98 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

VanillaG, on 03 May 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

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.

If you look at the actual numbers, it's a minute/small difference. 1% difference! Wow!

Speed tweak would have more value in Lights, and not so much in Assaults, but they all cost the same.

Kodiak-3s don't have any buffs.. and many IS mechs are losing many of their buffs (Grasshopper-5P comes to mind).

If we were playing mechs w/o any quirks, the differences become obvious. With the skill tree buffs, the difference gets magnified despite both sides getting the buffs.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 May 2017 - 11:50 AM.

[Ultimax]

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

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.

The desynch was always going to lead to that though, that's why I've been arguing against it for as long as it's been a concept.

Everyone arguing for it, is going to be partly responsible for the balance mess that will come with the new crop of winners and losers.


There was never going to be any other result that would come from this, it was always going to be an unevenly applied set of buffs and nerfs that would be badly implemented and badly managed going forward.


And quite frankly, it still doesn't make any sense.

Why should a mech with a 300 engine get the same mobility as a mech with a 400? There is a tonnage cost with the 400, if the disparity is too large then they can edge down the top end and nudge up the bottom end to even things out, but they should not remove the benefit completely and they should not use this as an indirect way of nerfing all the good mechs. (and that disparity is primarily with XL engines - there is a good reason 400 STDs only ever showed up on joke builds and why 350 STD was about the maximum you would ever see on an Assault mech that wasn't built with all MLAS or something equally moronic).


And if they can do hardpoint inflation, or invent new mechs/variants - then they can increase the engine caps and let the tonnage cost sort it out.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 May 2017 - 11:53 AM.

[VanillaG]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

If you look at the actual numbers, it's a minute/small difference. 1% difference! Wow!

Speed tweak would have more value in Lights, and not so much in Assaults, but they all cost the same.

Kodiak-3s don't have any buffs.. and many IS mechs are losing many of their buffs (Grasshopper-5P comes to mind).

If we were playing mechs w/o any quirks, the differences become obvious. With the skill tree buffs, the difference gets magnified despite both sides getting the buffs.

Max Cooldown - IS 9.9% vs Clan 7.7%
Max Laser Duration - IS 15% vs Clan 10%

All of the other stats are the same in regards to the other firepower nodes. You want to try to dismiss the difference in numbers but with the current system they are exactly the same. In the case of the Grasshopper-5P, you are losing a little bit of range and the laser duration is removed. The other removed quirks were rolled into the base mobility.

In regards to the laser duration, you don't see a problem were you could double that quirk to 30% and potentially raise it even higher when the IS gets targeting computers? This is on top of the fact the IS lasers already have shorter durations even when comparing similar weapons like ERLarge vs CERLarge. It is cases like this that show why some of the quirks were rolled back.

[Deathlike]

Ultimax, on 03 May 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

The desynch was always going to lead to that though, that's why I've been arguing against it for as long as it's been a concept.

To be honest, any good idea was going to lead to PGI screwing up. At this point, does it make a difference?

Screwed because you didn't do enough (constantly reevaluting things, which they do at a glacial pace) or screwed because you didn't understand the concept at all (adding things to just add things doesn't solve a problem or benefit anyone when it's incomplete).

I mean, that is what minimally viable gets you.

Quote

Everyone arguing for it, is going to be partly responsible for the balance mess that will come with the new crop of winners and losers.


There was never going to be any other result that would come from this, it was always going to be an unevenly applied set of buffs and nerfs that would be badly implemented and badly managed going forward.


And quite frankly, it still doesn't make any sense.

Why should a mech with a 300 engine get the same mobility as a mech with a 400? There is a tonnage cost with the 400, if the disparity is too large then they can edge down the top end and nudge up the bottom end to even things out, but they should not remove the benefit completely and they should not use this as an indirect way of nerfing all the good mechs. (and that disparity is primarily with XL engines - there is a good reason 400 STDs only ever showed up on joke builds and why 350 STD was about the maximum you would ever see on an Assault mech that wasn't built with all MLAS or something equally moronic).


And if they can do hardpoint inflation, or invent new mechs/variants - then they can increase the engine caps and let the tonnage cost sort it out.

PGI is still bad at increasing engine caps. See BJs, Vindicators, Cataphract-4X, Highlanders, etc.

