98 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

I haven't gotten quite enough time until recently to look over stuff, particularly the recent PDF quirk list (real life stuff to attend to first). I felt like I've had to reexplain certain things about how Engine Desync work and what it isn't... and while I'd rather not repeat everything... I'm going to bring out obvious issues that were in the PTS that probably didn't get enough attention.

More importantly though, I don't even know what telemetry is telling PGI... whether it be the massive reduction in use of most upscaled Lights or the semi-random nerfing of quirks, particularly on the IS side in compensation of the upcoming skill tree, but it's certainly seemingly having no rhyme or reason.

To break it down, this will be discussed in 3 parts:

1) Engine Desync - Did you really do that?

2) Telemetry - Is there a reason that the IS needs to be screwed even more?

3) Balance - Do I need a 20-sided dice for this?


1) Engine Desync - So a KDK-3, Atlas, and King Crab walk into a bar have the same agility...

I like being a numbers guy... at least comparing X stat on Y mech to another... because you know... curiosity and all that fun stuff. While I'm sure the title is a dead giveaway to an obvious blunder or intentional design... I felt like the fundamental idea of what engine desync was not understood.

The point of it is to make sure that mechs that needed more agility, but wouldn't normally gain it due to having too small an engine cap to get it. In some cases, mechs that were too fast yet were not Lights would have a slight nerf. Of course all of this would be still be a case by case basis.

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.

If PGI feels that is the way to nerf things... well, good luck with that. It's going to be forgotten like many other IS mechs, such as the Firestarter, Jenner, Shadowhawk, Stalker, and many others that people forget over time... while many of them used to be really good at one time or another (with or w/o quirks).

There are plenty of other examples as well, but those are the most egregious ones that I can see (outside of the obvious Spreadsheet errors - it's not Excel's fault the Viper-C got "screwed").


2) Telemetry - 5% use in Tier 1 is not the same as 5% use in Tier 5.

I would call what I've just mentioned "unquirk to forget". Basically, any mech that was once a meta any point was routinely ignored over time, assumed to still "be good" (from unreliable sources) when it actually it had slowly fallen off the face of regular play (let alone comp play). Often this is mentioned in mock tones, because most often random rants about "it was good once upon a time" was dependent on two specific related responses. Normally you'd want "it was nerfed and now it's not stupid crazy OP"... instead of "if was nerfed, and people stopped using it altogether". We get a lot more of the latter than the former.

It's harder to notice when you're not playing against actual competition to test your understanding of the changes. While I'm not saying comp is always the definitive answer to everything, but patterns start from the top. There will always be exceptions (like the "Mist Lynx Whisperer"), but thing about the top is that if something... whether it is weapon or mech that becomes "unusable", it stops getting used as quickly as possible. The trickle down effect is exhibited months later (for whatever strange reason) where it becomes readily apparent.

It's a really bad habit when we continue to hold a lot of the same cycle of same bad mechs that never get attention... and ironically most of it is IS. New tech will not fix everything... it's just a bandaid over a bigger problem until it is fundamentally and properly addressed. Stuff like LFE is only going to truly replace STD engines. XL is still where the action is truly at, despite the obvious cost to compete. That's before we come to the real issue when the Skill Tree drops by...


3) Balance - 91 Clicks Per Mech/Ain't Got Time For Dat

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.

The most notable example is the Grasshopper-5P. The nerfs feel a lot similar to the rescale/Black Knight nerfs of yesteryear. Black Knights are not really a thing these days (primarily due to said nerfs, but the upscaling didn't help). Grasshopper-5P runs a niche that most heavier (let alone IS) mechs do not run... that is actual long range laser vomit. Clan ERLL is very onerous to most players (the Supernova that has the ERLL quirk is actually very devastating, but is also getting nerfed in the upcoming patch based on the Clan quirk notes). While yes you can get duration quirks on the tree (for which I don't know what the reasonable # of nodes is required for this), the Grasshopper-5P is going to be a lot less practical for all intents and purposes (I mean, ISERLL requires quirks to be semi-useful vs PPC+Gauss). High mounts are still a thing and are valuable... but any long term staring at a more useful/prominent mech like a PPC+Gauss poptart is very hazardous and makes this mech a lot less desirable (it's already niche as it is).

