74 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

https://mwomercs.com...d-chris-lowrey/

What about the nerfs?

[Bud Crue]

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...d-chris-lowrey/

What about the nerfs?

Quote:
"First and foremost, we do not want the quirks to be one of the primary factors for considering ‘Mech viability on the IS side. We further do not want said Quirks to add to the massive performance gulf between ‘Mech Loadouts optimized entirely around the Quirks, and those that are not...."

So tell me then, w/o quirks, why would ANYONE play, let alone purchase a mech like the Cataphract? A mech where most of its hard points are hip level or lower? Why would anyone...without quirks play a Panther or Wolfhound? Mechs whose profile in game is as large as a Phoenix Hawk? Without quirks why would anyone play an Atlas? A mech whose relevant hard points are at its waist or are missiles?

Edit: Yes the current skills tree changes do not nerf defensive quirks (save for the Kodiaks which are getting hit), but the Q&A makes a point of referring to "overall" quirks and the desire of the devs to reduce or eliminate them. Not just offensive quirks (which is what they are hitting with the skills tree) but all quirks. They refer to quirks being an undesired mechanism that limits builds but ignore the reality that "overall" quirks are the ONLY reason that some mechs are viable in the first place. Sorry for the neco edit, but this isn't about the skills tree, it is about PGI's long term goals, and even if you agree with those goals they give no indication other than to suggest that new tech and engine decoupling will make everything all right over the long term once "overall" quirks are eliminated. They are wrong.

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 May 2017 - 07:30 AM.

[Valhallan]

Are we going to see an MRM40 locked to 2 tubes on the victor?

[Monkey Lover]

Looks like they plan on making junk mechs faster and really bad mechs they're ok with people never using again.

For what i can see they have no real plan on IS v IS balance of the tier3-4-5 mechs. top tier mechs should be fine like normal.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 12 May 2017 - 09:54 PM.

[Leone]

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

So tell me then, w/o quirks, why would ANYONE play, let alone purchase a mech like the Cataphract?

Beacuse it's Awesome! You can build the poor-man's Marauder, before we could even have marauders! And it's a pretty sweet brawler.

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

A mech where most of its hard points are hip level or lower?

Wait... I fail to see how that's relevant to brawling...

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Why would anyone...without quirks play a Panther or Wolfhound? Mechs whose profile in game is as large as a Phoenix Hawk?

Panther can be a fun bit o mech. Makes for a nice change of pace, and gave me new mech insights. And sometimes you just wanna hop in a wolf hound in Quickplay, find a Timberwolf, and go all Phelan Kell on it.

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Without quirks why would anyone play an Atlas?

Because Atlas!

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

A mech whose relevant hard points are at its waist or are missiles?

... I still fail to see the relevance...

~Leone.

[Duke Nedo]

I like the long term goals of base tech balance, engine balance and laser balance. Too bad they feel the need to break balance further than it already is while we wait for these no-eta-vital-changes.

Fact remains, clans can field a 75 tons mech with dual gauss+dual ppc, with jj, OK speed that does not die on a st loss. That mech becomes better. IS needs like 90 tons to do that without jj, that dies on a st loss... I think it's a fair point to not nerf the is quirks before these core issues have been addressed.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 12 May 2017 - 10:42 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Quote:
"First and foremost, we do not want the quirks to be one of the primary factors for considering ‘Mech viability on the IS side. We further do not want said Quirks to add to the massive performance gulf between ‘Mech Loadouts optimized entirely around the Quirks, and those that are not...."

So tell me then, w/o quirks, why would ANYONE play...

Well in one example if many of those quirks that can be are shifted into the base stats of the mechs, which basically in name alone relegates quirks to those specific potential and actual "quirks" as unique traits. There could even still be variation in the specific stats of chassis' within a variant on top of quirks.

The reduction of a lot of these quirks should really be measured separately (i.e. clan vs IS reductions specifically, not inclusive of agility changes etc), it is really not that surprising to consider they may just be trying to bring down those potentially wild variations in weapon stats and potentials granted by quirks, having to balance weapons around the potentials quirks provide would be extremely annoying.

[Lily from animove]

Not saying this often, but still a big F U for

Quote

"With the new mandate of ensuring the retention of player progress, the Module system was additionally re-evaluated and improved to positively account for a greater overall percentage of the playerbase than what informed our original evaluations. The Module > C-Bill refund system as originally planned failed to account both for the role of Modules as Skill system items and for the essential role of XP within the new Skill System, leaving a greater portion of players with enough C-Bills to put toward Skills, but not enough XP to actually acquire those Skills. This represented a loss of player skill progress we needed to address.

this neiter reflects the majority players opinion, as you changed it based on a few "priviliged community members" nor is it even true. When a full matered mech grants 91 skill nodes NO progression is lost. So can you at leats proof your choice with data? how many people will end up with excess GSP that they don't need? Cbills are way more flexible to use than GSP

if the issue was those people sharing modules, why not simply refuining the forst 10 modules into GSP and the remining ones in Cbills?

