98 replies to this topic

[Vxheous]

Shifty McSwift, on 03 May 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

If you went with defensive perks its not like you aren't going to be torso twisting, the extra armor adds to the overall tankiness and may in many situations give you a longer life or save a gun from exploding etc. I agree mobility is an important aspect of survivability, but you are acting like taking the defensive tree means a player will also never twist or dodge fire, which they will.

Plus if your firepower is already reliable, wouldn't mobility + defense be the better choice?

That's where I said after using common sense to take agility, mech ops and consumables, the last 20 pts will go into either weapons or defense (so basically 2 builds of the skill tree)

agility + mech ops + consumables + weapons

agility + mech ops + consumables + defense

[Shifty McSwift]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 03 May 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

That's where I said after using common sense to take agility, mech ops and consumables, the last 20 pts will go into either weapons or defense (so basically 2 builds of the skill tree)

agility + mech ops + consumables + weapons

agility + mech ops + consumables + defense

There are many slight to decent variations between those basic ideas though. Much more so than the options between each mech in the module system. There is a substantial level of customisation that would remain within the meta choices for specific builds, did it ever have to be massive choice distinctions? Was it ever supposed to be?

And again, you are measuring that from a personal perspective on meta as well as your own sense of attachment to communal knowledge, based on a system that can and will in fact be altered in the future.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Shifty McSwift, on 03 May 2017 - 02:33 AM, said:

There are many slight to decent variations between those basic ideas though. Much more so than the options between each mech in the module system. There is a substantial level of customisation that would remain within the meta choices for specific builds, did it ever have to be massive choice distinctions? Was it ever supposed to be?

And again, you are measuring that from a personal perspective on meta as well as your own sense of attachment to communal knowledge, based on a system that can and will in fact be altered in the future.

so HUGE NERFS across the board for IS mechs & DECENT NERFS for the worst Clan mechs.... DECENT BUFFS to the already best mechs in the game... to get NEGLIGIBLE "CUSTOMIZATION" options.

See what I mean when I say that anyone who defends the Skill Maze in even the slightest fashion literally has to lack the capacity for intelligent thought. They are mutually exclusive conditions... either you can think or you can support the Skill Maze but both can not be be simultaneously.

[Appogee]

Shifty McSwift, on 03 May 2017 - 01:15 AM, said:

The skill tree they eventually release to the public server in whichever patch isn't even really the final version of it. The thing is subject to change.

Well, history would suggest it's more likely the Skill Tree will be subject to a hotfix to solve any immediate bugs, a long period of no change, then maybe some minor tweaks to some values down the track.

That's how the introduction of previous systems has gone.

Edited by Appogee, 03 May 2017 - 03:10 AM.

[oldradagast]

Funzo, on 02 May 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Play data will also work in lieu of peer review. No one says this will be perfect out of the gate. PGI has stated that EVERY skill tree stat and percentage can be adjusted by them to balance each mech and variant as needed. Do I believe the initial implementation of the above listed items being perfect out of the gate? No. I do believe that PGI is just as interested in the play data and balance as well and will continue to adjust after these changes go live.

And PGI has a horrible record of balancing anything in a timely and accurate manner. These are the same people who nerfed the Warhammer because the Night Gyr was the top heavy. They also take forever to fix even the most basic issues, like the do-nothing Pinpoint skill, the Victor's messed up missile tube counts, etc.

Honestly, the skill maze and mech nerfs would be bad enough on their own, but when combined with PGI's lousy track record on prompt and appropriate game balance changes, it's horrible for the game.

[oldradagast]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

Have you actually looked @ the Quirk PDF? This is actually the case.

The point of the decoupling is to set the mech's agility independent of the engine speed. I'm not sure if you were paying attention to what the fundamental hubbub was about.

Read that as "the point of the decoupling is to have PGI determine your mech's agility, and not the player via engine size choices."