For engines though, there's no good reason a Mauler stays non-agile (and it's not like it's going to drive very fast with all that dakka). The engine cap is kinda irrelevant there when most of the time it's used as a really slow moving turret... akin to a Dakkawolf with IS tech. It will still be needed, particular in the case of Lights where the previous efficiencies nerf made them a far more vulnerable target (if the upscaling didn't screw them over in the first place).

VanillaG, on 03 May 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Max Cooldown - IS 9.9% vs Clan 7.7%
Max Laser Duration - IS 15% vs Clan 10%

All of the other stats are the same in regards to the other firepower nodes. You want to try to dismiss the difference in numbers but with the current system they are exactly the same. In the case of the Grasshopper-5P, you are losing a little bit of range and the laser duration is removed. The other removed quirks were rolled into the base mobility.

In regards to the laser duration, you don't see a problem were you could double that quirk to 30% and potentially raise it even higher when the IS gets targeting computers? This is on top of the fact the IS lasers already have shorter durations even when comparing similar weapons like ERLarge vs CERLarge. It is cases like this that show why some of the quirks were rolled back.

Uh, 2% cooldown is a non-starter difference.

Having zero duration quirks pretty much removes its original purpose and totally relies on the skill tree to make up the difference. Then again, there are not that many other IS mechs that have the hardpoints (in ideal/optimal locations) to step up to the plate.

I don't think you truly understand what the IS faces when most of the unquirked Clan mechs have control and/or dominant brackets. Name an IS comp level/top tier mech that will benefit from this... and I can only come up with like 1 or 2 off the top of my head. It's not going to be that many.

I'm not saying you shouldn't reduce the quirks on some IS mechs, but in some cases you are totally removing the benefit in the case of the Grasshopper-5P.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 May 2017 - 12:42 PM.

[Deathlike]

To give you a different example.

The Supernova-1 has a 15% ERLL duration quirk. That is getting reduced relative to the skill tree change.

When the Supernova does get the opportunity to fire CERLL, that quirk is pretty significant to making CERLL functionally viable (more than its niche status).

Now we're giving a 10% generic duration quirk to Clan mechs... this means that the already long (duration) laservomit becomes much more potent. Sure we'll probably have more quirked laservomit IS mechs with the 15% bonus (which apparently going to stay generic due to the skill tree), but that also means if an IS mech doesn't have an additional quirk ontop of the skill tree (which the Grasshopper-5P will not have), well, you're going to have some issues in certain instances (of which, we haven't explored in depth due to the PTS being very limited to 4v4 or private lobbies).


The worst part is that trial mechs become worse due to not having any points applied to them.

[MischiefSC]

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.



Also going down the right side of the tree (ignoring gauss charge nodes), PPFLD builds like 2 Gauss/CERPPC will be just as deadly. Potatoes wish for mixed builds, and the tree gives us Laser Vomit and Gauss/PPC poptarting, who'd have thought?

Vxheous Kerensky, on 02 May 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

It's not going to be one single cookie-cutter, but after playing with the different trees and being limited to the 91 choices, there's really going to be 2-3 ways to efficiently use those points. The fact that engine desync makes every mech more sluggish makes the agility tree basically a no-brainer, mech operations for heat efficiency a no-brainer, 4 consumable slots for 2 buffed coolshots and 2 airstrikes a no-brainer, which leaves 20 some odd points to go into either weapons, defense, or sensors. Given that both weapons and straight armor/structure quirks both trump the amount of useless crap to get to radar dep/seismic, it's really two choices: Weapons or Defense.

Not to mention the fact that IS mechs lose all their weapon quirks (that are keeping them viable right now against clan mechs), you actually end up with less diversity of mech choices, and not more. Instead of one Battlemaster having range quirks vs heat gen quirks vs structure quirks, it's going to be do I want the Battlemaster with 4 energy, 5 energy, 6 energy or 7 energy hardpoints ?

It's one cookie-cutter up to the point where you pick what single weapon type you're boating for your ~19 pts left over.

Which is like what we have right now, in live, only with modules I can take two weapon types to the same level instead of just one.