To understand the game, you must understand the context of why a mech functions the way it does at the highest level. Versatility of a mech is all about where its mounts are and its quirks. Failure to have that will produce "functional but not optimal" mechs. Most of the time though, having a niche is better than not being relevant at all. If only people truly understood what the rescaling did for Lights and what the actual problems were (not perceived, because a lot of bad players are often caught in bad positions and would've been punished regardless of mech), we wouldn't continue to see most upscaled Lights not even be considered in most instances (Jenners, Firestarters, Panthers - some of which are getting additional nerfs in the next patch).


TL;DR
When you don't leave your data to peer review (as in, feedback from players that have a clue), flaws in your "experiment" continue to be revealed. It doesn't take much effort to ask for help... but it's a lot of effort in learning, understanding, and articulating issues that plague the system. Balance is not always something you can chuck numbers at, but also you have to actively playtest in a live environment and get continuous feedback for. When that doesn't happen... well, we have plenty of time to gloss over and mock it.

When you're not paying attention, eventually errors in your design will catch up to you and affect everyone.

[CanadianCyrus]

Quote

[color=#959595]When you don't leave your data to peer review (as in, feedback from players that have a clue), flaws in your "experiment" continue to be revealed. It doesn't take much effort to ask for help... but it's a lot of effort in learning, understanding, and articulating issues that plague the system. Balance is not always something you can chuck numbers at, but also you have to actively playtest in a live environment and get continuous feedback for. When that doesn't happen... well, we have plenty of time to gloss over and mock it.[/color]

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.

[Scyther]

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 PvP game).

Heck, standard BattleTech had trouble balancing IS mechs against IS mechs in many cases.

Quirks were certainly an inventive and flexible way to address some of this balance. And yet I can't recall any time since the beginning of the game when players didn't complain about balance. The Catapults were OP, the Gauss was OP, this mech was OP that one was DOA. And that was before Clans. Clans came in, balance was 'destroyed'. Gauss was unbalanced, boating was unbalanced, PPCs were unbalanced, it's never stopped. Lights are useless, nope now lights are OP, hitboxes are indestructible, nope now we have rescale and everythings buggered, nope now we have Locusts and they are OP. Or UP. Take your pick.

Even among all the quirk passes (I personally like quirks btw, other people call them blasphemy), I can't recall any iterations that players somewhat agreed as being 'mostly balanced'. And yet we have lived with and played through all these periods of massive unbalance and somehow survived it.

MWO has a new flexible skill tree coming in, an engine de-sync, new tech and new mechs coming up. I may not agree with de-quirkening, I may not agree with engine de-sync, but I can certainly see how PGI might be thinking, 'Okay, lets trim everything back, get all these changes in, let them settle out for a while, then we can see what needs quirking up and what doesn't'.

As people have pointed out before, they can't put anything in place without stepping on some toes. And everyone is arguing for "Hey I want some change made but don't step on my toes!".

So how about if we just let them get done what they need to get done and save all the theorycrafting for after it's actually in?

Edited by MadBadger, 02 May 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

1) Engine Desync - So a KDK-3, Atlas, and King Crab walk into a bar have the same agility...


Well that's just incorrect. The 100 ton class (actually ALL tonnage classes) will have a base agility, which will be modified on a per chassis basis, based on designed role, and yes, by their commentary, to some degree still, engine size.

Usually a bad sign when your first premise out the gate is false. I do hope that is just honest mistake, and not intentional (hard to tell with all the agendas out there these days), but it does not seem to bode well for accuracy of research, either way.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 May 2017 - 05:59 PM.

[Wintersdark]

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 PvP game).

Heck, standard BattleTech had trouble balancing IS mechs against IS mechs in many cases.