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. PGI - a company that rarely even plays their own game or understand why people play certain mechs - is now going to use an even heavier hand to "balance" them. In reality, they'll simple shoehorn them into roles that they think are great, ignore all the balance data that says otherwise, and then go back to sleep for 6 months to a year, totally ignoring the problems. When they do get around to waking up, they'll give the Atlas a 5% mobility bonus, nerf the Awesome, and then go back to sleep for another year.

That's the point - we're losing yet another way players can control their mech builds and putting that decision in the hands of people who have no understanding of the game and who don't care if we're having fun with our current mechs - just buy another mech pack.

Edited by oldradagast, 03 May 2017 - 03:23 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

Have you actually looked @ the Quirk PDF? This is actually the case.

The point of the decoupling is to set the mech's agility independent of the engine speed. I'm not sure if you were paying attention to what the fundamental hubbub was about.

The quirk PDF doesn't show the Mechs base handling characteristics. Chris said they were rolling quirks into the base profiles on a mech on a mech to mech basis.

Now, I haven't tested the kdk/AS7/kgc personally, and pgi is PGI so they may have failed utterly, but the design goal was to roll the agility quirks in, that that wouldn't show up on the PDF.

oldradagast, on 03 May 2017 - 03:18 AM, said:

And PGI has a horrible record of balancing anything in a timely and accurate manner. These are the same people who nerfed the Warhammer because the Night Gyr was the top heavy. They also take forever to fix even the most basic issues, like the do-nothing Pinpoint skill, the Victor's messed up missile tube counts, etc.

Honestly, the skill maze and mech nerfs would be bad enough on their own, but when combined with PGI's lousy track record on prompt and appropriate game balance changes, it's horrible for the game.

I certainly don't argue this.

I do prefer the new skill tree to the old, but I'm not blind to the above. Things are going to be a mess for a while, absolutely. Probably for a long while, given how quickly PGI moves on these things.

[Bud Crue]

Wintersdark, on 03 May 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

The quirk PDF doesn't show the Mechs base handling characteristics. Chris said they were rolling quirks into the base profiles on a mech on a mech to mech basis.

Now, I haven't tested the kdk/AS7/kgc personally, and pgi is PGI so they may have failed utterly, but the design goal was to roll the agility quirks in, that that wouldn't show up on the PDF.

I certainly don't argue this.

I do prefer the new skill tree to the old, but I'm not blind to the above. Things are going to be a mess for a while, absolutely. Probably for a long while, given how quickly PGI moves on these things.

To see the base line agility quirks you have to go to the second iteration of the last PTS (2nd announcement Skills tree PTS updated" or something).* Base line agility is seen in those PDF documents on the far left column. Multiply the base number by the multiplayer to get the engine value equivalent of the baseline value.

I assume those values changed from that final iteration of the last PTS to this most recent one, since they left those values out of the more recent PDF documents but who can say. I only tested a few mechs and they all felt the same as last time.

*I'd post links but this IPAD thing doesn't make that particularly easy.
Edit: Here is a try of the IS PDF: http://static.mwomer...re%20Quirks.pdf
Clan PDF:
http://static.mwomer...an%20Quirks.pdf

Edited by Bud Crue, 03 May 2017 - 07:43 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

One of the most notable changes is actually something we commonly see in many matches... the Hunchback-IIC.

It's agility is actually equivalent to a Highlander-IIC (also equivalent to an Archer, Cataphract, Warhammer, and Battlemaster).

Mind you, this is a serious nerf and while I feel it may still get used, it's not going to be an attractive option.

The HMN will probably supplant the HBK IIC a bit then. It's mostly off PGIs radar for getting nerfed so it has normal agility for a 50 tonner.

imo it poptarts almost as good as a HBK as is. You have to really ace with a HBK to make it work much better than the HMN, I've seen maybe half a dozen players who can actually use the HBK IIC ERPPC decently to the point where their peeping ability cannot be matched with the HMNs profile, most people tart like scrubs with it so they may as well use the HMN as they are exposing extra pixels in the HBK anyway.

