258 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 11 September 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

The Blanner does have the unique intended aspect of being a medium-class "cavalry" mech, it just really really sucks at that job.

Yeah but that's part of the point, they didn't actually try and carve out a part of the meta. Those medium-class "cavalry" mechs have been incredibly rare in the meta with the Ice Ferret. Making them unique and potent I consider part of the whole "carving" a place for a mech.

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

For this particular point, we tend to differ to Battletech Lore when it comes to flavor/ role quirks provided we believe that giving them those said quirks would not complicate balance in other ways. As well as keeping in mind the overall place of the 'Mech against the greater game roster.

You speak of quirks, but your comment up above is referring to agility (ability to twist) as being indicative of the “core brawling role”.

So by differing to lore or overall place or whatever, my Quickdraw 5K (given its excellent agility) is intended as a brawler (with its 6 E hardpoints and single M), much in the same way that a Sparky with the same twist speed and similar load out potential is, but a Thunderbot 5SS with dramatically worse twist speed is what then? Just another laser vomit mech? Why are we (that is to say, you) using agility or for that matter quirks to impose these roles? And as to that, why try and impose such roles on mechs that are frankly bad at the role we (again, you) are imposing upon them when compared to others similar in their weight class or range?

Edited by Bud Crue, 11 September 2018 - 11:13 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 September 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Lore should be a good starting point, but probably one of my biggest grievances with the fact that so many variants get added for each mech and how mechs are chosen to get added is they are never SPECIFICALLY given a role or have a role carved out for them. It never seems like there is an actual attempt to find how a mech would fit into the game especially if that means it goes against lore (and that includes hardpoints). Not like other games that have similar setups (R6 Siege, Overwatch, really any "hero" based shooter).

In other words, mechs that get added rarely offer something "unique" to this game, it's why mechs like the BLanner, Hellspawn, and Vulcan probably floundered in sales or why you simply don't see them.

The challenge of this comes from the core role of the 'Mechlab, which is personal customization. In various Hero or role based shooters, kits are designer driven and locked in from the start specifically so they can fill in very precise niches within the game. Which is not something that we can really design towards because of the deep 'Mechlab.

While we can provide a handful of flavor quirks or attributes that "stack the deck" towards certain builds, at the end of the day, if we provide players to customize their 'Mechs the way they want to, we need to provide at least some semblance that they can customize their 'Mechs in a way that gets them the roles they want to play. Basically, if the option is there to do it, while it may not be the "optimal" way to play a 'Mech, the 'Mechs need to perform at least "well enough" for players to experiment and feel rewarded for experimentation or personal play-style preference. Even if it goes against the core role of the 'Mech from the fiction.

This happens at the high end as well, there are a number of 'Mechs that have "traditional" roles in the fiction much different from their "Meta" roles in the game. The Griffin for instance in the fiction is a well armored Sniper meant to be somewhat mobile to "keep it's distance" from the enemy, but due to the hardpoint system, and the well armored and mobile nature of the base frame, most long term MWO players would probably classify the 'Mech more as a brawler then a sniper, despite it's polar opposite role in the fiction.

The thing is if we lean heavily towards defined roles, we would more then likely keep more to the traditional roles in the fiction, and then we begin to introduce more of what we purposefully moved away from where native 'Mech settings shoehorned builds into ways where if you did deviate in a way that wasn't effective, your in-game performance took a nose dive, which contradicts the core design of giving you all of the options to customize the 'Mech the way you want it to be customized through the 'Mechlab.

We are fine pushing these attributes when we feel that they won't break the core customization aspect of the 'Mechlab, but any change we push can't be at the expense of player performance for building in a different direction or even minor deviating from the meta builds taking a nose dive if you don't adhere to very specific build guidelines. If the game was designed like a typical Hero shooter, Team based game with "kits," or even a Moba like hero design philosophy where the player options are severely limited to play into the designed role of the Avatar, that would be one thing, but as long as the 'Mechlab allows for full customization and player personalization into the role that THEY want the 'Mech to play as, there is thin line to walk between providing appropriate flavor quirks to "nudge" them into the roles the 'Mechs traditionally play into, but still provide enough wiggle room to not stand in the way of players who do want to take their designs in a completely different direction.

