114 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

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.

Hmm. If Gaijin only made a German Panzer III-B be just as good as a Panzer V-A, then maybe they will not have a player numbers problem compared to MWO.

Oh, wait!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 21 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

I'd like a more team oriented approach, I like the idea of support units.

I don't mind team oriented games, I dislike super dependency on teammates though. There is a difference between being useless without something specific on a team and just not being able to carry bad teammates. Overwatch is the latter and plays well because of it, what most people want when it comes to scout mechs mech being required to actually aim precisely is the former and should be avoided like the plague.

adamts01, on 21 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

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.

Knowing what is on the side of the computation is important IF that information you get matters. Again it is no different than knowing your heat breakpoints, range breakpoints, mount marks, exposure marks, etc.

Mystere, on 21 September 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Hmm. If Gaijin only made a German Panzer III-B be just as good as a Panzer V-A, then maybe they will not have a player numbers problem compared to MWO.

Oh, wait!

Don't they do tiered play just like WoT and Star Conflict? If they do then that really isn't a good comparison now is it....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2017 - 12:16 PM.

[Athom83]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 12:15 PM, said:

Don't they do tiered play just like WoT and Star Conflict? If they do then that really isn't a good comparison now is it....

No. They do a Battle Rating system. The "tiers" are purely for research, ie you have to have x number of t3 vehicles researched and purchased to unlock t4.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Athom83, on 21 September 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

No. They do a Battle Rating system. The "tiers" are purely for research, ie you have to have x number of t3 vehicles researched and purchased to unlock t4.

So something we do not have in this game.

[Stinger554]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

And I'm telling you, there is role warfare to an extent.

However, some roles just don't make sense in this environment, a command mech is whatever helps the DC do just that and requires minimal piloting involvement (like HBK-IICs or really mediums in general). An Atlas is not going to be a command mech because it is simply too big of a target, requires you to push because of all the issues with it as far as ranged play, and because of its slow speed requires significant focus on positioning just like the Whale which makes it a bad choice for someone who is trying to DC. This game is not lore, just because it was a "command" mech there DOES NOT mean that is going to apply regardless of what equipment you give it (outside of the ability to see the position of all enemies at all times or something absurd like that).

"Role warfare" is this game is practically non-existent. What "roles" are there exactly in your mind? Scouts in their current format basically means any mech that can run 130KPH+ running to try and find the enemy which isn't all that scouting should be. Adding electronic warfare, like Khobai brings up, would most definitely make this game infinitely more interesting to play.

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

the concept of role warfare is obviously way beyond your mental faculty to comprehend so im done discussing it with you for now.

Though I have a feeling that Khobai's quote here is very accurate in terms of your comprehension level for role warfare.

Edited by Stinger554, 21 September 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

So something we do not have in this game.

The takeaway from my post is that PGI should probably start using something else instead of continuing to muck around with the same thing while still failing. Lore gives some hints on what those are.

[PUFNSTUF]

Quirks going would be bad. It actually makes me think about what variants I want when many are similar give or take a weapon slot. The skill tree addition actually annoyed me because before to elite/master a variant I had to play two other variants, which meant I had to at least learn a different style and build and play to those quirks. Now I don't really need three variants of a mech, just the "one" that looks most appealing. I liked being forced to try out different variants, but I guess I save cbills now.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

"Role warfare" is this game is practically non-existent. What "roles" are there exactly in your mind? Scouts in their current format basically means any mech that can run 130KPH+ running to try and find the enemy which isn't all that scouting should be.

Except some mechs do that better. For example during the last WC we ran one Cheetah and Jenner IIC, why you ask? The Cheetah being forced to taking 6 JJs combined with its more slender profile and pre-ST nerf of ECM just made it better for getting eyes on the enemy without getting booped. Post skill tree and cSPL nerf, the WLF-2 was considered better for raw firepower, but because of the lack of JJs, teams opted to take at least one FS9-S because the JJs allowed it to jump which is pretty much necessary for any scout.

