114 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Source Mystic, on 20 September 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

I have been playing this game for almost 4 years . The integration of the quick system was supposed to address asymmetric ballence issues between the clan and Is weapon systems and mech traits. Your developer overloads constantly shift values and this has been the bane of all I.S. for a while because quirks were constantly nerfed on the I.S.side an all the clan advantages weight damage etc almost never got nerfed. The development team that runs MWO constantly nerfed range heat speed armor values and if all they are going to do is nerf down all the quirks than $h!t or get off the pot. If you goal is to get rid of quirks than just do it all at once an stabilize the system then everyone can get pissed off and then move on and realize that no quirks men no constant nerfs to random mechs. Just grow some balls and rip off the band are already. Because the quirk system does not facilitate balence it just insures that the game will always be unstable and in a perpetually in a state of imballence.

You do realize that most Mechs in Mechwarrior were "designed" by comic book artists for a TableTop turn-based dice game, right? Do you expect them all to be field-viable?

Oh, rght, the OP thinks the Hunchback 4G's right shoulder should be just as tough as a Trebuchet's shoulder.

[Ruar]

Source Mystic, on 20 September 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

I have been playing this game for almost 4 years . The integration of the quick system was supposed to address asymmetric ballence issues between the clan and Is weapon systems and mech traits. Your developer overloads constantly shift values and this has been the bane of all I.S. for a while because quirks were constantly nerfed on the I.S.side an all the clan advantages weight damage etc almost never got nerfed. The development team that runs MWO constantly nerfed range heat speed armor values and if all they are going to do is nerf down all the quirks than $h!t or get off the pot. If you goal is to get rid of quirks than just do it all at once an stabilize the system then everyone can get pissed off and then move on and realize that no quirks men no constant nerfs to random mechs. Just grow some balls and rip off the band are already. Because the quirk system does not facilitate balence it just insures that the game will always be unstable and in a perpetually in a state of imballence.

I think Andi has some good suggestions on how the Devs can bring about balance between Clan and IS. However, quirks seem to be more about offsetting design flaws rather than balance with Clan. Do you have any suggestions on how to mech poorly designed mechs competitive without quirks?

I think quirks are a good idea but I'd rather we have quirk categories and we can pick the ones we want. For example I like Enforcers so I could have Energy or Ballistic quirks based on which weapon system I wanted to primarily use. I can only pick one of the categories so I choose energy. There is a dropdown and I can pick range or heat or cooldown but not all three.

This would let me tailor the quirks to the build I'm using while preventing people from stacking the quirks to make too strong of a mech.

[Formosa The God]

Yes all quirks need to go, then they need rolling out again properly, some of the quirks on some mechs just dont make sense, others can be removed totally because they are functonally useless too.

[Rovertoo]

Eh, "go" is a strong word. I feel they are way complicated right now though. I think a good wipe and reset might be a good idea though.

Start with clearing out all quirks, and standardizing agility and armor values by weight class. Then give liberal amounts of armor quirks to mechs that need it for hitbox shapes.

Now with that out of the way (assuming all mechs are equal in the survival department now) we move on to quirks to balance underperforming mechs and making mechs feel unique.

First we can add agility quirks, to give some aid to hardpoint disparity and location. Dragons obviously are a good example with low hardpoints and low hardpoint count, so they get some nice agility across the board. Typical high-mount high weapon count mechs would get less.

Now weapon quirks along with some exceptions to the above agility quirks can be used to make mechs "feel" the way they are supposed to. Mechs traditionally based around a certain weapon type get bonuses with that weapon. Mechs that are traditionally slow get fewer agility quirks while others traditionally fast get more. Keeping these quirks simple is key so not to mess up the above quirk balancing and so not to restrict build option viability too much.