[Daurock]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

The challenge of this comes from the core role of the 'Mechlab, which is personal customization. In various Hero or role based shooters, kits are designer driven and locked in from the start specifically so they can fill in very precise niches within the game. Which is not something that we can really design towards because of the deep 'Mechlab.

While we can provide a handful of flavor quirks or attributes that "stack the deck" towards certain builds, at the end of the day, if we provide players to customize their 'Mechs the way they want to, we need to provide at least some semblance that they can customize their 'Mechs in a way that gets them the roles they want to play. Basically, if the option is there to do it, while it may not be the "optimal" way to play a 'Mech, the 'Mechs need to perform at least "well enough" for players to experiment and feel rewarded for experimentation or personal play-style preference. Even if it goes against the core role of the 'Mech from the fiction.

This happens at the high end as well, there are a number of 'Mechs that have "traditional" roles in the fiction much different from their "Meta" roles in the game. The Griffin for instance in the fiction is a well armored Sniper meant to be somewhat mobile to "keep it's distance" from the enemy, but due to the hardpoint system, and the well armored and mobile nature of the base frame, most long term MWO players would probably classify the 'Mech more as a brawler then a sniper, despite it's polar opposite role in the fiction.

The thing is if we lean heavily towards defined roles, we would more then likely keep more to the traditional roles in the fiction, and then we begin to introduce more of what we purposefully moved away from where native 'Mech settings shoehorned builds into ways where if you did deviate in a way that wasn't effective, your in-game performance took a nose dive, which contradicts the core design of giving you all of the options to customize the 'Mech the way you want it to be customized through the 'Mechlab.

We are fine pushing these attributes when we feel that they won't break the core customization aspect of the 'Mechlab, but any change we push can't be at the expense of player performance for building in a different direction or even minor deviating from the meta builds taking a nose dive if you don't adhere to very specific build guidelines. If the game was designed like a typical Hero shooter, Team based game with "kits," or even a Moba like hero design philosophy where the player options are severely limited to play into the designed role of the Avatar, that would be one thing, but as long as the 'Mechlab allows for full customization and player personalization into the role that THEY want the 'Mech to play as, there is thin line to walk between providing appropriate flavor quirks to "nudge" them into the roles the 'Mechs traditionally play into, but still provide enough wiggle room to not stand in the way of players who do want to take their designs in a completely different direction.

I hear where you're coming from, in that we don't want to Pigeon-Hole many/most mechs into specific roles. It probably gets even more sticky when you have multiple mechs competing for a single "role" in the meta, and since there can only be 1 "Meta" mech in each role, everything else gets left in the dust. I agree that it's not a great general plan that everything has a role it gets based around. Better to give people a set of tools, and have the players use what works for them. For most of the mechs that are falling behind, adding more generically useful traits (Like Agility, Armor, or heat perks) are probably the right prescription.

I will note though, that from time to time, it's probably OK to Pigeon-Hole a mech. Take the Awesome 8Q, for example - Despite all the PPC and heat quirks it already has, currently, the mech is.... Bad. Poor engine cap, average agility for the size, poor hardpoint locations, and a profile the size of a barn make it poor at most roles in the game today. Just like most mechs, it could be fixed in a variety of ways. You could go about giving it quirks like Armor, agility, and generic energy quirks, and have it compete with a mech like the battlemaster directly.
However, I think a smarter route to go (At least, in this one example case) would be to give it Massive PPC-Based Quirks, even larger than on live. Yes, it would absolutely Pigeon-Hole it into a PPC-Only mech, and normally adding a massive improvement to a specific weapon can Create an "OP" mech. However, there's a couple things, that come up from time to time, such as this example, that make it OK in my eyes -
1st) The mech has enough other shortcomings that even if it were to have those quirks, it wouldn't Over-Power the mech, even assuming that PPCs on other mechs are generally balanced. That battlemaster, if he chooses to run PPC with his smaller, more generic quirks could still compete, based on superior agility, profile, and hardpoint locations. Other Varieties of the Awesome could compete with higher armor, better agility, or different offensive stats.
2nd) Much like the Atlas, there is a Specific, Lore Based, Role that people want to use with it - In This case, a PPC slinging Wall of Doom. It starts with the build, is famous for the build, and is easy to understand.

Those kinds of exceptions are admittedly pretty rare, (I can probably only think of maybe a half dozen examples that I'd really enjoy seeing) But it is kind of important to not attempt to shut them out entirely. I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional mech get pigeon-holed, assuming that the vast majority of them are pretty open-ended.