The defense tree is a trap. Speed tweak, cool running, these things make a difference equal to several tons of engine upgrades and additional DHS. 3-10 pts of additional health are of only a single use. You're better off putting the quirks into weapons and, if you're primarily a scout or have a weapon setup that doesn't benefit hugely from weapon quirks (SPL ACH) but would from additional consumables (Want more than 1 UAV!) then consumables. Maybe if you're making a very specific very high heat build for a comp role. 5 ERLL or the like, consumable quirks might be worth it.

Mobility and Ops have no tradeoffs worth it though. For most mechs speed tweak is ~ 4 engine classes up. The heat perks out from Ops are, depending on build, 2-4 DHS worth of additional cooling. Anyone who's giving that up is going to get what they deserve. There's nothing in the other trees that is a tradeoff for those. Even if you don't want speed tweak, get it, then ton down your engine to free up 2-6 tons based on STD/XL and mech size to spend on useful stuff.

Edited by MischiefSC, 03 May 2017 - 01:06 PM.

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

To be honest, any good idea was going to lead to PGI screwing up. At this point, does it make a difference?

Yes, because instead of a smattering of smaller, localized, issues - we will have a full on dumpster fire instead.

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Screwed because you didn't do enough (constantly reevaluting things, which they do at a glacial pace) or screwed because you didn't understand the concept at all (adding things to just add things doesn't solve a problem or benefit anyone when it's incomplete).

They should not have to constantly be re-evaluating.

There comes a point where expecting literally everything to constantly be monitored is just out of the scope of what is possible - this is why exactly why most games have broad SYSTEMS in the first place.

A single SYSTEM like Tonnage vs Engine Rating = Maneuverability score is the easiest way to implement something like this - and then you tweak the outliers.

Decoupling the engine forces them to start looking at "what is the baseline" - which would be fine if there were 4 tonnages in the entire game (35/55/75/100 - the ideal game from a raw balance standpoint where you can really separate what classes are supposed to be) and not seventeen different mech tonnages.

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

For engines though, there's no good reason a Mauler stays non-agile (and it's not like it's going to drive very fast with all that dakka). The engine cap is kinda irrelevant there when most of the time it's used as a really slow moving turret... akin to a Dakkawolf with IS tech. It will still be needed, particular in the case of Lights where the previous efficiencies nerf made them a far more vulnerable target (if the upscaling didn't screw them over in the first place).

OK, this is the exact flaw in thinking that has lead us to this.

1) If the Mauler should be more agile, you tweak the Mauler - you don't overhaul an entire engine system.
2) The Mauler is a "slow moving turret" because that is currently it's only option for a number of reasons. XL vs. STD being one of the huge ones.

So yes the engine cap is irrelevant if you want to stuff if full of AC 5s and also because it needs a STD engine.

If it were a clan mech, suddenly lifting the engine cap changes a whole lot more - it can be a faster gunboat.

This brings us back to things like IS vs. Clan balance, or STD vs. XL vs. LFE balance - but instead of addressing all of that...we'll just decouple engines from mobility.


The worst way to deal with outlier mechs is to break an entire system that otherwise works normally and then shoehorn in exceptions on top of breaking the system.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 May 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[Requiemking]

Ultimax, on 03 May 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

The worst way to deal with outlier mechs is to break an entire system that otherwise works normally and then shoehorn in exceptions on top of breaking the system.

Except it wasn't working. Lights and fast Mediums were getting stomped on because their sole advantage, mobility, could easily be negated by simply upping your engine size.

[Deathlike]

Ultimax, on 03 May 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

Yes, because instead of a smattering of smaller, localized, issues - we will have a full on dumpster fire instead.

None of which were ever addressed effectively enough by PGI. The examples aren't hard to find, and obviously some mechs are "fine" apparently like Firestarters, non-IIC Jenners, and Vindicators (the former two are fixable, not so much the latter).

Quote

They should not have to constantly be re-evaluating.

There comes a point where expecting literally everything to constantly be monitored is just out of the scope of what is possible - this is why exactly why most games have broad SYSTEMS in the first place.

A single SYSTEM like Tonnage vs Engine Rating = Maneuverability score is the easiest way to implement something like this - and then you tweak the outliers.

Decoupling the engine forces them to start looking at "what is the baseline" - which would be fine if there were 4 tonnages in the entire game (35/55/75/100 - the ideal game from a raw balance standpoint where you can really separate what classes are supposed to be) and not seventeen different mech tonnages.

