114 replies to this topic

[Paigan]

Bud Crue, on 20 September 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

No quirks, or even reduced quirks, on a whole lot of mechs means those mechs are useless.
Making content useless is not going to fix balance issues no matter how much you want it too.


If the goal is to remove quirks then they have to have a mechanism in place to account for their functionality. Such a mechanism does not exist, or at least has not yet been mentioned by PGI. Thus, the majority of quirks are not going anywhere (no matter how much they nerf).

Hear, hear. Exactely this.

[Prezimonto]

GrimRiver, on 20 September 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Yes and no.

"Yes" because new tech has closed the power gap a good bit(but not completely), quirks have gotten to the point that it defines a reason to even take that chassis/variant over another.

And "no" because too many mech really need those quirks to make them viable or even decent enough to consider taking them out on a midnight stroll.

Biggest offenders that needs every quirk and maybe more are the vindy's, victors, fridgebox, lolynx and ect.

Clans still have the upper hand with XL's great weight saving that doesn't die to a ST loss and tech that weighs less and takes less slots.

So ultimately I'd say no to quirk removal.

Don't forget the dragons. They we're lol bad until quirks.

[Koniving]

Bud Crue, on 20 September 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

Without weapons quirks half the locust variants become useless. This is true of a lot of other mechs too.

Sized hardpoints in place of the weapon quirks come to mind.

But that's true of all mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 21 September 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

Every mech on the map would be affected by every ECM and Active Probe depending on their range from each unit.

Do you not realize how many factors that takes into account and why that becomes so complicated? Positioning is already something very few can get down (hell most comp players including myself have trouble figuring out good positioning often) and now you want to add even more factors? That isn't simple.

MW4 ECM/BAP was simple, it only affected you (no bubbles) and had a few numbers to remember (since there were no TComps, quirks, or skills that complicated sensor ranges). While active, you could detect ECM/passive mechs at 500m (honestly not sure on this being the range for ECM, memory is a bit fuzzy here) without and other mechs at 1000m. BAP could allow you to detect passive mechs at 600, ECM at 800, and normal at 1200m. That's it, that's all you had to know (detection while passive really wasn't important).

The difference between MW4 and your suggestion is also fairly important because in MW4, that was positional data (loadout data and such required LOS once). The reason this is important is because positional data is the most important data you get from sensors, so everything else tied to it being affected by ECM/BAP is largely inconsequential.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Koniving, on 21 September 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints in place of the weapon quirks come to mind.

But that's true of all mechs.

Sized hard points would be in direct opposition of PGI's current (sort of, maybe, I think this is where they are at today) thinking on quirks in that they do not want quirks to essentially demand that the player take a certain optimal build in order for the mech to be effective. They see/saw many of the old quirks as applied as "a puzzle" that the player should not be required to solve. Such quirks limit potential build diversity and player choice according to them.

If that is indeed PGI's view (you would have to PM Chris Lowery to confirm), then I think sized hardpoints are a non starter.

Sized hard points would essentially demand that mechs take only those weapons that correspond to the size of the hard point in question. That too limits potential diversity and player choice. Thus, I don't think they would consider such a concept as an effective way of replacing the current necessity of quirks.

[Prezimonto]

Koniving, on 21 September 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints in place of the weapon quirks come to mind.

But that's true of all mechs.

Are people still talking about sized hard points? That was a thing we were asking for well before quirks... years ago.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 21 September 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

But as it is with the bad visibility on half the maps, too many shots are taken just because of the dorito, and current ECM needs to counter that.

This is the wrong approach. This just makes the game unfun, like playing MW4 ALL the time in heavy fog. It made sensor mechs pretty much the GOTO for heavy fog because doritos and positional data was so important without visuals. Sorry, but bad visibility is the problem here, not because sensors offer you doritos. There needs to be a different mechanic than hiding all the doritos (because of how important it can be without visibility, it can make ECM makes way too strong easily).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2017 - 10:21 AM.

[Athom83]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

Sorry, but bad visibility is the problem here, not because sensors offer you doritos. There needs to be a different mechanic than hiding all the doritos (because of how important it can be without visibility, it can make ECM makes way too strong easily).

Like giving out fake doritos, like how ECM is suppsed to work realistically?