Edited by Lily from animove, 12 May 2017 - 10:57 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...d-chris-lowrey/

What about the nerfs?

well in the post has a lot about tracking the data, new tech, new balance changes, new quirks, and bonuses..


This should be the most fun summer since LURMAGEDDON!



PS my cataphract will pretend that he didn't hear you dissing him...

[Kotzi]

Lily from animove, on 12 May 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

Not saying this often, but still a big F U for



this neiter reflects the majority players opinion, as you changed it based on a few "priviliged community members" nor is it even true. When a full matered mech grants 91 skill nodes NO progression is lost. So can you at leats proof your choice with data? how many people will end up with excess GSP that they don't need? Cbills are way more flexible to use than GSP

if the issue was those people sharing modules, why not simply refuining the forst 10 modules into GSP and the remining ones in Cbills?

There was no problem at all. This is just a lame excuse. You had to unlock those modules ones with GXP. That amount was laughable and does not have to be reimbursed in my opinion. Because everyone who has a bunch of those modules has played long enough to have GXP to waste. Its the amount of Cbills those people want and deserve. Stop telling people this is anything else than a Cbill cut.

EDIT: Skillsynergy is not customizing in a shooter based game. Customizing is deciding which weapon and how many, which engine, how many heatsinks, what kind of heatsinks and the amount of armor. Its not how fast my weapons can shoot. Ever heard of a Counter Strike player beeing able to shoot faster because he played longer than his opponent? No, because this is **** balancing.

Edited by Kotzi, 12 May 2017 - 11:36 PM.

[invernomuto]

Bud Crue, on 12 May 2017 - 09:25 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...d-chris-lowrey/

What about the nerfs?

From what I understood (and since English is not my native language I could have missed some points), they are transferring some IS quirks from some mechs directly to the weapon / equipment stats.
E.g. right now only some mech with 40% or more for PPC velocity were good for PPCs, they probabily will move in June that quirk into the base PPC velocity stat so that all IS mech could benefit from it.
Make sense to me, it will increment build diversity.
I expect that some less used mech (because they have low or too few hardpoints) like the Cataphract will retain some specific bonuses and unique traits, like armor o structure quirks. Let's see what happens after June and July patches.

[kapusta11]

Balancing base tech is our priority that's why we give IS mechs 50-100% better baseline mobility stats to compensate for clans having OP XL engines. Oh and we're taking away quirks without actual adjustments to IS/Clan tech being made, that's how dedicated we are to balance base tech. We'll do it later, no ETA though. Have a nice day.

Edited by kapusta11, 12 May 2017 - 11:53 PM.

[Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf]

kapusta11, on 12 May 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

no ETA though.

Mentioning no ETA twice made me giggle.

Of course they have an ETA: The day that HBS' Battletech game hits the shelves, they better have MWO in a half-decent state.


The Q&A as a whole was not too dissapointing. It looks like they see a path of development they want to pursue and they plan to do this in coordinated steps ... that is better than what we saw in recent years.

[Marius Romanis]

They didnt even address the cruicial issue, will their module data cope with people selling their pre dec modules for cbills or will it lower your total number of modules and you lose out on post dec full cbill modules 1st ?

[Marius Romanis]

And can we see a correct refund ledger date ledger before it goes live.....

[MustrumRidcully]

Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf, on 13 May 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

Mentioning no ETA twice made me giggle.

Of course they have an ETA: The day that HBS' Battletech game hits the shelves, they better have MWO in a half-decent state.


The Q&A as a whole was not too dissapointing. It looks like they see a path of development they want to pursue and they plan to do this in coordinated steps ... that is better than what we saw in recent years.

I am looking forward to HBS' Battletech game like a lot here probably do, but do not believe for a moment that another game in the same franchise but with a different genre is a really dangerous competition for MWO. MWO will fail or succeed mostly on its own merits.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 13 May 2017 - 02:04 AM.

[Groutknoll]

I would like to have a full cbill refund for all modules, if that's not possible then a option to sell pre dec3 modules for half price

i would like to get cbills and skip the gsp for modules

Edited by Groutknoll, 13 May 2017 - 02:15 AM.

[suffocater]

Will anyone really use the weapontree?
As I see it, you take nearly full survival, as much mobility as you need, a second module slot and maybe some UAV improvements and you try to get as much good heatmanagement as you can. After that, there are nearly no points for weapons left.
Aside from that is the weapontree in that state useless for LBX-loadouts. I would go so far to call it the snipertree.

[Pjwned]

Everything that Chris says right here is completely valid.