Well, it depends. If you make iterative changes (small ones), eventually you'll hit the sweet spot at some point. The problem is that the changes are almost always widespread and changing one thing from "ok" to "wtf lol OP" or "moderately useful" to "why did you nerf this?". There is no real system or standard being applied, let alone a proper comparison. I don't care if it takes a while to evaluate something, but to have no idea where to start? That's a bigger deal.

Even if you believe in minimal updating, you have to get it right more often than not in the first go. That is not something PGI does on a routine basis.

It does help to actually play the game (I know, I can't convince PGI of this Lostech™).

Quote

OK, this is the exact flaw in thinking that has lead us to this.

1) If the Mauler should be more agile, you tweak the Mauler - you don't overhaul an entire engine system.
2) The Mauler is a "slow moving turret" because that is currently it's only option for a number of reasons. XL vs. STD being one of the huge ones.

So yes the engine cap is irrelevant if you want to stuff if full of AC 5s and also because it needs a STD engine.

If it were a clan mech, suddenly lifting the engine cap changes a whole lot more - it can be a faster gunboat.

This brings us back to things like IS vs. Clan balance, or STD vs. XL vs. LFE balance - but instead of addressing all of that...we'll just decouple engines from mobility.


The worst way to deal with outlier mechs is to break an entire system that otherwise works normally and then shoehorn in exceptions on top of breaking the system.

The problem is when you see negative quirks on things like the Victor before Clans arrived. I guess it's more psychological/visual than anything (PGI could've certainly hidden things from people, like they do already by telling noone about things). Personally even you think it's a lateral move (which is fair), it's not like PGI was doing better with the existing systems. This still means PGI needs to get a clue above all else either way... working within the system you know can still be done - but they still haven't done that.

There are also natural imbalances in the current system that haven't really been addressed properly and yet it's still abundantly clear that the system tends to favor Clans due to tech... and PGI is not having any sort of real dialogue between STD engines vs IS XL vs Clan XL (vs future LFE). We've had those discussions before to no avail.


As long as PGI doesn't even have a dialog, it doesn't help with balance at all... not just about playing the game.

[Wintersdark]

Requiemking, on 03 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Except it wasn't working. Lights and fast Mediums were getting stomped on because their sole advantage, mobility, could easily be negated by simply upping your engine size.

This.

Really, though, I'm not interested in arguing whether the desync should happen or not - we've all said our piece and it's going to happen.

It - and the skill tree - inarguably, are coming with two things:

1) IS *is* going to be a bit weaker vs. Clans until there's a balance pass and/or new tech.
2) A total balance shake up. We all know this. As has been said, it'll be a dumpster fire mess.

But, going forward, there will be better ways to tune it.

IS skill tree can get better buffs for an "across the board" IS buff (or, vice versa, Clan's tree can get nerfed). This is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen until post-op equipment, however, for obvious reasons.
With agility decoupled, Mechs have more differentiation before customization as fundamentally right now, everyone runs large to max engines unless there's an unusual edge case reason not to, such as turreting it up. Now, a lower engine cap isn't a deal breaker for a chassis.


And most importantly of all, now I'll have new and different stuff to play with, thus revitalizing my interest in the game. At this point, I'd take a random balance shuffle just because, so I'd be able to have fun in the mechlab again, and bathe in the tears of people butthurt because their precious got nerfed. But that's just me. Things have been so static for so long.

[VanillaG]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

To give you a different example.

The Supernova-1 has a 15% ERLL duration quirk. That is getting reduced relative to the skill tree change.

When the Supernova does get the opportunity to fire CERLL, that quirk is pretty significant to making CERLL functionally viable (more than its niche status).

Now we're giving a 10% generic duration quirk to Clan mechs... this means that the already long (duration) laservomit becomes much more potent. Sure we'll probably have more quirked laservomit IS mechs with the 15% bonus (which apparently going to stay generic due to the skill tree), but that also means if an IS mech doesn't have an additional quirk ontop of the skill tree (which the Grasshopper-5P will not have), well, you're going to have some issues in certain instances (of which, we haven't explored in depth due to the PTS being very limited to 4v4 or private lobbies).


The worst part is that trial mechs become worse due to not having any points applied to them.