Curse you fake dorito, you gave me hope for a delicious snack yet all I got was cardboard and ink!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Athom83, on 21 September 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Like giving out fake doritos, like how ECM is suppsed to work realistically?

No, can you imagine trying to explain this to new players? It would just be unfun mechanic to play against since it could be used to cause visual spam like trees scattered on Forest Colony (the difference being you can't remove them like you can trees). Mechanics that cause visual clutter or disorientation for a brief period are acceptable provided they have more range limitations and the like, but a permanent ghost mode? Hell no.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2017 - 10:30 AM.

[Athom83]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

No, can you imagine trying to explain this to new players? It would just be unfun mechanic to play against since it could be used to cause visual spam like trees scattered on Forest Colony (the difference being you can't remove them like you can trees). Mechanics that cause visual clutter or disorientation for a brief period are acceptable provided they have more range limitations and the like, but a permanent ghost mode? Hell no.

I was talking more when you get close enough for the map static ecm effect to kick in. The map and compass gives back false blips when you are under enemy ecm coverage while friendly ecm set to counter would remove them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Athom83, on 21 September 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I was talking more when you get close enough for the map static ecm effect to kick in. The map and compass gives back false blips when you are under enemy ecm coverage while friendly ecm set to counter would remove them.

That would be again more of an irritating visual effect because it would overload players with a bunch of noise than actually be useful. Considering it is also again, a permanent thing that can only be countered by another ECM, is no different from the old ECM effect we used to have when it was first implemented, it has terrible counter play. Having be something you can use on cooldown and has a short duration of this effect? Sure.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2017 - 10:37 AM.

[Nightbird]

Dynamic cbill bonus based on how often mechs are used. Start with most often used mech, pretend it's a hellbringer. Say 5.00 of ever 100 drops use one. Say another mech is used 1.00 out of every 100 drops. This mech gets a 400% cbill bonus dynamically. As the usage rates change, the bonus changes dynamically. Only use data from past week.

Now, cut the baseline cbill earning by 50% across the board.

Instead of achieving balance with performance, we acheve a new balance by economy and the diversity of mechs on the battlefield greatly increases. 0 quirks.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 21 September 2017 - 10:41 AM.

[Paigan]

NlGHTBlRD, on 21 September 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Dynamic cbill bonus based on how often mechs are used. Start with most often used mech, pretend it's a hellbringer. Say 5.00 of ever 100 drops use one. Say another mech is used 1.00 out of every 100 drops. This mech gets a 400% cbill bonus dynamically. As the usage rates change, the bonus changes dynamically. Only use data from past week.

Now, cut the baseline cbill earning by 50% across the board.

Instead of achieving balance with performance, we acheve a new balance by economy and the diversity of mechs on the battlefield greatly increases. 0 quirks.

FYI: There are many, many players who absolutely do not care about CBs (or even XP) because they have more than they will ever be able to spend.

And not because of CBs bought by real money, but just because MWO has such an hilariously easy pseudo-economy that it constatnly sh*ts money over players.

In short: balancing by non-balancing is a completely and utterly inadequate pseudo-idea.

Edited by Paigan, 21 September 2017 - 10:52 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

NlGHTBlRD, on 21 September 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Dynamic cbill bonus based on how often mechs are used. Start with most often used mech, pretend it's a hellbringer. Say 5.00 of ever 100 drops use one. Say another mech is used 1.00 out of every 100 drops. This mech gets a 400% cbill bonus dynamically. As the usage rates change, the bonus changes dynamically. Only use data from past week.

Now, cut the baseline cbill earning by 50% across the board.

Instead of achieving balance with performance, we acheve a new balance by economy and the diversity of mechs on the battlefield greatly increases. 0 quirks.

Balancing through economics in a multiplayer game is just as stupid as R&R was, and completely doesn't understand how it impacts the general populace (good players will be able to afford the better mechs, increasing the disparity between good and bad players).

[Nightbird]

Do you see the point of quirks as balancing between good and bad players, or between good and bad mechs? I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding there, since you're proposing removing quirks.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

NlGHTBlRD, on 21 September 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding there, since you're proposing removing quirks.

I'm not proposing anything, both the concept of removing quirks and economics to "fix" balance are bad.

NlGHTBlRD, on 21 September 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

Do you see the point of quirks as balancing between good and bad players, or between good and bad mechs?