Edited by Daurock, 11 September 2018 - 12:19 PM.

[Fluffinator]

justcallme A S H, on 11 September 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

I've been headshot 3 times by HGauss in 3 days when under 300m. Does that translate to a HGauss issue?

??? I have been playing a couple years and not sure I have even been headshot 3 times period. Thinking back I can only remember it ever happening 2 times. How are you getting headshot more times per day than I get per year?

Edited by Fluffinator, 11 September 2018 - 12:20 PM.

[Reno Blade]

Heat changes:
After taking some time to observe the discussion, I would like to comment on the proposed changes.

I am very confused about the results after the PTS sessions.
I guess the result could come from some user concerns that larger mechs should not share the same low limits as smaller mechs (e.g. same very low cap from PTS2.0 or same energy regen in the past Energy Draw PTS) and therefore you went with the much larger capacity pool than what was tested.

Even so, the choice of values are contradiciting the stated goals, given why we even got to this point, because it was one option asked by the players instead of nerfing all clan stuff or using complicated GH/ED mechanics.
The choosen values give much higher dissipation, but the capacity change is not really lowered enough to have an strong enough impact.
Considering that the higher dissipation will counter most of the cap decrease, this looks more like a buff to all builds.

With or without these changes, the larger issue of the power creep remains.
I see the game still being divided into 20% meta/maxed builds and 80% inferior options, where at least half of these should be able to compete if boating was not so strong.

so:
What is your goal/plan/direction for getting more between-weightclass balancing that moves the balance to at least 50% of the builds something useful, where players are not automatically dragging the team down?



Skill Tree specialization:
I would love to take my dusty old Awesome 8T and simulate the Hatamoto Chi (2x ERPPC, 2x SRM6) but sadly the old house is turning and twisting so slowly that it is not fit for brawling (and given the small engine cap.) and considering I could get 4x SRM6 on a medium and get more speed/agility....

The skill tree should give me a chance to sacrifice everything else to make the mech really good at something.
e.g. getting the twisting speed of the Awesome so high that I can dance, but everything else would stay at average.

This is missing in the Skill tree.
Everyone uses operations (outside of dual Gauss without backup weapon) for more heat cap and dissipation.
Then some use weapons and armor/structure and a few even take some agility.

If your mech has very low base stats (e.g. agility on most assaults), any low percentage is not worth it.
Who would choose 20% more twisting speed for a base value that is around 20degree/sec for a result of 24?
Choosing 20% on a 60degree/sec at least give something that can be felt to be a different.

Only if the skill tree would give you the ability to get to much higher levels (but sacrificing most points) then it's an actual option.
Maybe being able to move from 20d/s to 60d/s by wasting 50 skill points instead of going from 20d/s to 24d/s with about 14?

This is true for the whole skill tree, but i can understand that there are limits to how much we/you can change the tree now without great effort.

Maybe double all values and reduce the available skill points by 50% to make a choice more important?

[Tarl Cabot]

Daurock, on 11 September 2018 - 12:10 PM, said:

snip

To be fair, the Atlas is/was PGI poster child, a child that was rarely seen on the battlefield once pass the lower tiers. While was it rarely seen? Other faster assaults eclipsed it by having better hardpoint locations, in a game that does not have melee damage, and especially for humanoid mechs, the inability to raise those arm-mounted weapons to a higher elevation. Thus the Atlas has been primarily slated for the "brawler" setup, except for the few who insist on LRMS /shudders... But lets say that the Atlas was not an oldie but goodie? How well would it have sold in today's environment, even with its current set of quirks on an IS chassis?

Then there is the platform itself. One outstanding part of the game that is not on the same playing field is PGI indifference to the differences in engines between the techs, where the isXL does not have the survivability that the cXL has with the loss of one side torso, carrying over only a partial of the ruleset from a dice game to a FPS with instant convergence. Do not forgot that IS tech also tends to be heavier and bulkier.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 September 2018 - 02:11 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

The challenge of this comes from the core role of the 'Mechlab, which is personal customization. In various Hero or role based shooters, kits are designer driven and locked in from the start specifically so they can fill in very precise niches within the game. Which is not something that we can really design towards because of the deep 'Mechlab.