Quote

Overall, current Quirks have introduced a level of power creep that we feel is the wrong direction for MWO, with heavily Quirked ‘Mechs acting more as puzzles then avenues of personal customization. With often only loadouts that fully optimize around a ‘Mechs given quirks able to be considered in a “balanced” state, while loadouts which ignore, or do not care to customize into the very ridged quirks often massively underperforming loadouts that play exclusively to pre-canned quirks.
Loadouts often needed to be fully optimized around the ‘Mechs inherent Quirks in order for the ‘Mech to be considered in a “balanced”, optimal state. Loadouts which didn’t lean into the inherent Quirks would be taken with the knowledge that they’re sub-optimal. This was a restrictive system that needlessly caused entire Loadouts to underperform.

When one of the core pillars of the MWO experience is the ability to customize and personalize your ‘Mech through the MechLab, this is something we cannot ignore any longer. We intend to break this blind adherence to narrow offensive quirks as being what dictates an entire Chassis’ performance and balance.

This is not a decision taken lightly, and we are fully aware of the concerns raised about these changes. With the Skill Tree being released, we felt strongly that now was the time to address this long standing concern for the following reasons.

First and foremost, we do not want the quirks to be one of the primary factors for considering ‘Mech viability on the IS side. We further do not want said Quirks to add to the massive performance gulf between ‘Mech Loadouts optimized entirely around the Quirks, and those that are not.
With new tech coming, and a heavy focus on balancing the tech levels through the baseline equipment, we knew that we would have had to reduce the Quirks in this way regardless of the Skill Tree. We decided to do it now to ensure that players go into their Skill Tree in the context of this Quirk reduction now, rather than later. While many of our top veteran players would have been able to adapt from a change such as that if they had a large amount of HSP should we have kept the Quirks in, this is not something that most of our player base would have been able to do. And we did not wish to give them months of investing Skill Points into a Loadout optimized around the inherent quirks only to have that Mech’s Quirks severely reduced shortly after.

Additionally, we feel players may be underestimating some of the boons that the Inner Sphere will receive through the Skill Tree system, the engine desync, and the way these interact with the current Quirks. Engine de-sync in particular is going to have a much bigger impact than many players may believe at a glance. With Inner Sphere ‘Mechs being the primary recipient of many baseline Mobility increases, and Clans being the recipients of many of the decreases, this will have an impact. While the Mobility chart offers more percentiles than the previous pilot lab system, in cases of Clan ‘Mechs such as the KDK-3 which saw a 25-30% reduction to its base values, even with the added Mobility from the tree you will not see higher performance than you have under the previous system. Alternatively, many IS mechs will see greater boons then they have had previously.

This does not mean that we feel that the net result of all this will solve all of the Clan and IS balance concerns that are present. For this we are still laser focused on further baseline changes to address ongoing concerns of balance between the IS and Clan factions.

But of course, the tears from quirk apologists still flow regardless of being told directly from the developers how the crapfest they want to cling to is bad.

[Sjorpha]

This paragraph:

Quote

Chris: Base level balance is what we are working towards. And to this end, we are continuing to work on improving this. To give you guys a sneak peek as to what is coming, these are some of the things currently being worked on to better balance the game:

• June will see an extensive balance pass performed on Energy weapons, which will touch nearly every weapon currently in the energy lineup. This balance pass will focus on two major points:
  
  • Better weapon role definition between different weapon types.
    
  • A heavy focus on better baseline balance between IS and Clan Energy weapons.
• Beyond this, Quirks are being extensively re-evaluated as we get data from Skill Tree release. We will be immediately focused toward those IS chassis’ receiving new Hero variants in June. We’ll possibly also see new Quirk passes on existing standard variants along with those Hero releases. In addition to this, we are looking at introducing new non-weapon Quirk types to add more variety to the way we currently Quirk mechs, though at this time, there is no ETA on the new Quirk types.
  
• The Skill tree will be monitored heavily after release. We will have new nodes introduced with the new tech in July, and we will continue to refine the overall Skill Tree balance as we move towards introducing the nodes for that new tech.
  
• The final balance point we can briefly highlight now involves Engine types. Better balance across the Standard, XL, and Clan XL Engine types is a major change that I am heavily pushing for. It's currently in the very early stages of evaluation, with gameplay and technical considerations to be made. At this time, there is no solid ETA or info I can provide, but it will definitely be something we look at addressing after the introduction of new tech.

Gives me a lot of hope actually. Balancing the actual tech instead of just using quirks, finally going for balancing IS and Clan engines.

I really hope this actually happens, and I can see how the reduction to firepower quirks makes sense in this context.

Now the main problem I see is that even if this is done, and done successfully, we are looking forward to a considerable period of even bigger faction imbalance than we already have.

It also would make sense to balance all the new IS tech, including LFE, directly against Clan tech instead of waiting, because then we could at least use the new tech for IS to compete while we are waiting for the balance passes on the old tech.

Edited by Sjorpha, 13 May 2017 - 02:54 AM.