Finally, giving each mech a unique identity quirk to really give each one a niche and personality! This I think is what should be done tk help quirks be something engaging. Some loose examples:

Awesomes get an exception to PPC ghost heat limits (+1 PPC)
Highlanders get 50% improved jump jet recharge rate
Urbanmechs get 360 degree torso yaw and +1000% cuteness
Mad Cats (sorry, Timberwolves) get -25% damage recieved while heat override is engaged
Centurions get -25% damage taken to shield arm
Jenners obtain target data 25% faster
Atlases internal components are 25% more unlikely to be critted


Obviously these are just wild examples, but the point is to make Mechs have little 'quirks' that they can use to their advantage. These are just some I feel mesh with the spirit of each mech.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yes, lore comes first. Balance be damned!

why does adhering to lore mean abandoning balance?

it doesnt. youre just babbling nonsense.

especially since not adhering to lore has resulted in the game being imbalanced

giving robots quirks that reward you for boating meta weapons is not balanced. conversely giving robots quirks that reward you for using their stock loadouts would be far more balanced.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

why does adhering to lore mean abandoning balance

Because mechs lore surrounded replacing old designs (or designs that are spiritual successors)......I mean Mist Lynx vs Arctic Cheetah being one of the example that comes to mind immediately.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

conversely giving robots quirks that reward you for using their stock loadouts would be far more balanced.

ROFL, no it wouldn't because stock loadouts aren't themselves balanced nor do they fix any problem with mechs eclipsing others because they have similar design (Archer vs Catapult for example). Sorry but this argument assumes stock loadouts can actually be balanced around and this would be straight up false because we do NOT have the same balance mechanism in place as TT. Then of course you have the bracket builds vs meta stock loadouts.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2017 - 01:00 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because mechs lore surrounded replacing old designs (or designs that are spiritual successors)......I mean Mist Lynx vs Arctic Cheetah being one of the example that comes to mind immediately.

yes but you dont have to incorporate every single bit of lore.

you can still differentiate the mist lynx enough from the arctic cheetah that both have a reason to exist.

thats the whole reason role warfare needs to be added to the game with different skill trees for different roles.

the mist lynx would be a scout/recon mech. while the arctic cheetah would be a harasser mech. they should have completely different skill trees to reflect their different roles.

and as far as balancing for lore goes, you should not be rewarded for boating lasers on an arctic cheetah. because arctic cheetahs arnt supposed to boat lasers. they use mixed loadouts and thats what should be rewarded. you should only be rewarded for using the mech in its lore configuration.

Your two basic choices should be to run a mech in its meta configuration with NO quirks. Or run a mech in its lore configuration with quirks. With better quirks depending how bad the stock configuration is. thats the proper way to balance quirks to prevent meta builds from abusing them.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2017 - 01:11 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

giving robots quirks that reward you for boating meta weapons is not balanced. conversely giving robots quirks that reward you for using their stock loadouts would be far more balanced.

But what if the stock loadout is a meta weapon boat?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

Because mechs lore surrounded replacing old designs (or designs that are spiritual successors)......I mean Mist Lynx vs Arctic Cheetah being one of the example that comes to mind immediately.

There's also the Hellion and Fire Falcon to replace the MLX. The planned obsolescence is real.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

ROFL, no it wouldn't because stock loadouts aren't themselves balanced nor do they fix any problem with mechs eclipsing others because they have similar design (Archer vs Catapult for example). Sorry but this argument assumes stock loadouts can actually be balanced around and this would be straight up false because we do NOT have the same balance mechanism in place as TT.

To be fair, I think that quirks based on the "intent" of the stock design rather than the literal stock design could have merit.

Like, for example, The Cat A1 having quarks for all LRM types rather than just the stock LRM20. Depending on how generous we are we could allow similar "weapon family" items to get affected, e.g. an Awesome 8Q using Heavy PPCs (and every other PPC type) is still close enough to the "lore" loadout that I think it would be fair for that build to benefit. Etc.

Edited by FupDup, 20 September 2017 - 01:03 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

yes but you dont have to incorporate every single bit of lore.

