Jump to content

Still No Meaningful Progress On Properly Addressing Quirks, Several Months Later


19 replies to this topic

#1 Pjwned

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 4,731 posts
  • LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:20 AM

You know what...I'm done posting on these forums, it doesn't get anywhere meaningful anyways.

Spoiler

Edited by Pjwned, 19 September 2017 - 02:12 PM.


#2 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:28 AM

PGI still hasn't done thorough tech balancing, which means quirks must stay to fill the gaps. And there are variants on both sides that are too weak to survive without hefty amount of quirks.

Friggin balance the XL engine/Endo/Ferro/DHS/almost all equipment, already, PGI!

#3 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,966 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:52 AM

OP,
Easiest way to look at the above citations is to place them in precise context and go from there. If you get caught up inthinking that they meant what they said in a larger sense then yes, those statements are utter BS if not outright lies. But in their precise historical context, they do have a semblance of reasonableness if not hope for what the dev in question is trying to communicate.
Take Chris Lowery's commentary from the Q&A
That I believe must be seen as a statement of intent regarding quirks as they applied to the Skills Tree pass. It was an aspiration for the skills tree and what they were trying to achieve, and not an indictment of quirks per se (I've engaged with Mr. Lowery a couple of times on this and his subsequent comments and conduct make clear that he has no problems with quirks per se).

So too Paul's commentary about roles etc. The context there was the introduction of the info-tech concept and the associated PTS. ALL OF THAT failed and little of it made it into the game. As a result, you must consider both that failure and thus the potential short shortsightedness if not simple in-applicability of those words to the game we still have.

Yes the devs should engage with us and clarify these sorts of things, especially after they have been proven to be false -or they could just fess up to being wrong and not fully understanding the game as it is played and ask for input (ya right)- but absent such engagement or admissions all you can do is take their comments with a HUGE grain of salt, a bit of derision and maybe just a hint of pity at having to deal with a community such as ours.

#4 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 03:57 AM

1) They did do a very sizable weapon quirk reduction after this announcement

2) They are primarily referring to weapon quirks and you'll notice that in every single patch various weapon quirks have been reduced or removed, including this one.

3) You will also note that most mechs' weapon quirks tend towards buffing weapons for which there are either very few hardpoints or badly positioned hardpoints. Roughnecks are good examples of this.

4) There are very few, if any, super weapon quirks on any mechs left

5) Many clan mechs have had most of their weapon quirks moved to set of 8 quirks since the post

Unravelling the quirk system is not something that's done in an afternoon or all at once (apart from the initial quirk reduction). It's a continuous, iterative process.

Perhaps identify particularly problematic mechs you think needs to have their quirks adjusted, if you have a legitimate complain rather than just complaining because you can. Bring up specifics. It's easy to just winge about a perceived lack of action when in fact plenty is happening.

#5 JadePanther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 967 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 10:38 AM

some mechs are gonna desperately need quirks to stay viable, for example the Phoenix Hawk.. With pgi putting the hellspawn in the game the phx is going to be comptely obsolete.. The hellspawn is obviously gonna be WAAAAAAAAY shorter but just as fast with torso hardpoints instead of being arm loaded.. Same engine sizes put them both at same speed while both carrying ECM.. Tack on that the hellspawn has missile slots that the phx doesnt have and it becomes the defacto choice of the 2 mechs..

Now if they actually go back to the resize department and move the phx from black knight size to something that actually resembles a medium mech it could have half a chance of staying relevant as long as the phx retains much better mobility stats than the hellspawn.. but as long as the phx stays waaaay to tall for its tons the hellspawn will replace it unless the phx gets quirks added to it..

Heck the only reason the phx hawk is not one of the worst mechs in game is cause they added quirks to keep the arms from falling off every time the enemy even looked in your direction.. but again the size of the mech doesnt help it for its lack of armor tonnage..

If they get rid of the quirks on that mech It becomes a top contender for worst mech.. And i'm sure theres other mechs would become just as worthless without some form of quirks...

In all the quirk system acts as band-aids for either poor designs or in the phx case poor design choices, by making a medium as tall as as a black knight..

PS.. dont wanna hear volumetric arguments.. density is a thing in measurement too..

#6 Pjwned

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 4,731 posts
  • LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM

Why bother?

Spoiler

Edited by Pjwned, 19 September 2017 - 02:13 PM.


#7 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,274 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:51 PM

Durability isn't going away. That's been pretty clear.

Weapon quirks have definitely been toned down, and some mechs lost weapon quirks in this patch.

I'm not seeing a huge issue. Quirkless Clan mechs still OP, and there is no IS mech that is performing awkwardly due to its quirks.

