84 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Koniving, on 03 May 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

Name one stock mechs with a 240 and 30 tons

The Spider?

Speaking of agility though, my opinion is that CURRENTLY all mechs are just way too agile. Sorta stop feeling like big stompy robbits, when you can go from 0kph to 120kph in a split-second.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 03 May 2017 - 08:34 PM.

[Requiemking]

Khobai, on 03 May 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

why? it has a 240 engine. it should have the agility as if it had a 240 engine.

the whole point of decoupling is to punish mechs with oversized engines not punish mechs with normal engines for their tonnage. a 240 engine is normal for a 30 tonner.

Because people complained about the Cheetah, and now it's finally getting punished for being the Best Light in game by having it's agility thrown out the window.

Edited by Requiemking, 03 May 2017 - 08:35 PM.

[KingCobra]

SO? what else is new?

[Khobai]

Quote

Name one stock mechs with a 240 and 30 tons.

the spider for one. 30 tons and 240 engine.

but also the jenner is 300 and 35 tons thats the same x8-8.5 tonnage to engine rating ratio

x8 or x8.5 is fairly normal for lights. they have to go that fast to be competitive.

Are the spider and jenner getting their agility nerfed down to 180 engines?

Quote

Speeds over 129 mph aren't even considered normal for mechs in general. Very few exceptions exist and usually are masc assisted.

uh its normal in MWO. a light that goes less than 130-140 cannot survive on its own and is basically relegated to support duties like the kitfox.

there is a reason urbanmechs are bad afterall. because they go way slower than the game requires them to in order for them to be a viable light. thats the whole punchline of the joke that is the urbanmech.

so yeah it sounds like PGI doesnt even realize what the point of engine decoupling was... the point of decoupling was to punish fast heavies like the timberwolf that have uncharacteristically large engines. not punish light mechs like the arctic cheetah that have normal sized engines by MWO standards.

now im seriously concerned that theyve screwed up something as simple as engine decoupling...

Edited by Khobai, 03 May 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

it seems like the SCR TBR NTG, are also getting hit in the Agility to better balance them,

which will make IS mechs More Agile and more Tankie,
where are Clans will be Faster and have Slightly Better Weapons,

[Khobai]

Quote

it seems like the SCR TBR NTG, are also getting hit in the Agility to better balance them,

except in those cases it makes sense because all those mechs have uncharacteristically large engines for their tonnage. they all go faster than their IS counterparts of similar tonnage. that was the point of engine decoupling; to make sure mechs with huge engines no longer get an agility bonus out of it.

but the arctic cheetah is being punished for going the same speed as IS 30 tonners like the spider or a 35 tonner like the jenner. punishing mechs that need to be agile is not the point of engine decoupling.

Quote

where are Clans will be Faster and have Slightly Better Weapons,

but the arctic cheetah isnt faster and doesnt really have better weapons. its got inferior firepower to most srm toting jenners. it doesnt get any structure quirks either. so why exactly does it need to lose agility?

I completely understand the necessity of nerfing stormcrows, timberwolves, night gyrs. but nerfing the arctic cheetah makes no sense. it just sounds like a kneejerk reaction to nerf all things clans, even the things that dont need to be nerfed.

I was on board with engine decoupling before but now im really questioning wtf PGI is doing.

Quote

Because people complained about the Cheetah, and now it's finally getting punished for being the Best Light in game by having it's agility thrown out the window.

except its not the best light in the game for all the reasons I already mentioned

so basically its being punished for no reason

Edited by Khobai, 04 May 2017 - 12:06 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I don't want to see the quirks go. But to be honest they stopped balancing the tech when they switched over to quirks. They could have kept tweaking things. Like buffing Is equipment in less direct ways to make them more competitive.

Then there's mech balance. They have to go after what makes a mech good or bad. Shorten the gap. That's a big part of why they did the engine desync. If i had to choose the next balancing measure. It would be to address the advantages of high mounted torso weapons. Like giving them fixed convergence. Which would give knuckle draggers a chance to be more viable.