So you want to be selective about lore.......hmmm, so what is difference from what we have now?

FupDup, on 20 September 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

To be fair, I think that quirks based on the "intent" of the stock design rather than the literal stock design could have merit.

Like, for example, The Cat A1 having quarks for all LRM types rather than just the stock LRM20.

The problem is still that so many mechs have similar roles that one will win out, especially if we are doing Tech I where there wasn't a whole lot of variety with tech to play with.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2017 - 01:05 PM.

[Davegt27]

all I know is

don't complain you will only make matters worse

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

thats the whole reason role warfare needs to be added to the game with different skill trees for different roles.

the mist lynx would be a scout/recon mech. while the arctic cheetah would be a harasser mech. they should have completely different skill trees to reflect their different roles.

The whole reason the idea of role warfare is stupid is because most people clamoring about role warfare don't understand that half the roles they suggest would be incredibly unfun because like it or not, the fun part of this game is shooting pew pews at other stompy robots, not sitting somewhere spotting for other people to have fun. Now that's not to say you couldn't differentiate the Cheetah and Mist Lynx (Lynx could be much tankier but have less overall firepower as a better example) but the idea of role warfare being this godsend is stupid and needs to stop being perpetuated because it completely lacks the understanding of how the game is played and what makes playing it enjoyable.

We have roles that already encourage playstyles, they just need to be better defined or buffed/nerfed/understood appropriately.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

and as far as balancing for lore goes, you should not be rewarded for boating lasers on an arctic cheetah. because arctic cheetahs arnt supposed to boat lasers. they use mixed loadouts and thats what should be rewarded. you should only be rewarded for using the mech in its lore configuration.

This is again, coming from a lack of understanding of how the game will end up being played and how much it takes to make bracket builds usable. Sorry, but this approach will always be stupid because this game is NOT TT. Weapon synergy goes much further in this game than simply ranges, the sooner you understand that, the sooner we can have an honest conversation about quirks to encourage flavor and try to capture the intent of designs in a game that has very different concerns from TT.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2017 - 01:12 PM.

[chucklesMuch]

Lol... yeah my unquirked mechs approve of no quirks... the rest... not so much...

[Khobai]

Quote

The whole reason the idea of role warfare is stupid is because most people clamoring about role warfare don't understand that half the roles they suggest would be incredibly unfun

how do you know adding new roles wouldnt be fun if the roles dont presently exist in the game? that is entirely speculation on your part.

especially since those roles exist in other games that happen to be plenty of fun. if other games can make it work why cant MWO?

and considering the game isnt fun now, it seems like theres nothing to lose by adding role warfare, and potentially everything to gain.

game is bad now, so adding role warfare isnt going to make the game more bad, at worst its still going to be just as bad. At best its going to be a lot better. with mechs actually being differentiated rather than being the same.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2017 - 01:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

how do you know they roles wouldnt be fun if the roles dont presently exist in the game?

Because all of them don't focus on combat and instead focus on something indirectly related like spotting. These could be defined as true support roles, and in every FPS they have trouble keeping players enticed to play them regardless of how powerful they are because they aren't directly related to combat.

If you want to understand good support roles, look at Zenyatta and Ada from Overwatch who are active in combat but also provide utility, look to the Medic from TF2 or the old Mercy for bad support role designs.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

and as far as balancing for lore goes, you should not be rewarded for boating lasers on an arctic cheetah. because arctic cheetahs arnt supposed to boat lasers. they use mixed loadouts and thats what should be rewarded. you should only be rewarded for using the mech in its lore configuration.

ACH-C Totally not a laser boat

[Khobai]

one variant might be a laser boat and its fine if that one variant is given laser quirks.

just like its fine if the warhawk prime gets ppc quirks. but the warhawk-C shouldnt have better ppc quirks than the prime. that makes no sense. which is why the warhawk C got nerfed. the warhawk prime should have better ppc quirks though.

the quirks should reward you for using the the lore loadout of the mech. so the arctic cheetah-C using lasers and flamers and getting quirks for that would be fine. But no other arctic cheetah should get all laser quirks. Only the C. because the vast majority of arctic cheetah variants are mixed loadouts, not laser boats. depending how good or bad the stock configuration is, that would determine how good the quirks should be.