Quirks were certainly an inventive and flexible way to address some of this balance. And yet I can't recall any time since the beginning of the game when players didn't complain about balance. The Catapults were OP, the Gauss was OP, this mech was OP that one was DOA. And that was before Clans. Clans came in, balance was 'destroyed'. Gauss was unbalanced, boating was unbalanced, PPCs were unbalanced, it's never stopped. Lights are useless, nope now lights are OP, hitboxes are indestructible, nope now we have rescale and everythings buggered, nope now we have Locusts and they are OP. Or UP. Take your pick.

Even among all the quirk passes (I personally like quirks btw, other people call them blasphemy), I can't recall any iterations that players somewhat agreed as being 'mostly balanced'. And yet we have lived with and played through all these periods of massive unbalance and somehow survived it.

MWO has a new flexible skill tree coming in, an engine de-sync, new tech and new mechs coming up. I may not agree with de-quirkening, I may not agree with engine de-sync, but I can certainly see how PGI might be thinking, 'Okay, lets trim everything back, get all these changes in, let them settle out for a while, then we can see what needs quirking up and what doesn't'.

As people have pointed out before, they can't put anything in place without stepping on some toes. And everyone is arguing for "Hey I want some change made but don't step on my toes!".

So how about if we just let them get done what they need to get done and save all the theorycrafting for after it's actually in?

This is where I am.

I do feel that:
A ) IS gets hurt more than Clans here, and that's going to need to be addressed. It should be addressed before, but whatever. It's obviously gonna need work.
B ) Engine desyncing needed to happen. It's not good that ASú-KDK-KGC share an agility profile if they do out of the gate, and one of the purposes of engine desync is fixing that via direct profile changes rather than quirks, which exaberate issues thanks to engine cap differences. This does not mean starting profiles are good; there will need to be a pass through here. I have not personally tested to confirm that is the case and am merely assuming Deathlike has investigated this.
C ) I suspect PGI is biding their time for new equipment to do a serious balance pass.

Edited by Wintersdark, 02 May 2017 - 06:05 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

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

I haven't gotten quite enough time until recently to look over stuff, particularly the recent PDF quirk list (real life stuff to attend to first). I felt like I've had to reexplain certain things about how Engine Desync work and what it isn't... and while I'd rather not repeat everything... I'm going to bring out obvious issues that were in the PTS that probably didn't get enough attention.

More importantly though, I don't even know what telemetry is telling PGI... whether it be the massive reduction in use of most upscaled Lights or the semi-random nerfing of quirks, particularly on the IS side in compensation of the upcoming skill tree, but it's certainly seemingly having no rhyme or reason.

To break it down, this will be discussed in 3 parts:

1) Engine Desync - Did you really do that?

2) Telemetry - Is there a reason that the IS needs to be screwed even more?

3) Balance - Do I need a 20-sided dice for this?


1) Engine Desync - So a KDK-3, Atlas, and King Crab walk into a bar have the same agility...

I like being a numbers guy... at least comparing X stat on Y mech to another... because you know... curiosity and all that fun stuff. While I'm sure the title is a dead giveaway to an obvious blunder or intentional design... I felt like the fundamental idea of what engine desync was not understood.

The point of it is to make sure that mechs that needed more agility, but wouldn't normally gain it due to having too small an engine cap to get it. In some cases, mechs that were too fast yet were not Lights would have a slight nerf. Of course all of this would be still be a case by case basis.

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.

If PGI feels that is the way to nerf things... well, good luck with that. It's going to be forgotten like many other IS mechs, such as the Firestarter, Jenner, Shadowhawk, Stalker, and many others that people forget over time... while many of them used to be really good at one time or another (with or w/o quirks).

There are plenty of other examples as well, but those are the most egregious ones that I can see (outside of the obvious Spreadsheet errors - it's not Excel's fault the Viper-C got "screwed").


2) Telemetry - 5% use in Tier 1 is not the same as 5% use in Tier 5.