[Duke Nedo]

Seems to me they just truncated all offensive quirks on all mechs to avoid stacking issues with the tree, but did not compensate in any way. Thus, the worst mechs that had the strongest quirks were nerfed the most. Makes perfect sense...

[Andi Nagasia]

Khobai, on 03 May 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

except in those cases it makes sense because all those mechs have uncharacteristically large engines for their tonnage. they all go faster than their IS counterparts of similar tonnage. that was the point of engine decoupling; to make sure mechs with huge engines no longer get an agility bonus out of it.

but the arctic cheetah is being punished for going the same speed as IS 30 tonners like the spider or a 35 tonner like the jenner. punishing mechs that need to be agile is not the point of engine decoupling.



but the arctic cheetah isnt faster and doesnt really have better weapons. its got inferior firepower to most srm toting jenners. it doesnt get any structure quirks either. so why exactly does it need to lose agility?

I completely understand the necessity of nerfing stormcrows, timberwolves, night gyrs. but nerfing the arctic cheetah makes no sense. it just sounds like a kneejerk reaction to nerf all things clans, even the things that dont need to be nerfed.

I was on board with engine decoupling before but now im really questioning wtf PGI is doing.

i think it was done to bring down what mechs PGI felt were over Acheiving,
PGI said they will retest after this all goes live, which should give them better data and more control,

Duke Nedo, on 03 May 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

Seems to me they just truncated all offensive quirks on all mechs to avoid stacking issues with the tree, but did not compensate in any way. Thus, the worst mechs that had the strongest quirks were nerfed the most. Makes perfect sense...

many IS mechs are getting better Agility, where as Clan mechs are getting less so,

Andi Nagasia, on 03 May 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

it seems like the SCR TBR NTG, are also getting hit in the Agility to better balance them,

which will make IS mechs More Agile and more Tankie,
where are Clans will be Faster and have Slightly Better Weapons,

[Vellron2005]

OK, so let's get one thing str8..

Clans will always think IS is OP. IS will always think CLANS are OP.

That said, the state of balance as I see it after new tech is introduced will be pretty much the same as it is now..

Why?

Well, first of all, EVERY mech is getting nerfed. The skill tree won't give ANY mech anything new. It will give back what was taken.

Mechs that had no quirks before will have them now, but only to replace what was nerfed. Mechs that had quirks before will have them returned through skill tree.

Also, note that the new tech coming will significantly close the gap between tech differences. IS will have MANY new options that were previously Clan-exclusive.

Clans will get some new tech too, but nothing too special.. just enough to still keep their "clan edge".

Overall, I think the balance of Clan vs. IS power will remain about the same as it is now..

So please, stop all this doom saying, and let's just wait and see..

Edited by Vellron2005, 03 May 2017 - 11:58 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Mortalcoil, on 03 May 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

Can someone explain this to me how this is supposed to make sense or be balanced?

I can ...

[El Bandito]

Vellron2005, on 03 May 2017 - 11:57 PM, said:

Mechs that had no quirks before will have them now, but only to replace what was nerfed. Mechs that had quirks before will have them returned through skill tree.

Top performers that never relied on quirks will only lose out what was on the current skill tree, while many mechs with quirks (overwhelming majority of them are IS) will lose quirks on top of what they will lose from the current tree. And many of the lost quirks are not fully refunded by the new skill tree. Just look at Rifleman-5D for example.

So mechs would overall be nerfed--specifically on the offense department, but those that had relied on quirks (again, mostly IS), are getting nerfed even harder. Which means balance will become worse.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 May 2017 - 01:34 AM.

[Sumdumbum]

I only really care about my hunchies. If they're just trashed, Ill make sure the door doesn't hit me on the way out.

[Bud Crue]

Ruar, on 03 May 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

I think they are going to wait until after the new tech release before they dig into IS/Clan balance. It would make no sense to nerf the Clans now and then see they are behind the power curve once the IS gets weapons that are better parity.

Plus, not all quirks were removed from IS mechs. Some still have a few offensive quirks.

All in all, they are going to have to do a balance pass by the end of the year. Give it a month or two after the new tech comes out and the skill tree settles in and start boosting the mechs that need help and dialing down the mechs that are too much.

