74 replies to this topic

[Marius Evander]

s0da72, on 13 May 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

Before this new change goes into effect should any Mech that is close to be mastered be completed using GXP?

If you dont have time to level it yes.

[Jamun]

So from their data T5/4 players without premium time gets ~ 160K C-Bill and 800 XP per match.

Sorry - I call BS.

I'm not getting that and I do have premium time.

I'd love to see their base data.

[chucklesMuch]

Nesutizale, on 13 May 2017 - 04:22 AM, said:

In what way?



They will have to be the quickest to stay in the meta ^_°
As for concerns. I don't have the impression that they even want to have anyone else beside them with all the "Noone should be allowed in FW without metabuilds/full mastered/best modules" attitude.

I don't normally play CW (but are currently really enjoying it), some of pugs the especially IS pugs have fielded some truly awful mech builds and generally performed accordingly. - personally, considering the time involved, don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect players to bring decent mechs and use modules/consumables etc to help...

[Bud Crue]

MauttyKoray, on 13 May 2017 - 04:22 AM, said:

Within the last year they've begun doing things they talked about years ago when they weren't ina position financially or content wise to do so. So I'm at least optimistic about these Q&A notes and look forward to seeing if they follow through however I never expect it to be done following the arduous track record PGI has had with this game after their initial first half of its lifespan spent floundering around due to publisher/inexperienced development.

Well I'll grant you that they are finally making MW-5. So that's something they talked about doing years ago. But beyond that...

I too look forward to seeing if they follow through with things. The issue at hand however is that the real, at least in the immediate short term goal is the trashing of game balance for some amorphous and hopeful "follow through".

So they want to elimnate quirks so that all mechs have multiple viable builds that are not per-determined or limited by quirks. Fine. Consider the resistance mechs. Take away their quirks. Now then, why does more than one or two of these mechs in any given chassis need to continue to exist in this game? Who is going to play a Grasshopper 5N when you have a 5P with better hard points if neither mech has quirks which suggest an ideal build? With no defining quirks why have both a Hunchback 4J or 4SP? If a Locust has no quirks between variants, why on earth would you consider the 3V or the 1V or even the M over the E?

For a lot of mechs the quirks do define the variants. They do suggest an ideal build. That is all of a sudden now a bad thing? OK. Fine. Now how exactly do they intend to make those mechs that are in fact defined or even merely differentiated by their quirks relevant?

[Mystere]

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

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

What about the nerfs?

I can't believe I almost missed this part:

Quote

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.

PGI's immediate solution to the quirk issue is "Go buy a Mech Pack Hero!".

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 13 May 2017 - 04:54 AM, said:

I can't believe I almost missed this part:



PGI's immediate solution to the quirk issue is "Go buy a Mech Pack Hero!".

I just can't help wondering how they are going to get good data after the skills tree goes live for their "extensive re-evaluation", when no one consistently plays the middling IS mechs, and no one plays the T4-T5 mechs at all. Heck of a base line they're gonna have.

[sycocys]

I think they misunderstood when we were talking about zero-sum balance and thought that mean they should make a new overly complex system that didn't balance anything. XD

[Daemon04]

has aynone tried out how many cursewords can fit in a post without it becoming unreadable?

[Acehilator]

I am so glad my wallet is closed. The amount of not having a clue is staggering. So much wrong with what they said, I don't even know were to begin...

[Its my first day]

So, I've got 40k GXP, I'm going to spend some leveling a mech to basic, should I do anything with the rest of it?

[Dracol]

Bud Crue, on 13 May 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

Yeah. Remove all bonus structure an armor from a mech like the Hunchback 4SP.

.

Well, right from the start you lost connection with what is actually happen with the skilltree. Understandable if one only listens to the hyperbole around here instead of looking into something themselves.

Defensive quirks are remaining. Its the offensive quirks that are being reduced and removed and the mobility quirks that are being rolled into base agility.

Edited by Dracol, 13 May 2017 - 05:51 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Dracol, on 13 May 2017 - 05:51 AM, said:

Well, right from the start you lost connection with what is actually happen with the skilltree. Indeestandable if one only listens to the hyperbole around here instead of looking into something themselves.