You HAVE to, there is NO way around pigeon holing to ensure each mech has a place. You either accept that and do something like WoT and Pokemon comp and create tiers, you pull a LoL and bring in certain mechs just to change the meta up rather than actually try to balance, or you accept your fate that your business model is flawed and that it rides purely on nostalgia or to sell things once all the unique mechs are dried up.

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

While we can provide a handful of flavor quirks or attributes that "stack the deck" towards certain builds, at the end of the day, if we provide players to customize their 'Mechs the way they want to, we need to provide at least some semblance that they can customize their 'Mechs in a way that gets them the roles they want to play.

Then you are doomed to fail, full stop. Mechs are ALWAYS going to be slighted towards certain roles, trying to make sure a mech can play all roles aptly, especially in a game with 500 variants, is just an exercise in futility especially with customization as open as it is compared to the more restrictive mechlab that was MW4 (an iteration of Mechwarrior that the original MWO devs basically pretended didn't exist and learned NONE of the lessons FASA seemed to learn between 3/Vengeance/Mercs).

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

Basically, if the option is there to do it, while it may not be the "optimal" way to play a 'Mech, the 'Mechs need to perform at least "well enough" for players to experiment and feel rewarded for experimentation or personal play-style preference. Even if it goes against the core role of the 'Mech from the fiction.

Then you have the wrong focus, the focus shouldn't be on experimenting builds on the same mech, but trying other mechs for different playstyles. Otherwise you end up with the current scenario, where certain chassis' are just better at roles than others.

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

This happens at the high end as well, there are a number of 'Mechs that have "traditional" roles in the fiction much different from their "Meta" roles in the game. The Griffin for instance in the fiction is a well armored Sniper meant to be somewhat mobile to "keep it's distance" from the enemy, but due to the hardpoint system, and the well armored and mobile nature of the base frame, most long term MWO players would probably classify the 'Mech more as a brawler then a sniper, despite it's polar opposite role in the fiction.

Its classified as a brawler because it can mount a bunch of SRMs, and because 100 different mechs can mount 2 PPCs and 5-10 can do that better. This is why having as open of a mechlab and not pigeon-holing mechs has come back to bite you and its why the Stalker was better than the Awesome at everything it could do until quirks came around.

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

The thing is if we lean heavily towards defined roles, we would more then likely keep more to the traditional roles in the fiction

The problem with fiction roles, is that many mechs were designed either as crappy versions of other mechs, better versions of older mechs, overlapping roles, or roles that just don't make sense in context of an FPS. I get the idea of trying to maintain the spirit of a design, but if the spirit of the design is to be the 50 different mech that carries LRMs and MLs I think its time to re-imagine that mech.

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

We are fine pushing these attributes when we feel that they won't break the core customization aspect of the 'Mechlab, but any change we push can't be at the expense of player performance for building in a different direction or even minor deviating from the meta builds taking a nose dive if you don't adhere to very specific build guidelines. If the game was designed like a typical Hero shooter, Team based game with "kits," or even a Moba like hero design philosophy where the player options are severely limited to play into the designed role of the Avatar, that would be one thing, but as long as the 'Mechlab allows for full customization and player personalization into the role that THEY want the 'Mech to play as, there is thin line to walk between providing appropriate flavor quirks to "nudge" them into the roles the 'Mechs traditionally play into, but still provide enough wiggle room to not stand in the way of players who do want to take their designs in a completely different direction.

First, I'm not sure where you are coming from with this idea of "kits" I assume its from LoL, which I'm not talking about. Hell we could bring up TF2 which was sort of a precursor to games like Overwatch and R6 Siege more than LoL was. Maybe Overwatch tried to bridge the idea of class based shooters and the personality of MOBAs, but I don't really care. That said, yes, I am suggestion more limited customization than the almost free range we have currently because free customization does not mean depth. Experimentation still happens at a higher level, it just isn't the floundering around like a majority of these players choosing between multiple bad choices and not actually learning from it (ie there is a difference between experimentation to learn the rules of the game and experimentation around the depth of the meta).