Quote

Because all of them don't focus on combat and instead focus on something indirectly related like spotting. These could be defined as true support roles, and in every FPS they have trouble keeping players enticed to play them regardless of how powerful they are because they aren't directly related to combat.

um no. most of the roles ive suggested they add are specialized combat roles like harasser, striker, support, juggernaut, etc.... only one of the roles is scouting and ive explained many times in the past how to make that role fun by adding electronic warfare to the game. Having a toolkit that disrupts enemy mechs and causes chaos in their ranks would be tons of fun. If you could create fake radar contacts, cause hud disruption, disrupt sensor sharing, screw with IFF, etc... that would add a whole new level of tactical play to the game. how would that not be fun?

its really just your lack of imagination and narrowmindedness that makes you think scouting couldnt be turned into a fun role. you think scouting is just running ahead of everyone else and detecting enemy mechs. Thats only a very minor and insignificant part of what the scouting role should do. Its primary focus would be on electronic warfare.

being a scout role doesnt mean you cant do combat either. its not like youd be running around in a defenseless mech. a mech like the raven which is designed for electronic warfare still carries weapons. it might not be as combatitive as a jenner, but its electronic warfare toolkit would make up for that; it would have a set of abilities that could hinge the game in a way the jenner never could if used correctly.

Quote

and in every FPS they have trouble keeping players enticed to play them regardless of how powerful they are because they aren't directly related to combat.

there are players that enjoy playing support roles though.

just because theyre in the minority doesnt mean they shouldnt be represented.

if someone wants to play a more support oriented mech, the game should not only allow it, but encourage it.

thats the whole reason they keep putting support roles in games. some players identify with support roles. thats all they ever play. and the game devs see no reason to cut those people out just because theyre underrepresented.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2017 - 01:45 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

If you could create fake radar contacts, cause hud disruption, disrupt sensor sharing, screw with IFF, etc... that would add a whole new level of tactical play to the game. how would that not be fun?

We had half of that already with the first iteration of ECM, it was **** and didn't add anything of value to the game (in fact it was the reason there was an ECM arms race for a while when combined with the auto-CT streak issue).

EDIT: I've decided rather than going through picking out **** I would make a general statement that tries to wrap things up nicely.

One of the problems with "role warfare" in the context of how it is brought up is that it is always in the context of how lights (which are the least fun to play class) essentially get turned into support units and somehow end up with even less firepower than they already have (lights already sacrifice firepower, so why are mechs like the Raven always brought up for support, that's not how this should work).

The problem with strictly using stock loadouts is partially because stock loadouts (particularly those from 3025 era) are either bland (how many LRM/ML or ML/SRM boats are there in tech 1?), are bracketed (which already has issues), have weapons that don't synergize well in this environment, and/or just don't work well in this environment for other reasons (RVN-3L for example) because this isn't TT. MWO has a very different set of concerns than TT, people need to just get over themselves and accept that. While I think we should avoid diverging far from the SPIRIT of the mech, I don't think we should have to strictly adhere quirks to only encourage stock loadouts (like the stupid pod of 8 quirks on Omnimechs now for example) but encourage something that both is as close to fitting as possible to lore but also provides something unique within the context of MWO so that we can alleviate the overlap issue that currently exists within this game (which is mostly due to as free of customization as we have).

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

um no. most of the roles ive suggested they add are specialized combat roles like harasser, striker, support, juggernaut, etc....