So it looks like PGI has determined the 15% Laser Duration is the max that they want to allow. With the new skill tree you can get back the quirks that were removed, if you want them. In the case of the Supernova, it still becomes the best CERLL boat but you also get a generic 10% duration so it run other loadouts without feeling gimped for not taking a CERLL. Not having to boat a single weapon is one of the design goals and this quirk change fixes that issue.

In the case of the Grasshopper you can run Laser Vomit at the same effectiveness as any other IS laser boat. Since the quirks are coming from the skill tree you also have the option to NOT run laser vomit but also run an Energy Dakka build with some of the new PPCs that are coming in July. Having a hard coded quirk limits the build diversity for the mech since it would be foolish to run a PPC build with that huge laser quirk. Build diversity was another of the design goals and removing the fixed quirk fixes that issue.

As for your trial mech problem, since the skill tree is literally tied the specific mech instance PGI could have fully active skill tree based on the default loadout. With the current system there is no way to activate the mech skill tree or customize the mech so this could be fixed with the skill tree.

[Deathlike]

VanillaG, on 03 May 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

So it looks like PGI has determined the 15% Laser Duration is the max that they want to allow. With the new skill tree you can get back the quirks that were removed, if you want them. In the case of the Supernova, it still becomes the best CERLL boat but you also get a generic 10% duration so it run other loadouts without feeling gimped for not taking a CERLL. Not having to boat a single weapon is one of the design goals and this quirk change fixes that issue.

In the case of the Grasshopper you can run Laser Vomit at the same effectiveness as any other IS laser boat. Since the quirks are coming from the skill tree you also have the option to NOT run laser vomit but also run an Energy Dakka build with some of the new PPCs that are coming in July. Having a hard coded quirk limits the build diversity for the mech since it would be foolish to run a PPC build with that huge laser quirk. Build diversity was another of the design goals and removing the fixed quirk fixes that issue.

As for your trial mech problem, since the skill tree is literally tied the specific mech instance PGI could have fully active skill tree based on the default loadout. With the current system there is no way to activate the mech skill tree or customize the mech so this could be fixed with the skill tree.

You're still forgetting there are some Clan mechs (generally of the unwhelming variety that have quirks) that have duration quirks that have retained them.

Enforcer-4R has the same kind of duration quirk (15%) and only got reduced to 5%.

That logic literally doesn't help.

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 03 May 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

None of which were ever addressed effectively enough by PGI. The examples aren't hard to find, and obviously some mechs are "fine" apparently like Firestarters, non-IIC Jenners, and Vindicators (the former two are fixable, not so much the latter).




Well, it depends. If you make iterative changes (small ones), eventually you'll hit the sweet spot at some point. The problem is that the changes are almost always widespread and changing one thing from "ok" to "wtf lol OP" or "moderately useful" to "why did you nerf this?". There is no real system or standard being applied, let alone a proper comparison. I don't care if it takes a while to evaluate something, but to have no idea where to start? That's a bigger deal.

Even if you believe in minimal updating, you have to get it right more often than not in the first go. That is not something PGI does on a routine basis.

It does help to actually play the game (I know, I can't convince PGI of this Lostech™).





The problem is when you see negative quirks on things like the Victor before Clans arrived. I guess it's more psychological/visual than anything (PGI could've certainly hidden things from people, like they do already by telling noone about things). Personally even you think it's a lateral move (which is fair), it's not like PGI was doing better with the existing systems. This still means PGI needs to get a clue above all else either way... working within the system you know can still be done - but they still haven't done that.

There are also natural imbalances in the current system that haven't really been addressed properly and yet it's still abundantly clear that the system tends to favor Clans due to tech... and PGI is not having any sort of real dialogue between STD engines vs IS XL vs Clan XL (vs future LFE). We've had those discussions before to no avail.


As long as PGI doesn't even have a dialog, it doesn't help with balance at all... not just about playing the game.

Perhaps I should put it another way.

As they are going through, and idiosyncratically applying nerfs & buffs to mechs - something they could simply do directly on the mechs themselves where it's visible - they are instead breaking a system that for the most part works in a very clean, simple and straightforward way.

They are doing this while they also shave down or remove quirks - a baffling move.


I see no value or gain to be had from decoupling how engines affect mobility if the end result is PGI simply buffing and nerfing mechs with quirks once they have removed the benefits of buying a larger engine with tonnage.