I would call what I've just mentioned "unquirk to forget". Basically, any mech that was once a meta any point was routinely ignored over time, assumed to still "be good" (from unreliable sources) when it actually it had slowly fallen off the face of regular play (let alone comp play). Often this is mentioned in mock tones, because most often random rants about "it was good once upon a time" was dependent on two specific related responses. Normally you'd want "it was nerfed and now it's not stupid crazy OP"... instead of "if was nerfed, and people stopped using it altogether". We get a lot more of the latter than the former.

It's harder to notice when you're not playing against actual competition to test your understanding of the changes. While I'm not saying comp is always the definitive answer to everything, but patterns start from the top. There will always be exceptions (like the "Mist Lynx Whisperer"), but thing about the top is that if something... whether it is weapon or mech that becomes "unusable", it stops getting used as quickly as possible. The trickle down effect is exhibited months later (for whatever strange reason) where it becomes readily apparent.

It's a really bad habit when we continue to hold a lot of the same cycle of same bad mechs that never get attention... and ironically most of it is IS. New tech will not fix everything... it's just a bandaid over a bigger problem until it is fundamentally and properly addressed. Stuff like LFE is only going to truly replace STD engines. XL is still where the action is truly at, despite the obvious cost to compete. That's before we come to the real issue when the Skill Tree drops by...


3) Balance - 91 Clicks Per Mech/Ain't Got Time For Dat

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.

The most notable example is the Grasshopper-5P. The nerfs feel a lot similar to the rescale/Black Knight nerfs of yesteryear. Black Knights are not really a thing these days (primarily due to said nerfs, but the upscaling didn't help). Grasshopper-5P runs a niche that most heavier (let alone IS) mechs do not run... that is actual long range laser vomit. Clan ERLL is very onerous to most players (the Supernova that has the ERLL quirk is actually very devastating, but is also getting nerfed in the upcoming patch based on the Clan quirk notes). While yes you can get duration quirks on the tree (for which I don't know what the reasonable # of nodes is required for this), the Grasshopper-5P is going to be a lot less practical for all intents and purposes (I mean, ISERLL requires quirks to be semi-useful vs PPC+Gauss). High mounts are still a thing and are valuable... but any long term staring at a more useful/prominent mech like a PPC+Gauss poptart is very hazardous and makes this mech a lot less desirable (it's already niche as it is).

To understand the game, you must understand the context of why a mech functions the way it does at the highest level. Versatility of a mech is all about where its mounts are and its quirks. Failure to have that will produce "functional but not optimal" mechs. Most of the time though, having a niche is better than not being relevant at all. If only people truly understood what the rescaling did for Lights and what the actual problems were (not perceived, because a lot of bad players are often caught in bad positions and would've been punished regardless of mech), we wouldn't continue to see most upscaled Lights not even be considered in most instances (Jenners, Firestarters, Panthers - some of which are getting additional nerfs in the next patch).


TL;DR
When you don't leave your data to peer review (as in, feedback from players that have a clue), flaws in your "experiment" continue to be revealed. It doesn't take much effort to ask for help... but it's a lot of effort in learning, understanding, and articulating issues that plague the system. Balance is not always something you can chuck numbers at, but also you have to actively playtest in a live environment and get continuous feedback for. When that doesn't happen... well, we have plenty of time to gloss over and mock it.

When you're not paying attention, eventually errors in your design will catch up to you and affect everyone.

1) I'm still using the Hunchback, and its gonna be nice to have agility based on EACH MECH instead of the engine because guess what? Now those stats can actually be adjusted at a fixed rate without the engine rating being a major factor in affecting it.

Instead of saying "A Hunchback has horrible agility." only to be met with the usual "Put a bigger engine in it." Now they can actual adjust the agility stats because they MATTER, they can't just be 'fixed' by putting a bigger engine in it.

2) Another concern which is semi-reasonable, I agree with PGI stripping most of the quirks initially. If you keep adding bandages without ever removing one from a wound then you get a festering ball of puss and an amputated limb. They need to clear the clutter, concentrate on the basics to balance things, and then go back and possibly add additional quirks to 'tweak' specific mechs into behaving certain ways to reflect their performance/lore.

3) Okay then...just a personal taste in difference apparently. 91 clicks on a skill tree is nothing, especially one you can respec. I'll take a large variety of options of the garbage min/max systems we both had and which people are suggesting on the forum.