[Mystere]

MadBadger, on 02 May 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Obviously the IS mechs have difficulty staying 'competitive' with Clan mechs... the design of base BT tech lore makes them unequal from the get-go. So PGI has to develop a 'kludge' to toss in to have even a hope of restoring some kind of balance (since the whole uneven numbers, inter-Clan struggles, Zellbrigen, long-supply lines works fine when you are writing novels or GMing a match with Battle Values, but not in a purely arena-style PvP game).

FTFY.

[Dogstar]

I think some of you are heavily overestimating the effect of the skill tree on agility. Did you actually try your mechs out on the PTS without skill tree nodes to get an idea of the base performance? I did and my IS mechs are, as far as I can tell, still as agile as before (I appreciate it may be different for the clan mechs).

I'd be very impressed if the small percentage that the ST adds to twist speed/twist angle/accell/decel is going to make a mech agile enough to turn into Neo from The Matrix.

[Mystere]

Appogee, on 02 May 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

Possibly not. I observe that several still aren't in Tier 1 after all this time, even though the PSR system is so weighted to upward movement.

Please cease and desist from using the "tier" argument again, because when Solaris does come ...

That assumes the game lives long enough, though.

Vxheous Kerensky, on 02 May 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:

Well, judging by your stats on the monthly leaderboards, you're most likely in the category of "those that can't shoot" so it must be HSR.

<smh>

Edited by Mystere, 03 May 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Appogee]

Mystere, on 03 May 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

Please cease and desist from using the "tier" argument again, because when Solaris does come ...

Tier is a totally valid way of assessing how frequently someone is playing the game. The point is, some of these white knights, so quick to defend game design decisions, can't be playing the game that much given they're still in less than Tier 1 after two years...

Solaris will be a totally different kind of measurement.

[Ghogiel]

Appogee, on 03 May 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

Solaris will be a totally different kind of measurement.

If it ever comes pretty much all the players with crap stats now, will have crap stats in there too. So won't change much anyway.

[Mystere]

Appogee, on 03 May 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

Tier is a totally valid way of assessing how frequently someone is playing the game. The point is, some of these white knights, so quick to defend game design decisions, can't be playing the game that much given they're still in less than Tier 1 after two years...

Solaris will be a totally different kind of measurement.

Ghogiel, on 03 May 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

If it ever comes pretty much all the players with crap stats now, will have crap stats in there too. So won't change much anyway.

You're both discounting players who use joysticks today ...

or experimentalists ...

and especially those who are both.

Edited by Mystere, 03 May 2017 - 10:25 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Mystere, on 03 May 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

You're both discounting players who use joysticks today ...

or experimentalists ...

and especially those who are both.

I'm just saying that the players that are good at 1v1 now, are going to be the same players that would be good at 1v1s in a ranked queue.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 03 May 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:

The quirk PDF doesn't show the Mechs base handling characteristics. Chris said they were rolling quirks into the base profiles on a mech on a mech to mech basis.

It technically does (well, not the original base, but the base after whatever internal multipliers are used).

So even in the Kodiak's case, you can see the other Kodiaks (all Kodiaks use XL400s) have a greater agility than the KDK-3 and Spirit Bear. The Boar's Head has greater agility than the common Atlas, but that's different due it having an XL400 stock (which I assume that change was based on).

A Cataphract-4X fortunately gains more agility and normally it's engine capped. So, it's there... but like my title states (and some people clearly didn't read the documents provided by PGI), those are the current stats we're working with based on the PTS.

Quote

Now, I haven't tested the kdk/AS7/kgc personally, and pgi is PGI so they may have failed utterly, but the design goal was to roll the agility quirks in, that that wouldn't show up on the PDF.

I certainly don't argue this.

I do prefer the new skill tree to the old, but I'm not blind to the above. Things are going to be a mess for a while, absolutely. Probably for a long while, given how quickly PGI moves on these things.