#8 Alan Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:54 PM

View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

That's not a defense of PGI, what that actually tells me is that somebody isn't doing their job and they need to be fired.


Let's just back it up a couple steps there man, or do you want PGI to do something similar to what Wargaming.net did to iChase after his rant on the Graf Zeppelin? Part of said rant was iChase saying "someone needs to be fired".

#9 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,122 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:59 PM

Frankly I think you're overreacting and possibly taking it too personally Pjwned. Not everyone agreed with the idea of removing quirks. And I'm glad they didn't. Weapon and tech balance does nothing to fix things like high weapon mounts and boating being superior. Armor quirks are helping mechs with low mounts or just plain under performers.

#10 AssaultPig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 907 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:10 PM

the basic problem is just that there's too many mechs on the IS side; a lot of them are already redundant, and even more would be in the absence of quirks (this will be even more true for IS heavies once the thanatos releases.) I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of quirks get reduced/removed, but overall that's the path to less diversity, not more.

re: OP: what do you actually want to happen? I can't keep up with all this whinging about PGI's 'lies' or whatever

#11 Alan Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:13 PM

View PostAssaultPig, on 19 September 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

the basic problem is just that there's too many mechs on the IS side; a lot of them are already redundant, and even more would be in the absence of quirks


And they became redundant once PGI introduced the Clans and started down that slippery slope of constant power creep, which also necessitated the introduction of quirks to keep even 5% of the IS mechs competitive with Clan mechs.

#12 Pjwned

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 4,731 posts
  • LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 19 September 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Weapon and tech balance does nothing to fix things like high weapon mounts and boating being superior. Armor quirks are helping mechs with low mounts or just plain under performers.


Sized hardpoints and addressing convergence would fix both of those issues.

View PostAlan Davion, on 19 September 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Let's just back it up a couple steps there man, or do you want PGI to do something similar to what Wargaming.net did to iChase after his rant on the Graf Zeppelin? Part of said rant was iChase saying "someone needs to be fired".


I don't play wargaming.net trash so I have no idea what you're talking about [Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 19 September 2017 - 01:52 PM.
insults, unconstructive


#13 AssaultPig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 907 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

nah they'd be redundant anyway

like how many IS mediums have very similar missile/laser hardpoint configs? IS 50-55 tonners alone contain a huge number of mechs that have basically similar profiles, loadouts and other attributes and it's the handful with strong quirks that see play. Without quirks there'd be even less diversity.

#14 Alan Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:32 PM

View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

I don't play wargaming.net trash so I have no idea what you're talking about


Maybe it would do you some good to follow more gaming websites so you can keep up on current events.

Wargaming.net has what's known as a Community Contributor program, something that PGI would do well to try and imitate themselves.

iChase used to be a long time member of the North American server Community Contributor program until his rant about a blatant attempt at a bait and switch by Wargaming.net.

Wargaming terminated him from the CC program in what was arguably a knee-jerk nuclear option, iChase meanwhile is not exactly blameless either. Wargaming could very easily have just banned him from the game, but they didn't because that would have been a huge PR disaster... It was a PR disaster regardless.

Again, back it up a couple steps.

Edited by Alan Davion, 19 September 2017 - 02:08 PM.
Quote Clean-Up, references


#15 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,966 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:03 PM

View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:


That's obviously a huge pile of ****, and instead of coming to a 100% BS conclusion like that I'm actually coming to the correct conclusion which is that PGI either lied through their *** (again) or backpedaled on what they said, because I'm not seeing any signs of them following through with what they said.


Yes. They backpedaled. That is a fact. Again look o the context. Your citation is from a Q&A from the week of the skills tree launch. For the previous month of the PTS PGI had repeatedly with each pdf document of quirks, and each iteration of the PTS reduced quirks on nearly all IS mechs to a greater and greater degree. Yet when the actual launch of the skills tree occurred, they pulled back on nearly all of those heretofore propsed "dramatic reductions" of those same quirks which Chris in that quote above refers to as having introduced power creep, etc. It is demonstratable fact that they backpedaled on these views. The introduction of additional set-of-8 quirks last month is yet more evidence that they backpedaled on these views.

Why is them apparently coming to their senses a bad hing?


View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

That's not a defense of PGI, what that actually tells me is that somebody isn't doing their job and they need to be fired.


Again, in words and deeds, they appear to have recognized the reality that though they would like to reduce "overall" quirks...they can't. Sure they still pick around the edges in a perhaps misguided effort (see Dragon nerfs in this patch for example) but the reality is most abundantly clear that quirks are not going anywhere. Notice some of the improved defensive quirks this patch? They are being added/improved for a reason and it isn't because of some months old statement that quirks need to be removed.