[Verkhne]

Hunchback-IIC......that sounds bad, NTG also getting a crappy engine. These sound like a traditional PGI nerf that actually affects player enjoyment. Yeah I want to play a crippled arthritic geriatric medium mech, nvm I will use my jump jets!

[cazidin]

My only concern is - how agile are Black Knights compared to other Heavy and Assault mechs?

[AnTi90d]

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. (Like people said, "Oh, I trust PGI to eventually fix the Victor's missile tubes," and it took them how many years until they felt like touching it?.. Not to mention the mechs that got heavily nerfed with the rescale, like the FS9s.. and PGI said they would address the issue of mechs that were negatively affected by it. We're still waiting and our Firestarters are still hot garbage.)

PGI is going to leave the nerfed IS mechs nerfed because they aren't making them cash. Their full attention will go toward making new IS mechs.

..and then there's the matter of different variants having a different flavor due to quirks that weren't uber-tier brokenly powerful. One Grasshopper will basically be the same as another variant of Grasshopper.. or BKs.. or Whammers, etc. I like that one variant is good at something that the others aren't. After the Skill Maze, it'll just be, "do you want 7 energy hardpoints.. or maybe 8 or 9?"

-----

91 nodes X dozens of mechs = Jesus H. Christ, I don't feel like spending days reskilling my 4 FP dropdecks.. let alone my entire bay of freshly nerfed mechs. I like the idea of the skill tree. I like the thought of having RDerp as an unlockable and not something that I have to hunt down, unequip and reequip on another chassis.. however, PGI's Skill Maze is the physical embodiment of unnecessary tedium. It's like they're magically able to take any good idea, chew it up, digest it and poop it out into a hot, steamy pile on the floor. The employees defending this system of mind numbing, monotonous and boring clicking should be fired and deported out of the country.

-----

Hah.. I do find it amusing that the same few Yes-Men jump at the opportunity to defend PGI, the IS Nerfening V2 and the Skill Maze Abomination at a moment's notice. Don't these White Knights ever take time out of their day to play the game that they profess to love so much?

[El Bandito]

I agree with OP, especially regarding to IS nerfs and certain mechs' mobility nerfs. HBK-IIC mobility nerf is simply gonna shoehorn it into poptarting build only, which hurts variety.

[justcallme A S H]

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

If only people truly understood what the rescaling did for Lights and what the actual problems were (not perceived, because a lot of bad players are often caught in bad positions and would've been punished regardless of mech), we wouldn't continue to see most upscaled Lights not even be considered in most instances (Jenners, Firestarters, Panthers - some of which are getting additional nerfs in the next patch).

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

MWO has a new flexible skill tree coming in, an engine de-sync, new tech and new mechs coming up. I may not agree with de-quirkening, I may not agree with engine de-sync, but I can certainly see how PGI might be thinking, 'Okay, lets trim everything back, get all these changes in, let them settle out for a while, then we can see what needs quirking up and what doesn't'.

As people have pointed out before, they can't put anything in place without stepping on some toes. And everyone is arguing for "Hey I want some change made but don't step on my toes!".

So how about if we just let them get done what they need to get done and save all the theorycrafting for after it's actually in?

A few points/thoughts, no particular order.

1. PGI stated the purpose/aim of the Skill Tree was to let people customise their mechs how they want. The simply truth here is opening up a dozen nodes you neither want/need, is not achieving this goal. In reality, it's totally missing it.

2. Same for me, while I don't agree with quite a bit of it and PGI are basically telling us we're getting it no matter what (because Timeline Advance hinges on Skill Tree)... The real question is why should the player base suffer, in a live environment, for months? It is going to take 6 months to get close to balancing this up IMO, that is a long time to endure. This will have the same effect that FP3 did, a loss in long time/active players. This is not a good thing.

3. Skill Tree - fact is - it's a convoluted mess. The community has given a number of far more decent approaches with a clean/optimised feel, ignored. It is OK to admit someone did something better and not that you got it wrong, the idea is sound, just shocking implementation.