I see it as balancing good and bad mechs, the difference is that every player can use them. By power to economics you automatically bring skill level as a factor since good players will make more money on average than bad players.

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

MW4 ECM/BAP was simple, it only affected you (no bubbles) and had a few numbers to remember (since there were no TComps, quirks, or skills that complicated sensor ranges).

I'd like a more team oriented approach, I like the idea of support units. I don't like numbers to remember either. I don't want my ECM to counter another ECM at 150 but not 149. Hard counters are awful. I'd like something similar to real life stealth, which makes a plane look like a bird, but translated to MWO world it would just increase lock and info. The computing side of it would be complicated, but the players would just see gradual changes in sensor abilities depending on what units are where.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

This is the wrong approach. This just makes the game unfun, like playing MW4 ALL the time in heavy fog. It made sensor mechs pretty much the GOTO for heavy fog because doritos and positional data was so important without visuals. Sorry, but bad visibility is the problem here, not because sensors offer you doritos. There needs to be a different mechanic than hiding all the doritos (because of how important it can be without visibility, it can make ECM makes way too strong easily).

I do hate the graphics on some levels on this game, and I also hate doritos, it's OK to hate both. I'd rather have clear vision but get rit of the "shoot me" indicator above my Locust. Come to think of it, I've never heard a single person ever say they like or want thermal/night vision in the game. Sorry for all the work PGI, but get rid of it, there's a good reason no one ever votes for Bog or Mordor. It's not the heat, it's the visibility, it's just not fun.

NlGHTBlRD, on 21 September 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Dynamic cbill bonus based on how often mechs are used. Start with most often used mech, pretend it's a hellbringer. Say 5.00 of ever 100 drops use one. Say another mech is used 1.00 out of every 100 drops. This mech gets a 400% cbill bonus dynamically. As the usage rates change, the bonus changes dynamically. Only use data from past week.

Now, cut the baseline cbill earning by 50% across the board.

Instead of achieving balance with performance, we acheve a new balance by economy and the diversity of mechs on the battlefield greatly increases. 0 quirks.

I agree with the c-bill part, not about paying players to put up with bad mechs. I've actually been thinking about a proposal for a couple of hours now, funny that you mentioned this. I'll write it up.

[Mystere]

MechaBattler, on 20 September 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Changing balance is par for the course for games like this.

I am already of the belief that this is nothing but a load of crock.

It's happening often because someone somewhere did not have the foresight and did not do the proper planning required.

[MechaBattler]

Yeah that's why it happens to even bigger more well organized studios. Unless the game is very one dimensional and heavily homogenized. It usually requires regular balance passes. Especially as things are adding and obsolete older things.

[Koniving]

Bud Crue, on 21 September 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Sized hard points would be in direct opposition of PGI's current (sort of, maybe, I think this is where they are at today) thinking on quirks in that they do not want quirks to essentially demand that the player take a certain optimal build in order for the mech to be effective. They see/saw many of the old quirks as applied as "a puzzle" that the player should not be required to solve. Such quirks limit potential build diversity and player choice according to them.

If that is indeed PGI's view (you would have to PM Chris Lowery to confirm), then I think sized hardpoints are a non starter.

Sized hard points would essentially demand that mechs take only those weapons that correspond to the size of the hard point in question. That too limits potential diversity and player choice. Thus, I don't think they would consider such a concept as an effective way of replacing the current necessity of quirks.

A soft point system with sized hardpoints could be broken down in that you'd have to have a large hardpoint to carry something big (unless they build up as well as break down), but you could take a large hardpoint and break it down into several smaller hardpoints.

For example taking a large missile hardpoint meant for an LRM-20 or MRM-30 into three hardpoints.
Or taking several smaller laser hardpoints and combining them to put in a PPC.

Unfortunately this would be more suitable with a more Battletech-originated damage system, i.e. your medium laser would only do 5 damage in the same time that a PPC would do 10 before it cools enough to fire again.

But yeah... Nope.

In the long run, however, the many mechs in MWO would see significantly more purpose and use as the mechs would actually embody specific roles and purposes. Such as the Awesome 8Q siege mech, or the Gargoyle light hunter, or the Super Nova heavy weapons platform (would be a lot more fanfare for it in a sized system, as no other Clan assault carries so many large weapons except the Warhawk, which would not be outclassed by a Marauder IIC), etc.