Your top two comments are not mitigations. They are part of the inherent problem with the skills tree nerfs.

If folks believe that their mechs have been harmed, and they have unharmed alternatives, what mechs are they going to play? They are going to play the unharmed mechs disproportionately. Thus, in establishing any future baseline of performance, you have gauranteed bad data because the nerfed mechs are not being properly represented in regular play. How then will PGI "dig in to IS/Clan balance", when they have skewed data from the get go?

Now consider the shot gun nature of the nerfs. As you say, not all quirks are being removed. If it is a true balance effort PGI is interested in you need to be consistent in your changes in order to first define the criteria of the baseline you are seeking and then to have consisten comparative data to which to form the baseline with. That is the opposite of what PGI is doing. Leaving a Deaths Knell with 10% energy range and taking 5% off a Spider 5V's energy cooldown, and removing an Adder's LBX quirks is pure randomness. Trying to then determine a new baseline of those mechs performance, and how those lack of change (TDK) relative to the minor change (5V), relative to a totally irrelevant change (Adder's LBX quirk), relative to some mechs really substantive changes (Cicadas for example) is factually impossible with such variability of modification beforehand.

If PGI wanted to establish a baseline from which to work, in a system that has other underlying changes (skills tree and engine decoupling) they MUST leave the current baseline of values unchanged. Even minor modifications to those quirks is going to throw off their data for at least those mechs that are viewed by your population as negative both subjectively and objectively. This isn't opinion, its fact. By proceeding in the manner proposed (nerfs along with everything else) PGI is guaranteeing that the future baseline will be nonsensical if not outright misleading and thus trying to measure ANY mech's performance relative to that baseline will result in equally nonsensical changes down the road.

[Karl Streiger]

Juodas Varnas, on 03 May 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

The Spider?

Speaking of agility though, my opinion is that CURRENTLY all mechs are just way too agile. Sorta stop feeling like big stompy robbits, when you can go from 0kph to 120kph in a split-second.

feel?
even when each locust turn as fast as the UrbanMech with a 60 now - it would not feel better.
Reason is the scale - turning will become frustrating when you are used to more speed
add the movement archetype to this - plus the position of the cockpit.

the decoupling for immersion would be the same as cockpit glas - nice were can i deactivate it?

about feel: a 80kph Grasshopper feels slow and clumsy were as a 300 Stalker is a walking race car... (thats about the feel)
the scaling doesn't work.
I know is a fundamental problem of computer games to simulate range - simple because our eyes "know" that we are only looking at pictures not real 3d.
But still it never felt so allien as in MWO - i blame the textures for it, because on Alpine at the plain at J8 scale seem to work.
you see the missing scaling when you use that advanced zoom crap - the "speed" of the target does not scale correctly. So you either shoot only with advanced zoom or you never shoot with advanced zoom.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 May 2017 - 04:39 AM.

[Acehilator]

Vellron2005, on 03 May 2017 - 11:57 PM, said:

OK, so let's get one thing str8..

Clans will always think IS is OP. IS will always think CLANS are OP.

That said, the state of balance as I see it after new tech is introduced will be pretty much the same as it is now..

Why?

Well, first of all, EVERY mech is getting nerfed. The skill tree won't give ANY mech anything new. It will give back what was taken.

Mechs that had no quirks before will have them now, but only to replace what was nerfed. Mechs that had quirks before will have them returned through skill tree.

Also, note that the new tech coming will significantly close the gap between tech differences. IS will have MANY new options that were previously Clan-exclusive.

Clans will get some new tech too, but nothing too special.. just enough to still keep their "clan edge".

Overall, I think the balance of Clan vs. IS power will remain about the same as it is now..

So please, stop all this doom saying, and let's just wait and see..

Did you really just write that?




1. All mechs lose all bonuses from current skills and modules.
2. All mechs can "regain" those bonuses through the new skill tree.
3. 80% of IS mechs lose quirks, how do they regain those? Do they get more skillpoints?!?
4. New tech is slated for a July release, with the skill tree delays (and probably several PTS sessions for the new tech), an August release is more likely. Why hand out the nerfs in May?