Defensive quirks are remaining. Its the offensive quirks that are being reduced and removed and the mobility quirks that are being rolled into base agility.

I am well aware that as currently proposed that defensive quirks are remaining (except for poor sobs like the Kodiaks). But this is not a discussion of the skills tree per se. It is a discussion of what PGI has stated what their long term balance goals are as a consequence of the skills tree and other issues. Go read the Q&A. They are discussing quirks of all kinds and the manner in which they perceive them as being the source of power creep, and causing players to focus builds to existing quirks. They are putting forth that these things are a problem and that it is their long term goal to remove or as they put it originally "drastically reduce quirks" in an ongoing basis.

As an aside, they further assert that the skills tree, new tech and especially engine decoupling will be such a massive boon to the IS that balance will be in a better place as they iteratively balance in the future. I simply don't believe them, and historically they have no precedent that they can point to that would suggest that they know what they are doing. I have no faith that the goals...goals mind you...not actual changes yet can be achieved by the system they are proposing.

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 May 2017 - 06:00 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Just three words ... Still. Totally. Clueless.

[HGAK47]

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, 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?

Thanks for pointing out that new thread. It was an interesting read and I DO get what they are attempting to do, I really do but my first thoughts after reading the whole post were exactly the same as yours. You nailed it spot on!

Furthermore what about mechs with much fewer hardpoints to even mount weapons? The Spider 5V has only 2 energy slots, one of the locusts has just a single energy slot (and room for machineguns but thats another subject). Without quirks how can they possibly begin to compete against mechs with 3 or more times the hardpoints and weapons capacity (within the same weight class).

One last important thing : So we arent getting another test? So patch day is going to be an awful headache trying to work things out. On the one hand I love the idea of all the customisation but on the other I have barely had any time to test so im being thrown in at the deep end. Not only that I almost guarentee im going to feel the pain of some of the quirk losses on some of my mechs

Edit - The staggering thing is so many people here seem to not understand the concept of balance! Unbelievable. I have played online games for decades, I have seen bad balancing ruin what would otherwise be great games a few times now.

Edited by HGAK47, 13 May 2017 - 06:20 AM.

[Bud Crue]

I think the thing that gets me the most with that Q&A is the utter ignorance of the PPFLD meta, how it arrived, and why it exists.
It is quirks that PGI asserts as the cause of power creep. Not mechs that can deliver 50 point alphas from across the map while remaining under cover. But quirks. It is quirks that cause IS players to build Battlemasters and Grasshoppers they way they do, rather that the fact that they are merely a select group of IS mechs that have a chance at countering long range clan PPFLD.

Quirks are the cause of all this in PGI's mind according to that Q&A. I can't even...

[Nesutizale]

Jamun, on 13 May 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

So from their data T5/4 players without premium time gets ~ 160K C-Bill and 800 XP per match.
Sorry - I call BS.
I'm not getting that and I do have premium time.
I'd love to see their base data.

Have you taken a look under your profile->Stats->Base Stats ?
I consider myself to be a quite bad player and what they said fits me pretty much perfect. Personaly I also thought I make less per game and I am also playing without Premium.

chucklesMuch, on 13 May 2017 - 04:48 AM, said:

I don't normally play CW (but are currently really enjoying it), some of pugs the especially IS pugs have fielded some truly awful mech builds and generally performed accordingly. - personally, considering the time involved, don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect players to bring decent mechs and use modules/consumables etc to help...

To me there is a difference to bring a "working mech" and seeing meta as the only vaible mechs. Specialy if people are new to FW. I had to change one of my mechs to fit more to FW over to what I use in QP but not that much.
Still its something different to play a mech that is still doing its job and beeing forced to play the meta.

I think FW should be devided into Units and PUGs. There are people playing to get the max out of things and those who just like to play something more interesting then QP all day but don't have the time, patience, whatever to go with the meta.

[Mcgral18]

Nesutizale, on 13 May 2017 - 03:29 AM, said:

I just laugh about all the "My quirks are gone" stuff. Only the meta players are fearing that they have to search for a new meta. Everyone else can just go and have fun.