That said, lights are probably the most shallow pool you are going to dip into because of their limited tonnage to play with will always push them towards short range energy and missiles (MGs are sort of special when it comes to ballistics) just so they can actually have firepower to contribute to the combat AS WELL AS scout.

For assaults for example, you might have sustained control mechs (6 UAC2 MX90), sustained push (4 UAC5 MAL-1R, old 4 cLPL WHK-C), long range control (4 cERPPC SVN-C or 4 cERPPC Warhawk), extreme range burst control (6 ERLL SVN-C/SVN-1), mid-range burst control (Gauss vomit MCII-DS, 2 HLL/6 ERML SVN-1), mid-range burst push (shorter range Gauss vomit MCII-DS, MAD-IIC), or brawling (Splatclops). All of these types of design have different goals and engagement styles and thus play styles.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Adding electronic warfare, like Khobai brings up, would most definitely make this game infinitely more interesting to play.

That's debatable. It's easy to say adding complexity will add depth to a game, but it is much harder to actually make that translate as complexity can often work in reverse and end up reducing "effective" player choice.

[Stinger554]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

Except some mechs do that better. For example during the last WC we ran one Cheetah and Jenner IIC, why you ask? The Cheetah being forced to taking 6 JJs combined with its more slender profile and pre-ST nerf of ECM just made it better for getting eyes on the enemy without getting booped. Post skill tree and cSPL nerf, the WLF-2 was considered better for raw firepower, but because of the lack of JJs, teams opted to take at least one FS9-S because the JJs allowed it to jump which is pretty much necessary for any scout.

That said, lights are probably the most shallow pool you are going to dip into because of their limited tonnage to play with will always push them towards short range energy and missiles (MGs are sort of special when it comes to ballistics) just so they can actually have firepower to contribute to the combat AS WELL AS scout.

And the reason behind adding electronic warfare(and other similar tools) is to expand upon the possible roles of in the game so that taking a Raven 3L instead of the WLF-2 is a viable choice and not a detriment to the team and the possibility of winning. As you've said the viable choice of light mechs is very small.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

For assaults for example, you might have sustained control mechs (6 UAC2 MX90), sustained push (4 UAC5 MAL-1R, old 4 cLPL WHK-C), long range control (4 cERPPC SVN-C or 4 cERPPC Warhawk), extreme range burst control (6 ERLL SVN-C/SVN-1), mid-range burst control (Gauss vomit MCII-DS, 2 HLL/6 ERML SVN-1), mid-range burst push (shorter range Gauss vomit MCII-DS, MAD-IIC), or brawling (Splatclops). All of these types of design have different goals and engagement styles and thus play styles.

It may just be my imagination but there seems to be a lot of overlapping "roles" there as the "extreme range burst control" also covers "medium range burst control" and "long range control" as usually the "extreme range" mechs also perform well in the closer ranges as well. Of course that depends on pilot skill more than mech building. Only ones I see that are truly unique are brawling, sustained control and sustained push; all the others are identical, same role burst control, just different ranges.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

That's debatable. It's easy to say adding complexity will add depth to a game, but it is much harder to actually make that translate as complexity can often work in reverse and end up reducing "effective" player choice.

It's a balancing act... Adding electronic warfare doesn't mean that not taking it is invalid as there is a trade-off involved IE you take the electronic warfare system instead of more weapons or jump jets. Effective player choices are already reduced there are several weapon systems in the game currently that are completely non-effective to use. I highly doubt using the current game balance that adding electronic warfare would reduce "effective" player choices. Quite the opposite in reality. Implementation is as I said a balancing act as with literally every other system in the game.

If it's too strong or being taken way too often over the alternative lower it's effectiveness or increase the effectiveness of the alternative.

If it's too weak or not being taken over the alternative increase it's effectiveness or decrease the effectiveness of the alternative.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

And the reason behind adding electronic warfare(and other similar tools) is to expand upon the possible roles of in the game so that taking a Raven 3L instead of the WLF-2 is a viable choice and not a detriment to the team and the possibility of winning.