[Pixel Hunter]

AFIAK IS mechs aren't getting the quirks back...unless they come through on the probable lie of "rolling into base attributes" (i'm paraphrasing)

[- Pestilence -]

Mortalcoil, on 03 May 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

I don't think good game design is everyone buying 4 clan mechs, skilling them up, breaking their IS faction, joining a clan faction, and then ghost dropping forever because everyone is now clan.

It will be ok, just give them some time .

[Ruar]

Bud Crue, on 04 May 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

Your top two comments are not mitigations. They are part of the inherent problem with the skills tree nerfs.

If folks believe that their mechs have been harmed, and they have unharmed alternatives, what mechs are they going to play? They are going to play the unharmed mechs disproportionately. Thus, in establishing any future baseline of performance, you have gauranteed bad data because the nerfed mechs are not being properly represented in regular play. How then will PGI "dig in to IS/Clan balance", when they have skewed data from the get go?

Now consider the shot gun nature of the nerfs. As you say, not all quirks are being removed. If it is a true balance effort PGI is interested in you need to be consistent in your changes in order to first define the criteria of the baseline you are seeking and then to have consisten comparative data to which to form the baseline with. That is the opposite of what PGI is doing. Leaving a Deaths Knell with 10% energy range and taking 5% off a Spider 5V's energy cooldown, and removing an Adder's LBX quirks is pure randomness. Trying to then determine a new baseline of those mechs performance, and how those lack of change (TDK) relative to the minor change (5V), relative to a totally irrelevant change (Adder's LBX quirk), relative to some mechs really substantive changes (Cicadas for example) is factually impossible with such variability of modification beforehand.

If PGI wanted to establish a baseline from which to work, in a system that has other underlying changes (skills tree and engine decoupling) they MUST leave the current baseline of values unchanged. Even minor modifications to those quirks is going to throw off their data for at least those mechs that are viewed by your population as negative both subjectively and objectively. This isn't opinion, its fact. By proceeding in the manner proposed (nerfs along with everything else) PGI is guaranteeing that the future baseline will be nonsensical if not outright misleading and thus trying to measure ANY mech's performance relative to that baseline will result in equally nonsensical changes down the road.

I disagree. From what I saw the removal of IS quirks was done to dial down dps in general. Yes, there were items like the Atlas, but a range buff isn't the same as a cooldown or LBX buff. Both the cooldown and spread buffs are designed to increase overall dps while range buffs are there to keep the same dps but push it out farther.

I think they do have a baseline they can work with right now. Then when the new tech comes out they'll be able to make adjustments.

I know there isn't much trust in PGI. Heck, I've already given up on spending money on the game over the skill tree design, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to look at quirks. They have to look at quirks and they have to look at balance after they release the new tech. It will be the single biggest item of interest to the players and to ignore it will drive away the few people remaining. Especially when you consider we will be getting new BT games to play in the not so distant future.

I play IS almost exclusively and I just don't see the clans as that devastating. Yes, they absolutely have an advantage at range and tactical mobility, but that can be neutralized to some extent in QP. Not so much in FW but that's why I don't play FW. Considering most people just play QP then the inbalance isn't game breaking. It's just something that has to be endured for another six months until change is made. If they don't fix it in six months then people will leave so I assume they will fix it.

[Mortalcoil]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 May 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

Clan will make out better when dealing with the Weapon Tree,
but IS will make out better when dealing with the Defense Tree(as IS mechs arnt losing their Structure/Armor Quirks)
also IS are also getting most of their Agility Quirks Rolled into their Base Mobility, and Clan are being Nerfed here,
(an ACH will have the Agility as if it had an 180 Engine)

This is interesting. Thank you. I did not know this. As I said, I wasn't just complaining, I was seriously trying to figure out how this was supposed to be balanced. That being said, I don't understand why they are keeping armor quirks because that will make only mechs with armor quirks good. Such as, my examples, the BLR 2C and the GHR 5P (I think that's the one with the most armor quirks, too lazy too check)