Except some of those are vague. All assaults are essentially juggernauts, all lights are harassers (in the more general context), etc. Most of those are defined by weightclass but not all are equal among that. PGI kind of had a good approach when they started quirks (role + weapon options) but honestly it still wasn't quite good enough especially when we have 400+ variants in game.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

the quirks should reward you for using the the lore loadout of the mech. so the arctic cheetah-C using lasers and flamers and getting quirks for that would be fine. But no other arctic cheetah should get all laser quirks. Only the C. because the vast majority of arctic cheetah variants are mixed loadouts, not laser boats. depending how good or bad the stock configuration is, that would determine how good the quirks should be.

Then you have failed before you began because of the quirks necessary to make things like the Ice Ferret Prime even worth bothering with would be absurd rather than relying on some meta combination the carves a niche for the Ice Ferret and enabling that.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

its really just your lack of imagination and narrowmindedness that makes you think scouting couldnt be turned into a fun role.

We already have scouting (at least in comp, it is fairly important to have that positional information on the enemy), you know the reason why it isn't fun though for a majority of those players though? Because you simply can't carry enough firepower, range, and/or armor/structure to be involved in combat until late game when it is time to collapse on an already weak enemy.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

being a scout role doesnt mean you cant do combat either. its not like youd be running around in a defenseless mech. a mech like the raven which is designed for electronic warfare still carries weapons. it might not be as combatitive as a jenner, but its electronic warfare toolkit would make up for that; it would have a set of abilities that could hinge the game in a way the jenner never could if used correctly.

Except you are already in the least combative role in the game by taking a light. Taking something that sacrifices even more firepower for some "electronic warfare" is silly. This is part of the problem. These "support roles" are almost always brought up for mechs that already carry some of the least firepower in the game. That's a problem, a design problem, and one that always gets brought up in "role warfare" discussions and is still one of the stupidest things still paraded around this brown sea.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

there are players that enjoy playing support roles though.

just because theyre in the minority doesnt mean they shouldnt be represented

You mean the few that run NARC Ravens and such? You mean a subset of one of the most underrepresented classes in the game? Sorry, but there is a reason that is the case, because they simply aren't fun for the majority of people. There is such a thing as being TOO niche of a design, especially if a mech is DESIGNED around this role rather than it being a bad build people take.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2017 - 02:23 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

All assaults are essentially juggernauts

no they arnt. most assaults would not be considered juggernauts. juggernauts refer to a specific type of assault mech thats slow and has lots of weapons and armor, like the annihilator.

faster assaults fall into the striker role. then you have support assaults like the awesome. command assaults like the atlas/cyclops.

not all assaults are classed as juggernauts in battletech

Quote

all lights are harassers

not all lights should be harassers. some should be scouts. some should be strikers. thats how it is in battletech.

Quote

Then you have failed before you began because of the quirks necessary to make things like the Ice Ferret Prime even worth bothering with would be absurd rather than relying on some meta combination the carves a niche for the Ice Ferret and enabling that.

The Ice Ferret is another example of a scout mech that should have extensive electronic warfare capabilities.

The reason why mechs like the Ice Ferret dont work is because electronic warfare doesnt exist.

Quote

We had half of that already with the first iteration of ECM, it was **** and didn't add anything of value to the game (in fact it was the reason there was an ECM arms race for a while when combined with the auto-CT streak issue).

I disagree. It was completely successful. It was so effective at creating chaos that people got flustered and panicked when cut off from their team's sensor network. PGI removed it because they felt it was too confusing for potatos to handle. But PGI was wrong thats exactly what the game needs more of: the ability to attack players in ways that isnt just damage. When you have multiple levels on which you can attack the opponent it adds tactical layers to the game.

Quote

We already have scouting

not really. what we have now is a shadow of what the scouting role should be. and electronic warfare is virtually non-existent.

Quote

Except you are already in the least combative role in the game by taking a light. Taking something that sacrifices even more firepower for some "electronic warfare" is silly.

its not silly at all if those abilities can hinge the game. powerful electronic warfare abilities have potential to do just that.

how much damage you can do should not be the sole contributing factor to winning a game. there should be other ways to influence the outcome of a game besides damage stats.

we arnt talking about trading in firepower for weak abilities. they are going to be powerful abilities that when employed in the right instance can alter the game in ways more firepower never could.