For example, take Dead Space or Halo where one of the best weapons in the game is the first one you get. When you started playing the game you probably didn't realize that but through playing the game you learn that. That's experimentation to learn the rules of the game, you have context as to why that weapon is better than the rest (but you may not have the ability to articulate that reason), but you still learned. In this scenario, once you've learned that, there is no real depth to the meta. You basically stop experimenting until a new scenario comes around that forces you to adapt. This is the problem with focusing way too much only early on experimentation (which in open customization there is a lot of) and not enough on the upper end experimentation, the end-game has a different feel and is a lot less engaging.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 September 2018 - 02:50 PM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

justcallme A S H, on 11 September 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

What HGauss issue?

Don't get within 350m of the slow moving Dual HGauss mech without support. That does require use of the map and some basic awareness. What Tier 1 players should be doing.

I've been headshot 3 times by HGauss in 3 days when under 300m. Does that translate to a HGauss issue? Absolutely not.

You and i both know its not only effective within 350 meters, having a max range of 900, before quirks or skills of any sort. Despite the high drop off rate, the weapon still does considerable damage at 600, and even more with range nodes or range quirks.
Now, this is fine. Not disputing that, its a gauss rifle.
However, the heavy gausses disadvantage, its recoil, does not effect a dual hvy gauss loadout, only weapons paired with it, which are minor part of the loadout at best, and its extremely easy to work around for anyone with even an average skill level.
Its also not limited to large slow mechs, dual hvy gauss thanatos being an example.

The point in this update, is to slightly curb the high alpha peek and poke, not in such a way that its not effective,because they cant remove playstyle options, but in such a way that other builds can be used...
Now this october patch doesn't do it as effectively as the other PTS sessions did, but regardless.
Dual heavy gauss is going to see more use with this update, and its already seeing overuse in QP and FP.

Just like the clan vomit meta is seeing overuse now.

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

We are fine pushing these attributes when we feel that they won't break the core customization aspect of the 'Mechlab, but any change we push can't be at the expense of player performance for building in a different direction or even minor deviating from the meta builds taking a nose dive if you don't adhere to very specific build guidelines. If the game was designed like a typical Hero shooter, Team based game with "kits," or even a Moba like hero design philosophy where the player options are severely limited to play into the designed role of the Avatar, that would be one thing, but as long as the 'Mechlab allows for full customization and player personalization into the role that THEY want the 'Mech to play as, there is thin line to walk between providing appropriate flavor quirks to "nudge" them into the roles the 'Mechs traditionally play into, but still provide enough wiggle room to not stand in the way of players who do want to take their designs in a completely different direction.

But you guys are the ones who enable and in fact make the "meta" possible.

If we as players decide to "play the meta" that is playing a variant with a selection of weapons that maximizes performance in the way you have put forth. It is you and your changes to quirks, agility, weapons performance that defines the meta and what is a permissible deviation from it while still maintaining that performance. Historically if the meta becomes too dominant you don't adjust it by providing "flavor quirks" to "nudge" players in any particular direction, rather you destroy it. From the poptart meta of yore to the Gauss/PPC "meta" that you felt necessary to obliterate by ghost heat, THAT is how PGI has "nudged" game play. By not only "standing in the way" of the direction players want to play but simply removing the direction almost entirely.

Tell me, what is this vast selection of customization that allows a Spider 5V to perform in a role other than that which you have forced upon it by removing its old range quirks and giving it the latest singular 80% countdown quirk? You pushed a change that most certainly dictates not only what the "meta" for that variant is but also that even minor deviation from that will impose a "nose dive" on player performance if it isn't played the way you have now dictated.

But that isn't just true of the POS 5V, it's true of every build capable of running laser vomit or gauss vomit on high hard point variants just as much as jump sniping was dictated for the Night Gyrs. Those builds are/were dictated by you and the nerfs you've made to weapons and to quirks and to game play mechanics since stood in the way of player choice way, way, WAY more than any "pigeon hole" of role defining quirks.

You define the meta and you define what is an acceptable deviation from it. Better players can get away with greater deviations but the range of permissible deviation is still dictated by you. Not us. You.

Remember Small pulse laser boats? Yeah. Me too. Player choice made them a thing of the past? I think not. Pretty sure you took that from the game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bud Crue, on 11 September 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

Tell me, what is this vast selection of customization that allows a Spider 5V to perform in a role other than that which you have forced upon it by removing its old range quirks and giving it the latest singular 80% countdown quirk?

Or by hardpoint limitation.....