Except that won't be the case unless ECM is superpowered because even in the case of the Cheetah, the offensive difference between it and the Jenner IIC was small, just like the difference between the WLF-2 and the FS9-S. The Raven has to have enough firepower to justify it being worth taking as with those examples, after the cSPL was nerfed, the Cheetah faded from the meta and was replaced by the FS9-S despite the FS9-S having less JJs and no ECM. Why? Because the Cheetah simply lacked enough firepower to justify bothering with it.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

It may just be my imagination but there seems to be a lot of overlapping "roles" there as the "extreme range burst control" also covers "medium range burst control" and "long range control" as usually the "extreme range" mechs also perform well in the closer ranges as well.

Range dictates what your intentions are thus it will impact how you want to play. An extreme range mech wants to keep as much distance as possible between it and any possible approach so it can abuse its range. A mid-range mech wants to push against longer range and keep range on shorter ranged mechs, so it has to play cautious until scouting information can confirm how you want to play.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Of course that depends on pilot skill more than mech building. Only ones I see that are truly unique are brawling, sustained control and sustained push; all the others are identical, same role burst control, just different ranges.

Different ranges indicate different roles. What's the difference between harassers, skirmishers, and strikers? Range. Both try to burst damage before relocating. Both require room to work because they abuse speed to work a variety of angles. Both tend to be hot builds because they can't afford the sustained damage. The only real difference is strikers tend to have shorter ranged weapons than skirmishers which have shorter ranged weapons than harassers. Range dictates the engagements you want which changes how you play them.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

It's a balancing act... Adding electronic warfare doesn't mean that not taking it is invalid as there is a trade-off involved IE you take the electronic warfare system instead of more weapons or jump jets.

Sure, but designing EW in such a way that IT IS like that require pretty much re-imagining how things work in TT, because how it works in TT is simply not going to translate well.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Effective player choices are already reduced there are several weapon systems in the game currently that are completely non-effective to use. I highly doubt using the current game balance that adding electronic warfare would reduce "effective" player choices. Quite the opposite in reality. Implementation is as I said a balancing act as with literally every other system in the game.

Bad designs like the first implementation of ECM can EASILY reduce effective player choice. All it takes is some broken mechanics and that's done. It isn't ANYWHERE near as simple as you make it sound.

Stinger554, on 21 September 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

If it's too strong or being taken way too often over the alternative lower it's effectiveness or increase the effectiveness of the alternative.

If it's too weak or not being taken over the alternative increase it's effectiveness or decrease the effectiveness of the alternative.

See the balancing acts that PGI has been doing since Clans have been out and you would understand again, it is easier said than done.

[Thorqemada]

yeah they should pretty much go when the skilltree is established...

[Stinger554]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Why? Because the Cheetah simply lacked enough firepower to justify bothering with it.

Which is why the electronics part has to be comparable to having pure firepower. Hence again balancing act.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Sure, but designing EW in such a way that IT IS like that require pretty much re-imagining how things work in TT, because how it works in TT is simply not going to translate well.

I don't know how it worked in TT and quite frankly I don't care. Using one of Khobai's examples creating ghost signals on the radar causing confusion and disarray is a decent idea on how EW could be implemented or even completely canceling the radar while with in a certain range.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Bad designs like the first implementation of ECM can EASILY reduce effective player choice. All it takes is some broken mechanics and that's done. It isn't ANYWHERE near as simple as you make it sound.

Did I say it was going to be simple anywhere? I'm well aware that it's a more complex delicate process, but does that mean we should just give up and never even think about implementing a more extensive EW suite for the game? Hint the correct answer is no.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

See the balancing acts that PGI has been doing since Clans have been out and you would understand again, it is easier said than done.

Not a good comparison as balancing Clans to IS in the way that PGI wants is a failed endeavor before it even began. As for the easier said than done BS refer to the paragraph above. Saying it's hard isn't a reason for not doing it or even attempting it.

p.s. I don't remember the first ECM implementation was. Mind refreshing my memory?