They are on the PDF. I dunno why people are just willfully accepting things they are getting into, w/o reading the fine print or the finer details.


Let me be clear on this. I'm totally all for the engine desync. I'm totally not all for PGI's obviously bad choices and comparisons when it comes to balance. That is the main problem here.

Ghogiel, on 03 May 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

The HMN will probably supplant the HBK IIC a bit then. It's mostly off PGIs radar for getting nerfed so it has normal agility for a 50 tonner.

imo it poptarts almost as good as a HBK as is. You have to really ace with a HBK to make it work much better than the HMN, I've seen maybe half a dozen players who can actually use the HBK IIC ERPPC decently to the point where their peeping ability cannot be matched with the HMNs profile, most people tart like scrubs with it so they may as well use the HMN as they are exposing extra pixels in the HBK anyway.

The Huntsman is an inferior poptart IMO, but mostly in the build sense. The HBK-IIC-A gets away with a lot more due to not being an omnimech as the Huntsman suffers primarily from equipment placement. Functionally though, the Huntsman is on par with HBK-IIC... until you lose arms. Cooling and sustainability becomes a problem as you kinda want to attempt to shield with the arms occasionally.

However, in this scenario, the Huntsman would probably be the top tier replacement option if the Hunchback-IIC's agility nerf is too much.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

They are on the PDF. I dunno why people are just willfully accepting things they are getting into, w/o reading the fine print or the finer details.

Why not? I'll just accept whatever balance changes they make, and move on. It's just not important to me. I enjoy these sorts of changes, so... *Shrugs* if I end up not liking it (and mech specitics won't affect that) then I'll complain.

But no, I didn't read the current set of quirk changes, because I don't really care about them.

Quote

Let me be clear on this. I'm totally all for the engine desync. I'm totally not all for PGI's obviously bad choices and comparisons when it comes to balance. That is the main problem here.

Sure, and I agree completely. I just gave up on being upset about PGI's balance changes years ago. It never helps =/

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 03 May 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Why not? I'll just accept whatever balance changes they make, and move on. It's just not important to me. I enjoy these sorts of changes, so... *Shrugs* if I end up not liking it (and mech specitics won't affect that) then I'll complain.

But no, I didn't read the current set of quirk changes, because I don't really care about them.

I'm no lawyer, but I've found that reading contracts is kinda important... because as they say... "the devil is in the details".

Mind you, I skim stuff too, but I had actual time to go over the document and see what hilariously bad errors are there. Don't let my complaints over the stupid GSP issue be the distraction. It might as well be like the stuff that happens in Congress.

[VanillaG]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

This is something people have to remember... the skill tree like the old one applies to every mech. This means that every Clan mech that had zero quirks is getting a buff. So many IS mechs are actually getting nerfed in anticipation for this, but it could actually easily be argued that the preemptive strike isn't as warranted.

This statement is not accurate. In the current system IS and Clan mechs have the exact same skill trees with the exact same values. They have also have access to the same types of modules with the exact same values. The only difference between IS and Clan mechs right now is the number of modules slots a variant gets. Would it be accurate to say that the Clans were getting buffed if PGI introduced new modules around the new firepower nodes (i.e Laser Duration, LBX Spread, etc) that were also available to the IS? As it sits right now, Clans already have the ability to further modify some of the nodes (i.e. Velocity, Range, Duration) with Targeting Computers that are not available to the IS. That gets fixed with the release of the new tech, but the IS have been dealing with this since the Clans were introduced.

Some of the nodes in the skill tree have smaller values for Clan vs IS so they don't get the same benefit, unlike the current system. Overall the skill tree appears to be a wash compared to the old system with maybe a slight nerf to Clans because the IS can get bigger buffs on some of the nodes.

If you really wanted to adjust the balance between IS and Clans you give them different amounts of active SP to reflect that most IS mechs had more module slots available. You could even go down to the specific mech level if you wanted but that would require more grind to unlock an under performing chassis.