We're not going to gain anything. The meta will shift.

The mechs they chose to destroy, will be destroyed and the mechs they choose to favor will be favored - we'll all have to buy new mechs to keep up as they will surely come pre-loaded with generous mobility bonuses in the future.

What will have been lost however, is one of the very few simple, clean and easy to understand actual systems in the game.

Edited by Ultimax, 03 May 2017 - 04:12 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Can't wait to try my 4xLPL Warhawk-C with -21% heat gen and -15% beam duration.
The poor thing needs all the help it can get! It's only got 28 DHS.
9 extra points of ST structure? Well duh! Finally.

[MischiefSC]

I don't have an issue with engine desync. Having played on the PTS I found that mech mobility was very similar overall to live - only a handful of exceptions, like the MADIIC, BLR 2C both of which are very, very strong performers and if our goal is to reduce power creep they could stand a mobility reduction.

I find most of my meta mechs however to be *better* in the new system and my non-meta mechs to be *worse*.

It also eliminates, via gating, any meaningful tradeoffs in stuff. You can't trade off mid-value mobility stuff for mid-value weapon/sensor/whatever. You have to get up top value mobility/ops to get mid value anything else - which is just flat out a bad tradeoff.

Honestly? The biggest difference really IS the fall of mechs like the Grasshopper. Maxed hillclimb let me go right up anything that wasn't a literal cliff on Canyon Network, reducing the value of JJs. High mounts were worth *way* more. So all the quirked 'variety' in mechs pretty much goes away. Everything gets pretty much the same quirks. The mobility plays out much like it does on live right now; just those quirks are baked in and not quirks. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing - because it means those mobility quirks you buy in the agility tree wrap around and include them.

At the end of the day I'm going to do just fine with the new tree. It'll play like Live does only my good mechs will be even better and probably 75% of my mechs I could sell off. Maybe 90%, because there's nothing they do that something else won't do better. Bads will be even worse and so my stats will inflate accordingly.

Mostly though a real opportunity to broaden the available spectrum of mechs will be thrown away because of flat out bad game design choices. That's always going to irritate me but it's not a first for MW:O.

[Pixel Hunter]

AnTi90d, on 02 May 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

The IS nerfs are complete and utter BS. They're asking us to bite the bullet, run mechs which will be garbage tier for an indefinite amount of time until they finally decide that the heavily quirked mechs actually did need those quirks.

exactly what I think. I don't get the quirk nerfs...keep everything the same and if stuff starts to get crazy THEN nerf across the board to all mechs....by lowering the skill tree benefits

Edited by Gimpy117, 03 May 2017 - 07:33 PM.

[Khobai]

this is also why they needed negative quirks.

but players cried about them.

[Shifty McSwift]

Khobai, on 03 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

this is also why they needed negative quirks.

but players cried about them.

Players are crying right now too technically so I doubt that is the entire reason, you could probably trace random posts back to game changes that have no real correlation but that seem that way just out of sheer numbers of random posts and the eventuality of game design.

But also, imagine they not only reduced quirks but added negative ones in the same patch. The salt would be immense.

I agree though that they would be a fine addition, with the idea that quirks are used as distinguishing features between chassis variants, rather than the bandaid for bad mechs they are now.

[Karl Streiger]

Shifty McSwift, on 03 May 2017 - 11:23 PM, said:

Players are crying right now too technically so I doubt that is the entire reason, you could probably trace random posts back to game changes that have no real correlation but that seem that way just out of sheer numbers of random posts and the eventuality of game design.

But also, imagine they not only reduced quirks but added negative ones in the same patch. The salt would be immense.

I agree though that they would be a fine addition, with the idea that quirks are used as distinguishing features between chassis variants, rather than the bandaid for bad mechs they are now.

of course because if everything is equal the performance differences based on the simple fact that this is a FPS will come to light.
Thats why several of us are crying for years that they should finally portate stuff correct from one system to the other or ask someone who has a plan.
With the correct port the KDK3 would hardly be the menace its now - simple because hitboxes and weapon locations would be less important.

this is the base line - from there you can add quirks on your own - but for each perk you own a flaw.
Want Radar Derp - drop sensor range, want sensor range - increase the target decay time.....