View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

In re info tech...
There's no way to qualify that as anything other than a miserable failure on PGI's part.


Yes. And?


View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

It means PGI needs to get their *** in gear.


Sounds good


View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

All they really did was reduce the most gratuitously bad quirks over time.

Is it an improvement? Sure.

Is it good enough? No.

Is it even close to what PGI has set out to do multiple times now? No.


Agreed

View PostPjwned, on 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

Are there still way too many weapon quirks and other quirks all over the place even if they've been reduced from their absurd levels before? Yes.
Is there ANY sign of quirks being properly addressed? NO, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

I have no idea on how to "properly" address quirks and neither do you and neither does PGI...and THAT is why they still exist, despite your (and my) focus on the citations above. To wit, make the ISXL the same as a clan, and that gets to the root of a lot of problems, yet would it make the Cataphract sans quirks just as good as a Warhammer? An Oriaon just as good as a Timberwolf? Etc. I don't think so.

So what is the sure fire way to remove quirks or "address" them? Beats me, maybe PGI will keep working on it though. Maybe they will get some things right and of course they will get some things wrong. I'm just happy they are making what appears to be a more consistent and directed effort at all. This current effort seems a hell of a lot less random than all the passes that occurred prior to the skills tree. Baby steps. Mr. Lowery is still fairly new. Let him make some baby steps first, then you can start asking for strides.

#16 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,895 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:09 PM

View PostForceUser, on 19 September 2017 - 03:57 AM, said:

1) They did do a very sizable weapon quirk reduction after this announcement

Except there was no corresponding tech buff which ended up just being an IS nerf across the board. This is the main problem and the main reason in high level play IS tech takes a back seat in most cases. They added civil war tech and the skill tree and magically expected it to be some panacea to tech balance but it hasn't. In fact, relying on the skill tree to balance tech bases is JUST as stupid as using quirks to do it.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 September 2017 - 02:10 PM.


#17 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:15 PM

View PostGas Guzzler, on 19 September 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Durability isn't going away. That's been pretty clear.

Weapon quirks have definitely been toned down, and some mechs lost weapon quirks in this patch.

I'm not seeing a huge issue. Quirkless Clan mechs still OP, and there is no IS mech that is performing awkwardly due to its quirks.

I'm agreeing with a Gas Guzzler post.

What the heck is this thread even Posted Image

View PostQuicksilver Kalasa, on 19 September 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Except there was no corresponding tech buff which ended up just being an IS nerf across the board. This is the main problem and the main reason in high level play IS tech takes a back seat in most cases. They added civil war tech and the skill tree and magically expected it to be some panacea to tech balance but it hasn't. In fact, relying on the skill tree to balance tech bases is JUST as stupid as using quirks to do it.

There was, it was called Civil war tech...

View PostAlan Davion, on 19 September 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:


Let's just back it up a couple steps there man, or do you want PGI to do something similar to what Wargaming.net did to iChase after his rant on the Graf Zeppelin? Part of said rant was iChase saying "someone needs to be fired".

Nah man, Wargaming is in a league of it's own in that instance.

#18 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,274 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:21 PM

View PostForceUser, on 19 September 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

There was, it was called Civil war tech...


Most of that wasn't really a buff. More of a side grade/down grade.

LGauss is trash. HGauss is trash. UAC10s have been way too hot (unknown whether or not this buff will help, but frankly they are too big and bulky and don't offer enough of an upside). HPPC has been kind of nice by breathing life into some mechs that weren't really in use... but its getting nerfed (lol). UAC20 is a non-factor. ER MLs are too hot for IS mechs to keep their "heat efficiency" advantage over Clan laser vomit, especially since most of the energy heat gen quirks went away. (The choice is either have more sustained DPS at the cost of alpha and range to just having a less alpha and slightly less range) ERSL - 3 damage (lol). LPPCs... are a non-factor. MRMs are a non-factor.

None of the Civil War tech really helped bridge the gap, except for the LFE, but once again the LFE is directly inferior to the cXL so.. meh. In fact, the Heavy lasers that everyone complained about, are actually pretty useful.

#19 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,895 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:26 PM

View PostForceUser, on 19 September 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

There was, it was called Civil war tech...

None of that was an improvement, the best that came out of Civil War tech was LFEs and LFF and only one of those was an actual buff (LFF) because LFEs still are heavier than Clan XLs for the same effect making them merely a side grade that help sub-optimal builds.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 September 2017 - 02:26 PM.


#20 draiocht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:33 PM

[mod]Due to unconstructive content, this thread has been closed.

Please move constructive discussion to relevant threads.[/mod]





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users