I am currently rofl myself in a Victor, the worst mech, so people tell me, and I have fun with it because of some nice quirks but you know what happens when they take them away?
I either adapt or drop the mech. Got enough mechs to play something else and it will be a challange to find a new configuration that works.

I don't worry about the new mechanics, I accept and adept and find my way to have fun.
Also in Tukk3 I have been running Marauders with definitly non meta builds and you know what? Been through my personal challange in 3 days and had lots of good games. I just had to adept the first few matches to the different gameplay.
Found out that AC20 still hurt peoples face (literaly, nice headshot to a Jenner IIC ^_°)

Except you meta tryhards most people won't have a problem and adept.

Thank you for providing wonderful evidence on why you don't Balance by Potato

Meta players won't take any time at all to find superior robots.
They will adapt within the first week

The players who don't want to play those? The players who want to play NERFed Victors, against BUFFed Gyrs?
Those players get hurt

They get hurt for the coming MONTH of no change, and then the other month after that when FutureTech™ comes to help SOME of them.


The rebalance had better be half decent, buffing isMLs and the absolute trash Small family
Can you imagine if the rebalance is only nerfing the isLPL? "It was overperforming"
All you can do is to lay your hope into Mecha Cthulhu

[Mawai]

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, 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?

If you recall the clan introduction ... there was actually no reason to play any IS mech at the time given how OP the clan tech and mechs were when they were first introduced. Quirks and tech rebalancing came afterward but PGI was terrified of nerfing clan tech sufficiently to get a balanced game so the balance changes have been generally incremental including the introduction of IS quirks to compensate.

I agree with PGI that quirks really need to go. They hamstring builds and result in specific mechs having specific optimal builds which really reduces the variety. However, they DO need to balance mechs and (depending on what they decide to put into the mech "baseline" characteristics) there could be a much greater imbalance after the introduction of the skill tree.

PGI did mention possibly substantial clan mobility nerfs combined with IS mobility buffs and the engine de-sync ... this may make a difference in balance but depending on how the mechs "feel" after the mobility adjustments there will either be a lot of clans complaining about mechs that drive like bricks or IS folks floating around the battlefield in ballerina mechs .

Personally, I think there should be a "Balance" or "Quirk" skill tree branch with "Balance" skill points allocated on mech variant basis which allow players to customize the bonus skills that can be acquired by the mech. This would preserve the build variety and customization options while giving specific underperforming mechs potentially useful boosts over and above the general skill tree.

[Zergling]

Nesutizale, on 13 May 2017 - 04:22 AM, said:

In what way?

It is incredibly low cbill and XP income. PGI really set the standards low for working things out.

Jamun, on 13 May 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

So from their data T5/4 players without premium time gets ~ 160K C-Bill and 800 XP per match.

Sorry - I call BS.

I'm not getting that and I do have premium time.

I'd love to see their base data.

They mean the average for Tier 4/5.

If you are earning less than that average, then the obvious answer is that you are performing worse than that average.

Edited by Zergling, 13 May 2017 - 08:02 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, if it had been me, I would know an approach how to balance IS and Clan technology. Forget that CLan tech is supposed to be "superior" and instead balanced them according to the weight and crit advantages they have over IS.

So a Clan ER PPC is lighter than an IS PPC? Make it deal less damage, produce more heat or fire a slower projectile.
A Clan ER Laser is lighter than an IS ER Laser and has a longer range? Make it deal less damage or have a longer duration and longer cooldown.
A Clan Double Heat Sink is smaller than an IS Double Heat Sink? Make it less effective.
Clan XL Engines are smaller than IS XL Engines? Make IS XL Engines tougher.

Yes, that's not exactly to lore expectations, but it still makes the tech different in certain aspects (for example, if you maintain all the clan range bonuses but make them cost more, that still makes a distinct difference between playing Clan and IS.)

IN a way, some of the things PGI did, was already along those ideas. But it was obviously insufficient so far.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 13 May 2017 - 09:19 AM.