Edited by Stinger554, 21 September 2017 - 05:47 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

NT Hackman, on 21 September 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Quirks could've been minor attributes to make each mech unique, but instead they're sloppy, poorly thought out bandaids that determine which chassis/omnipods are picked while the others collect dust.

Yes, but much less so now than they were at least, previous to the last quirk reductions that came with desync and the skill tree, those bandaids were more like plaster castings.

[AJBennett]

NT Hackman, on 21 September 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

Quirks could've been minor attributes to make each mech unique, but instead they're sloppy, poorly thought out bandaids that determine which chassis/omnipods are picked while the others collect dust.

Shifty McSwift, on 21 September 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Yes, but much less so now than they were at least, previous to the last quirk reductions that came with desync and the skill tree, those bandaids were more like plaster castings.

THIS! <o

Edited by AJBennett, 21 September 2017 - 08:02 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

See the balancing acts that PGI has been doing since Clans have been out and you would understand again, it is easier said than done.

To be honest, PGI has been making it harder than it is. It's actually quite straight-forward to make that balance, but they don't want to step on the toes of the grognards in the process and so that prevents them from doing so.

Just look at any time they've adjusted one of the IS 'Mechs downward in the last year or so. "This variant is performing above where we want to see it". Above where they want to see it? Even though that "above" is still below many similar-weight Clan offerings? Yeah, no, they have a messed up value for "where they want to see it."

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 21 September 2017 - 11:57 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Quirks could've been minor attributes to make each mech unique, but instead they're sloppy, poorly thought out bandaids that determine which chassis/omnipods are picked while the others collect dust.

Well part of the problem with quirks is that theyre way too generic and bland as well.

For example, if you have two mechs that both get numerical PPC quirks theyre not really different from eachother. Because theres just not very much variation in numerical quirks... you can only change so many things: cooldown, heat, velocity, etc...

But if the quirks were non-quantifiable abilities instead, it would be more interesting. For example, if one mech got built-in field inhibitors as a quirk and could fire PPCs under 90m and the other mech got PPC HUD/Sensor Disruption as a quirk. They would be far more differentiated.

Quirks should be more than just stat bonuses. They should be cool and interesting abilities that make a mech unique when compared to other mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 22 September 2017 - 12:45 AM.

[Oldbob10025]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 September 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Yes, lore comes first. Balance be damned!

Wait? Hold the train!!! There is lore in this game?

[Roadbuster]

Khobai, on 20 September 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

quirks as they are now need to go

quirks should not reward you for making meta builds

they should reward you for playing the mech how its intended to be played in lore

Andi Nagasia, on 20 September 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

personally i feel, Weapon Quirks need to go,
Structure Quirks need to stay to allow Mechs with Bad Geo to be Viable,
and Mobility Quirks Tied to OmniPods are ok as well(ex weaponless pods)

note i feel Quirks given by the Skill Tree are ok, and should be kept,
i only have a slight problem with the Weapon Quirks tied to Mechs,

QFT.
Back to balanced loadouts for different ranges and with different weapon types, as far as mech hardpoints allow it ofc.
I also totally agree to get rid of weapon quirks. If a weapon really needs a buff or nerf, just change the weapon stats.
Adjusting the skill tree values for weapons, would make more sense. But there should be better bonuses if running mixed loadouts.

[Appogee]

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

...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. players will keep buying new Mechs.

FTFY.

[Kroete]

Quirks are great to catch the money from all the metawhores and tryhards.
You dont even need to make a new model, just change a simple xml.

Even if they recognize that you milk them and change the xml every month,
they will still run after the newest fotm/meta ...

And then the new p2w mechs,
you cant easy nerf them when they get out for cbills if they dont have quirks.

And please dont talk about balance in a f2p game that makes money by selling new toys and not only cosmetics!
Balance would make pgi lose most of its income ...