[Khobai]

Why do ISDHS have the same dissipation/capacity as CDHS when ISDHS cost more crit slots?

Thats one of the fundamental game imbalances and you still havent fixed it

CDHS are fine at 0.22 dissipation and 0.5 capacity, whatever...

But ISDHS should be more like 0.26 dissipation and 0.6 capacity (they should be around 20% better)

ISDHS taking up 3 crit slots instead of 2 is HUGE because it significantly reduces the total number of ISDHS an IS mech can equip. Especially when other IS equipment also takes up more crit slots than clan equipment which even further reduces the number of crit slots available for ISDHS.

ISDHS need to operate at a higher base level than CDHS. Because they cost more to equip. And when something costs more it needs to be better than something that costs less.

Edited by Khobai, 11 September 2018 - 04:01 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

The thing is if we lean heavily towards defined roles, we would more then likely keep more to the traditional roles in the fiction, and then we begin to introduce more of what we purposefully moved away from where native 'Mech settings shoehorned builds into ways where if you did deviate in a way that wasn't effective, your in-game performance took a nose dive, which contradicts the core design of giving you all of the options to customize the 'Mech the way you want it to be customized through the 'Mechlab.

Emphasis mine, because that is an extremely fundamental topic and I think you and PGI are missing the forest for the trees on it.

For any given 'Mech there are only a few builds, often only one, that are good and an innumerable combination of builds that are bad. It doesn't matter how you do or do not apply quirks to that 'Mech, this is forever true; all the quirks do is change which builds are good and which ones are bad on it. Performance taking a nose-dive when you deviate from the good builds will always occur. As such, there isn't any more or less pigeonholing going on when you apply quirks one way or the other.

So, you can either quirk a 'Mech in ways which complement its natural attributes to make it good in its emergent role, or you can quirk it in ways which emphasize its lore role in spite of its emergent traits. It's harder to do the latter, because it often requires much larger quirks to work and those quirks often still synergize with the emergent traits, making those builds still stronger.

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 September 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

Or by hardpoint limitation.....

Yes. Which a year ago Russ indicated might be something that PGI would be willing to "revisit". That failure remains on PGI, and not some pretense of player choice, or nudging by quirks, or what have you.

[SilentScreamer]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

While we can provide a handful of flavor quirks or attributes that "stack the deck" towards certain builds, at the end of the day, if we provide players to customize their 'Mechs the way they want to, we need to provide at least some semblance that they can customize their 'Mechs in a way that gets them the roles they want to play. Basically, if the option is there to do it, while it may not be the "optimal" way to play a 'Mech, the 'Mechs need to perform at least "well enough" for players to experiment and feel rewarded for experimentation or personal play-style preference. Even if it goes against the core role of the 'Mech from the fiction.

This happens at the high end as well, there are a number of 'Mechs that have "traditional" roles in the fiction much different from their "Meta" roles in the game. The Griffin for instance in the fiction is a well armored Sniper meant to be somewhat mobile to "keep it's distance" from the enemy, but due to the hardpoint system, and the well armored and mobile nature of the base frame, most long term MWO players would probably classify the 'Mech more as a brawler then a sniper, despite it's polar opposite role in the fiction.

Hard choices when turning a turn-based table-top game into a real-time shooter/simulator. Utimately PGI has still controlled which mechs are most viable due to 1) hardpoint inflation 2) hardpoint location 3) mech geometry:

1) in the case of the Griffin, while it is true players decided an SRM brawler is more effective use of the mech, the build only became possible because PGI designed the mech with two extra missile points located high on the mechs torso. If the Griffin 2N had been released with only 2 missile hardpoints the 4xSRM6 build would not even be possible.

2) Weapon location is not nearly as important in TT as only leg mounted weapons cannot shoot over hill. Compare the Jager-S with Cataphract 4X. Even avid tabletop players cringe at default Jagermech builds aside from double gauss refit. BUT the Jager is fortunate to have high arm hardpoints making it ideal for shooting over hills/cover in MWO. The Cataphract 4X which also has multiple ballistic points in the arms, but the arms sit so low it can not fire over a hill unless almost fully up the incline.