4. Clan buff vs IS nerf. IS XL is one that is just absurdity and is big reason why IS needs the volume of defensive (structure) quirks it does now. You could almost remove the majority of those defensive quirks with ONE equipment change. Granted that is a broad statement and not totally accurate, but it's not that far off the mark.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 02 May 2017 - 11:59 PM.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 May 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

1) Engine Desync - So a KDK-3, Atlas, and King Crab walk into a bar have the same agility...


Well that's just incorrect. The 100 ton class (actually ALL tonnage classes) will have a base agility, which will be modified on a per chassis basis, based on designed role, and yes, by their commentary, to some degree still, engine size.

Usually a bad sign when your first premise out the gate is false. I do hope that is just honest mistake, and not intentional (hard to tell with all the agendas out there these days), but it does not seem to bode well for accuracy of research, either way.

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.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 May 2017 - 07:52 PM.

[Requiemking]

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

To understand the game, you must understand the context of why a mech functions the way it does at the highest level. Versatility of a mech is all about where its mounts are and its quirks. Failure to have that will produce "functional but not optimal" mechs. Most of the time though, having a niche is better than not being relevant at all. If only people truly understood what the rescaling did for Lights and what the actual problems were (not perceived, because a lot of bad players are often caught in bad positions and would've been punished regardless of mech), we wouldn't continue to see most upscaled Lights not even be considered in most instances (Jenners, Firestarters, Panthers - some of which are getting additional nerfs in the next patch).

Oh, we are well aware for what the Rescale did for Lights. It was the excuse for PGI to bludgeon all but two Lights into near uselessness, all because the Assault potato faction can't be bothered to learn to aim.

[Deathlike]

MauttyKoray, on 02 May 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

1) I'm still using the Hunchback, and its gonna be nice to have agility based on EACH MECH instead of the engine because guess what? Now those stats can actually be adjusted at a fixed rate without the engine rating being a major factor in affecting it.

Instead of saying "A Hunchback has horrible agility." only to be met with the usual "Put a bigger engine in it." Now they can actual adjust the agility stats because they MATTER, they can't just be 'fixed' by putting a bigger engine in it.

I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

All the other 50-tonners have more agility than the Hunchback-IIC (this includes the original Hunchback). I've literally stated the mechs (based on PGI's own PDF) as to what agility the HBK-IIC is set to (hint: it'll be slow as the rest).

Quote

2) Another concern which is semi-reasonable, I agree with PGI stripping most of the quirks initially. If you keep adding bandages without ever removing one from a wound then you get a festering ball of puss and an amputated limb. They need to clear the clutter, concentrate on the basics to balance things, and then go back and possibly add additional quirks to 'tweak' specific mechs into behaving certain ways to reflect their performance/lore.

I don't agree with it when it comes to the prequirked mechs (outside of the accel/decel/turn/etc because of the engine desync formula). Most of the quirked mechs often need them to distinguish themselves from the rest or they essentially become irrelevant as far as the game is concerned.

Quote

3) Okay then...just a personal taste in difference apparently. 91 clicks on a skill tree is nothing, especially one you can respec. I'll take a large variety of options of the garbage min/max systems we both had and which people are suggesting on the forum.

I bet you skimmed the mini-byline but didn't actually read the content of what I wrote. It wasn't even a rant about 91-clicks.

cazidin, on 02 May 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

My only concern is - how agile are Black Knights compared to other Heavy and Assault mechs?

I suggest you read up on the PDFs for specifics:
https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf
https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf

Remember these stats are "as of the final PTS" and may change in the upcoming patch.

The Black Knight's agility is on par with "all the other 75 tonners" except the Night Gyr... this includes the Timberwolf, Orion (IIC or non-IIC) AND also includes the faster Banshees (minus the slower 3S) and the Warhawk.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 May 2017 - 08:10 PM.

[Jettrik Ryflix]

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

1) Engine Desync - So a KDK-3, Atlas, and King Crab walk into a bar have the same agility...

