, maybe people won't care...

Edited by chucklesMuch, 23 April 2017 - 11:57 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Erronius, on 23 April 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

Yeah, everybody knows the Hunchbacks will do fine without Hunch Armor quirks, Atlas Mechs are as sturdy as they need to be without health quirks, and trebuchets can carry their own without help.

You, Sir, make Paul look like a balancing genius.

[Clownwarlord]

You know they as in PGI could do this:

First pass: Remove quirks.

Second pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

Third pass: Remove more quirks.

Forth pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

In other words they have to remove the quirks first to see how far they have to adjust the baseline stats. Also because the new skill tree is tied with the engine de-sync we kinda need the engine de-sync in the game also to know how much the base line stats need to be adjusted for that change ... which means we need the new skill tree in the game.

But hey what do I know I have only seen PGI do in the past big swaying changes to learn that that type of balancing doesn't work well, but slight changes at a time work best till you reach the desired result. Or in the famous words of Paul, "Working as intended."

[Trev Firestorm]

Clownwarlord, on 24 April 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

You know they as in PGI could do this:

First pass: Remove quirks.

Second pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

Third pass: Remove more quirks.

Forth pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

In other words they have to remove the quirks first to see how far they have to adjust the baseline stats. Also because the new skill tree is tied with the engine de-sync we kinda need the engine de-sync in the game also to know how much the base line stats need to be adjusted for that change ... which means we need the new skill tree in the game.

But hey what do I know I have only seen PGI do in the past big swaying changes to learn that that type of balancing doesn't work well, but slight changes at a time work best till you reach the desired result. Or in the famous words of Paul, "Working as intended."

Or they could just do math and update stats based on current quirks.

[Clownwarlord]

Trev Firestorm, on 24 April 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

Or they could just do math and update stats based on current quirks.

PGI's reaction ...



Other PGI responding with ...

[R Valentine]

PGI: So what if we take the quirks away from the garbage mechs, and in return give them... NOTHING! HAHAHAHAHAHAA! BALANCE FIXED! P.S. nerfthevindicator

[Bud Crue]

Clownwarlord, on 24 April 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

You know they as in PGI could do this:

First pass: Remove quirks.

Second pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

Third pass: Remove more quirks.

Forth pass: Adjust the mech's base line stats.

In other words they have to remove the quirks first to see how far they have to adjust the baseline stats. Also because the new skill tree is tied with the engine de-sync we kinda need the engine de-sync in the game also to know how much the base line stats need to be adjusted for that change ... which means we need the new skill tree in the game.

But hey what do I know I have only seen PGI do in the past big swaying changes to learn that that type of balancing doesn't work well, but slight changes at a time work best till you reach the desired result. Or in the famous words of Paul, "Working as intended."

Or they could do this:

Leave everything as is and see how skill tree pans out, then adjust as necessary.

The apparent assumption by PGI (and many members of the community) that we need to remove quirks on already bad mechs to establish some sort of "base line of performance" simply doesn't make sense.

Does anyone really think that a nerfed...pick a mech at random...a Rifleman say...is going to be magically better than it is now with the new skills tree? If its quirks were left alone, does anyone really think it will suddenly be OP relative to other heavies? If the answer is yes then by all means nerf away. If the answer is no then then leave the damn thing alone.

As to that baseline nonsense, if establishing a new baseline of performance is the plan then shouldn't all mechs lose all quirks and then adjust from there? Yet they aren't proposing that. Insteasd, some mechs are losing a bit of this, and a bit of that; and others are not losing anything. How do those selective nerfs in any way help establish a baseline, other than to guarantee one where the worst mechs are made objectively worse? We need to trash two years of "balancing" efforts to figure that out? Seriously?

What;s even more absurd is that we have a baseline NOW. We KNOW which mechs are underperforming and which aren't; any one who consistently plays knows this and can provide a list. Use that existing baseline as a starting point for reviewing performance criteria with the skills tree and go from there. If anything, rather than nerfing current underperformers in anticipation of the skills tree they ought to be selectively BUFFING them to account for the known superiority of the current meta mechs.

Taking crappy mechs and making them crapier relative to the best mechs is not going to provide a baseline but merely confirm what we -all of us players and I hope PGI as well- know fully well: that quirks are needed to provide even a whiff of balance in this game. But hey what do I know, this is just mathematical certainty we are dealing with here.

[Clownwarlord]

Well Bud Crue they could just remove all quirks too ... if its crap it will still be crap and you wont be able to tell the difference.

[Bud Crue]

Clownwarlord, on 24 April 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

Well Bud Crue they could just remove all quirks too ... if its crap it will still be crap and you wont be able to tell the difference.

Sure. But at least they would be consitent in their actions with the message that they are shoveling. If you buy the whole "this is part of some long term balancing master plan" how does the seemingly random nature of an awful lot of nerfs to an awful lot of known bad mechs make any sense as part of that effort. At least uniform elimination would be a "base line" to start from. Of course I don't believe PGI would follow up with any sense of rational changes after that (which is another reason I fear the nerfs...I don't think PGI will "correct" or otherwise address them for at least 9 months to a years), but that is another debate.