Quote

You mean the few that run NARC Ravens and such? You mean a subset of one of the most underrepresented classes in the game? Sorry, but there is a reason that is the case, because they simply aren't fun for the majority of people. There is such a thing as being TOO niche of a design, especially if a mech is DESIGNED around this role rather than it being a bad build people take.

Because those mechs dont have the proper tools to make it fun. NARC is crap in its current form. It should be more of a toolbox like iNARC is. For example, you should be able to manually detonate NARC beacons with the same effect as an explosive pod and haywire pod rolled into one. So you could leave the NARC attached to the target or manually detonate it and do some damage and disrupt the target's sensors/HUD.

The whole point of what im talking about is to expand the scouting role by adding new skills/equipments so IT IS fun.

The scouting/support role is only woefully underrepresented currently because it doesnt have enough power to affect the outcome of the game. Give it powerful tools that can leverage games and more people will play it. Its really that simple.

Edited by Khobai, 20 September 2017 - 02:48 PM.

[Natred]

As far as min maxing goes.. inner sphere mechs have a bunch of advantages. They have low beam duration, low weapon cool downs, better skill tree, higher armor and structure values. Although they lack onnipod flexability they have flexabilty in other areas like engine size, endo and ferro. I assure you inner sphere mechs do not suck your prolly just building like a potatoe. Honestly in clan war i see some atrocious builds inner sphere potatoe builds..

My best quick play mechs are inner sphere mechs at the moment. I would not recommend faction war unless you have 4 fully skilled and optimized mechs non lrm boats. Take a tip from a veteran.

Edited by Natred, 20 September 2017 - 02:32 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

no they arnt. most assaults would not be considered juggernauts. juggernauts refer to a specific type of assault mech thats slow and has lots of weapons and armor, like the annihilator.

faster assaults fall into the striker role. then you have support assaults like the awesome. command assaults like the atlas/cyclops.

There is no such thing as command or support in this game....again this is you not understanding how this game is played and trying to apply things from TT that simply don't apply here. I would also like to point out, that all assault mechs tend to be slower than their lighter counterparts and also run more firepower than their lighter counterparts, that's kind of the defining feature of the assault class (more free tonnage for weapons and armor, less speed). Again, this is why those concepts are either stupid or too vague.

Questions that matter in this game:

• How good are the mounts?
  
• How long is its range?
  
• How fast does it go?
  
• How tanky is it (hitboxes and health combine here)?
  
• How mobile is it?
  
• How does it apply damage (FLD/sustained/burst)?
  
• Does it have extra useful equipment (like JJs)?

These all help define the roles, the value of each question is dependent on the answers to other (long range is more concerned about high mounts than short range, fast mechs tend to care less about range, etc).

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

not really. what we have now is a shadow of what the scouting role should be. and electronic warfare is virtually non-existent.

Ummm, the job of a scout is to find the enemy, that's what lights are good for. I'm not sure what else you think scouts should be doing but I'm willing to bet that whatever it is, it is complete crap that again, lacks understanding of how MWO played. You can think there is some equipment that is going to "revolutionize" the way the game is played but that is pretty naive to think because there are some pretty universal basic mechanics when it comes to an FPS like this. Trissla seems better at putting words to these than I do.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Because those mechs dont have the tools to make it fun.

The whole point of what im talking about is to expand that role by adding new equipment/abilities so IT IS fun.

They don't need new equipment/abilities to make them fun, they need firepower to actually be useful in combat AND have these ancillary abilities/equipment. Again, you are doing nothing to address the main issue that lights simply have the least firepower and are expected to fulfill these support roles that require even MORE tonnage to be dedicated to non-firepower related items.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2017 - 02:40 PM.