NVM, looks like this topic has been covered already.

Edited by Jettrik Ryflix, 02 May 2017 - 08:12 PM.

[Vxheous]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2017 - 08:10 PM, said:

I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

All the other 50-tonners have more agility than the Hunchback-IIC (this includes the original Hunchback). I've literally stated the mechs (based on PGI's own PDF) as to what agility the HBK-IIC is set to (hint: it'll be slow as the rest).





I don't agree with it when it comes to the prequirked mechs (outside of the accel/decel/turn/etc because of the engine desync formula). Most of the quirked mechs often need them to distinguish themselves from the rest or they essentially become irrelevant as far as the game is concerned.




I bet you skimmed the mini-byline but didn't actually read the content of what I wrote. It wasn't even a rant about 91-clicks.




I suggest you read up on the PDFs for specifics:
https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf
https://static.mwome...Final%20PTS.pdf

Remember these stats are "as of the final PTS" and may change in the upcoming patch.

The Black Knight's agility is on par with "all the other 75 tonners" except the Night Gyr... this includes the Timberwolf, Orion (IIC or non-IIC) AND also includes the faster Banshees (minus the slower 3S) and the Warhawk.

Battlemasters are actually more agile than all the 75 tonners...heh. Looking over the accel/decel turn rate numbers, it appears PGI has no idea what they're doing (as usual)

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 02 May 2017 - 09:12 PM.

[Deathlike]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 02 May 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

Battlemasters are actually more agile than all the 75 tonners...heh. Looking over the accel/decel turn rate numbers, it appears PGI has no idea what they're doing (as usual)

Well, there are some interesting things.

Some hero mechs have agility buffs over the other related variants, like the Thunderbolt hero, Yen Lo Wang (Centurion hero), and the Boar's Head (Atlas hero).

The Arctic Cheetah has the same agility as the Urbie and Kitfox. The Adder has the same agility as the Panther, Raven, Firestarter, AND Quickdraw.

It's not hard to see and compare. It would be nice if someone compiled the list the order of "agility".

[Magnus Santini]

I agree with Deathlike so he may want to reconsider his position. You twist your torso to look around, to spread fire, and to engage a target off to the side. If what you are looking at is far away, less turn is needed. So the need for torso twisting quickly is greater depending on the range at which a mech is usually engaging the enemy. PGI probably has a list of mechs that can use the longer range weapons and nuff said.

[The Jerol]

So what was the point of giving the Roughneck quirks? Was it just to get people to buy it? Because 90% of them are going away in 2 weeks (oh wait, we do get to keep Machine Gun ROF, so ... ).

Quirk removal is a tacit buff to Clan mechs and they don't need it. I'm not certain why PGI is introducing so many variables and game changes all at once. It will make understanding the effects of any single change impossible.

Gone for newer players (like myself) will be the option of playing around with different builds as the cost to re-spec is just too high. I only have a few mastered mechs compared to veteran players, but I am NOT looking forward to making 91 mouse clicks per mech to get it ready to fight. I do like the idea of not having to buy three variants of every chassis to master it and the goal of giving players more options -- while admirable -- will not materialize as I suspect "ideal" builds will be posted within hours of the changes going live.

I've tried to collect a mix of IS and Clan mechs, but as a primarily solo QP player, I confess I already favor Clan in the three weight classes I play (don't do lights -- yet). I suspect my IS mechs may not see nearly as much play time while this all gets sorted out.

Excellent post, btw, Deathlike.


TJ

[Shifty McSwift]

Another DOOOOOMtm post.

Apparently you don't even really need to know what the changes will be to declare doom either, but either way you certainly don't need any real qualifications for it.

The Jerol, on 02 May 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

Gone for newer players (like myself) will be the option of playing around with different builds as the cost to re-spec is just too high.

To this idea, why? Were you planning on fully speccing out mechs before you even try running them without skills? Before even testing their new baseline stats? That sounds like a self inflicted problem right there.

"PGI please fix my addiction to buying paint colors, you are ruining my family by making new colors that I am forced to buy, stealing food from my kids table."