3) The art team has done a great job, but so many iconic shapes make for really easy targets. Take the Timberwolf/Madcat missile bays. Most players remove all missiles from the mech to avoid the extra-large side torso hitboxes created by the launchers. So players must choose between tradition and extra survivability. Additionally, mechs with good torso hardpoints can be crippled by horrible line-of-sight from a low cockpit placement such as the Archer.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 13 September 2018 - 09:32 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 September 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

Emphasis mine, because that is an extremely fundamental topic and I think you and PGI are missing the forest for the trees on it.

......

So, you can either quirk a 'Mech in ways which complement its natural attributes to make it good in its emergent role, or you can quirk it in ways which emphasize its lore role in spite of its emergent traits. It's harder to do the latter, because it often requires much larger quirks to work and those quirks often still synergize with the emergent traits, making those builds still stronger.

Just playing devil's advocate but who gets to decide which natural attributes? Example, since IS mechs are the most quirked, a Battlemaster, variants that have not just energy hardpoints but also missile and ballistic hardpoints (chuckles). And then there is the need to take into consideration humanoid mechs vs chicken walkers when taking those in since mechs, especially humanoid mechs that do not have the ability to elevate their arm-mounted weapons from its crotch scratching location. Take the Warhammer, many do not utilize the hardpoints in the arms.

Some aspects Chris does not have any real control over but some he can heavily influence, ie level the playing field with regards when engines are damaged, especially isXL and cXL/LFE, one of the baser aspects of the game, never mind what it will mean IF PGI introduces IS Omni mechs.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 September 2018 - 05:08 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarl Cabot, on 11 September 2018 - 05:02 PM, said:

Just playing devil's advocate but who gets to decide which natural attributes? Example, since IS mechs are the most quirked, a Battlemaster, variants that have not just energy hardpoints but also missile and ballistic hardpoints (chuckles). And then there is the need to take into consideration humanoid mechs vs chicken walkers when taking those in since mechs, especially humanoid mechs that do not have the ability to elevate their arm-mounted weapons from its crotch scratching location.

Some aspects Chris does not have any real control over but some he can heavily influence, ie level the playing field with regards when engines are damaged, especially isXL and cXL/LFE, one of the baser aspects of the game, never mind what it will mean IF PGI introduces IS Omni mechs.

The 'Mech decides it. Which hardpoints have the largest quantity in the best places? Is the 'Mech wide and shallow or is it narrow and deep? Is it squat or is it tall? If it peaks, how much does it have to expose to bare those weapons? What range can it mount effective firepower at given its weight? All of those questions are self-answering for any 'Mech.

The Battlemasters 1G and 3M naturally get quirks (or should get quirks...3M weeps) for energy weapons because those are the most numerous in all of the best spots on the 'Mech. It's wide, but it can peak well and thus doesn't get much in the way of durability; the durability it does have is basically free tonnage to further enhance the performance of its energy weapons. But since it peaks so well, it doesn't really need durability in the torsos anyway.

That said, if you've got a handful of variants and all of them are similar, you have some room to inject some of your own personality on it. Black Knights, for example, are all energy. If one of the 9xE variants had MPL quirks and agility, it could get brawly. Give another one PPC quirks so it can run those instead of pure laser vomit.

[Khobai]

PGI should just get rid of mech-based weapon quirks. Because the way weapon quirks are implemented now just encourages boating one type of weapon.

They should go with a signature hardpoint system instead. So instead of quirks being attached to the mech theyre attached to the hardpoints themselves.

Then they can control exactly how many weapons on each mech get quirked and it keeps boating in check better. They can also give lower mounted hardpoints bigger quirks. So higher mounted hardpoints wouldnt have as overbearing of an advantage as they currently do.

Edited by Khobai, 11 September 2018 - 07:39 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The fundamental systems of the game encourage boating one type of weapon, it has nothing to do with the quirks.

Same thing I said to Chris on the previous page applies here. Even with a favored hardpoint type of system, I'm still going to bring the weapons that synergize the best with each other.

[Khobai]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 September 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

The fundamental systems of the game encourage boating one type of weapon, it has nothing to do with the quirks.

obviously.

you have entirely missed the point as usual. the point is that boating should not be encouraged further.

there is already enough of a reason to boat weapons without quirks and the skill system encouraging it even more. its not necessary.

instead the quirks and skill system should focus on rewarding diversified loadouts to help counteract the advantage that boating already has, instead of reinforcing boating as the only way of playing the game.

Edited by Khobai, 11 September 2018 - 07:42 PM.