Jump to content

Removing (Some) Quirks = Removing Cool Mechs


4 replies to this topic

#1 BodakOfSseth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leftenant General
  • Leftenant General
  • 267 posts
  • LocationBay Area, CA

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:31 AM

Forewarned is forearmed. I'm going to do something I try hard not to do: talk about mech changes. Normally this is because honestly, I don't care. Tweak a quirk here or there, change some heat or cooling percentage, whatever. The meta changes, it's a thing, just move on.

However.

The swath of this de-quirkening, while in line with what they're describing, I think on some mechs is very misplaced.

For example RVN-4X
Laser duration going from -30 to -10
Laser range stays at 10
Missile cooldown stays at -15
Missile velocity goes from -10 to 0
Structure quirks remain and it's new mobility stats are superior to all other ravens.
So... the premier ERLL raven sniper (one of the best in the IS) is now a crappy missile brawler??

PNT-9R is left alone
Energy Heat gen, Cool down, PPC velocity...

I mean some of it, I get. Reducing offensive quirks such that specing in those areas will bring them back up to close to where they were before.
"Want your CDA X-5 to stay as the SRM brawler it's quirked for? okay, start spending them points."
But what about the modules that extra bonus?
Some are straight up nerfs
CDA 3C loses ballistic cooldown and velocity of 25. It's just gone, even though it's a 4 ballistic hardpoint mech... so now it's just, what, a basic CDA? oops, no, it keeps some of its ERPPC quirks and it's got 1 hardpoint... Woo! I guess I'm supposed to build it as a crappy ERPPC sniper with MGs up close?

CPLT-K2 loses most of its offensive quirks, leaving it kind of iffy with PPCs and nothing for its two ballistic hardpoints and crappy maneuverabilty, while the CPLT-C4 gets to keep nearly all of its offensive quirks.

JM6-DD is left alone, so the UAC-5 build is still pretty viable.

I just struggle to understand the logic behind eliminating viable builds here and leaving other viable builds alone.
WTF.

#2 R Valentine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:44 AM

There is no rhyme or reason other than PGI hates IS mechs. They're quirked for a reason, and that reason doesn't leave where the skill tree begins. The skill tree itself does nothing for balance. It makes no sense to adjust balance based on the skill tree, but nothing PGI does makes sense.

#3 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,991 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 27 April 2017 - 06:47 AM

Clearly, the OP doesn't understand the sheer brilliance of the scatter-shot nerfs. This is how PGI will establish a new base line of performance. Can you not see that OP?

View PostScottAleric, on 27 April 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

I just struggle to understand the logic behind eliminating viable builds here and leaving other viable builds alone.
WTF.


Oh. Yeah. Huh.

You're right this makes no sense at all.
PGI please listen an establish your new base line on the base line you spent two years trying to achieve OK? Randomly nerfing mechs will not get you good data. It will simply make people not play those nerffed mechs.

#4 Daemon04

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • LocationYou can google Mozartkugel or you can scan an Austrian.

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:07 AM

Having posted it earlier, too I think that a general approach on the skill "tree" for mech classes is the cause of the issue.
Why?
Because HBK-IICs, KDKs, MAD-IICs and other UNQUIRKED mechs that are already a pain in the *** are going to become unbeatable. Mechs that heavily relied on quirks to be playable at all such as VTRs are going to get nerfed if this skill "tree" goes live.
I feel that these OP-mechs shouldnt benefit from the skill "tree" and even should get some tree branches or nodes removed.
Maybe the skills need to be adjusted to each and every mech variant specifically in order to achieve the balance they have in mind. Yes I know it sounds huge and is going to take a long time and its going to be hard work to do this but I have a strong feeling that this is the proper way to do it.

#5 BodakOfSseth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leftenant General
  • Leftenant General
  • 267 posts
  • LocationBay Area, CA

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:13 AM

1. I don't think the skill tree system is for balance.
2. Many of the quirks that are being removed are definitely going to increase TTK
3. Looking at the changes holistically, I can see that expected changes to engine uncoupling will strongly affect those larger mechs (KDK, MAD-IIC, etc) Looking at the numbers, the MAD IIC is slow, and while the KDK is remarkably more agile than say a DWF, it's still... slow.

What I really object to is hitting highly specialized mech (chassis) with the nerf bat so hard that even specing them back with their skills they're still a shadow of their former self.

Sure I get it that reducing the quirks of something over all increases the TTK and damage output. but hitting it so hard that it no longer makes sense to try to fill the role it had before? that a different chassis now fills that role better, and even then it does it rather poorly? WTF.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users