963 replies to this topic

[Little Details]

DarthRevis, on 17 October 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

NONE OF YOUR BUILDS WILL BE ANYMORE SUB-OPTIMAL THEN THEY ALREADY ARE, you will just get some builds that can go against the 5 big dogs currently in the game. I dont see why this is so hard to comprehend....Again. Please post a build that will be SUB-OPTIMAL once the quirks come out that isnt ALREADY sub-optimal in comparison to other mechs.

Sigh, it's not worth it to argue against such an easy point. It will make no difference in the end besides wasting my time. However, it behoves me to write something on this so...

No one is arguing the fact that IS needs quirks to help compete. True, if we were all perfect economics-robots, no one would run anything besides jenner/fs/grif/shd/scr/3D/timber/victor/dire. That is not the case, though. For a ton of reasons people will always pick the other mechs to play. By providing quirks, however, MORE people will play those other mechs which is what we ALL want (casual players, tryhards, comp players, & PGI). All of that is just fine with me.

The true problem is with weapon-specific quirks, PGI is purposefully deciding how a mech should be played and how it should be built. Yes, it is true in your 3rd grade logic that current mechs won't be any more suboptimal, but with "PGI-Approved Loadouts", 1 particular loadout will be greatly and artificially enhanced. Any non-approved loadouts now won't just compete against the 'top 5' as you put it, but the top 5 plus closer-to-the-top XX number of artificially enhanced mechs. This means that your preferred playstyle/loadout will perform EVEN WORSE because the other artificially inflated battle value mechs will make it truly impossible to compete with them because now it's not 4 tryhard builds on the other team, but 8 or 9. The 'all ships are rising' theory only works if it's ALL SHIPS, not hand-picked ones through the hand of god.

Picking a non-PGI-Approved Loadout only provides for the faintest whisper of 'choice' in mech loadout design. It's truly no choice at all except dying quicker and being even more of a drag on your team if you go your own way in design.

Specific examples? Too many to list!
- Standard Jester builds are 2ppc/4ml, 2ll/4ml, or 2erll/4ml. I wouldn't say any of these are truly better than the other - it depends on how you want to play it. AND THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF MECH LOADOUT DESIGN. Instead of the quirk being 'heavy lasers' (which would include ppc/ll/erll equally but not ml's), their hand of god approach says, nope, only quirk is for LL (Large Laser Range +15%, Large Laser Heat Gen -15%)
You can run through the horrible maths yourself to see picking ppc or erll would be a dumb thing to do. Especially depending on how the modules stack in determining the total gain to the overall stats.

Atlas AS7-D - Tier 3 Brawler, Structure Strength (RT&LT) +11, AC/20 Velocity +15%, AC/20 Cooldown +15%, SRM/6 Range +15%
Oh, so they want you to build it exactly like a ddc. I'm sorry, I don't want every atlas to be ll/ml + ac20 + srms. God knows how they're going to change those other atlas variants around so it's hard to determine the exact change to the overall 'scheme' of atlas builds. My ddc is the above, but my D variant (because I'm not like Russ who builds all his Dragons the same) is 2uac5, 2ll, lrm35, tag, ams. Do I like my particular D variant compared to the other 3 atlas variants in my stable, probably not, but it's not THAT much worse than the others when I wouldn't take it if I want to play something 'different'.

- Highlander 733C - Tier 2 Brawler, Structure Strength (LL&RL) +10, AC/20 Cooldown +10%
So, if you want a quirk, they're making you play to the 733C's uniqueness in being the only (?-hard for me to remember) hgn that can mount an ac20. Yea, way to force us to the stock weapon loadout. While this isn't 'horrible' as far as weapon quirks go, it's only because it's already Tier 2 so PGI is not allowing themselves to f with it too much like the T3/T4/T5's. You know they gave this quirk just so the meta hgn build wouldn't be as likely to come back to this variant (depending on what they do with jumpjets, but I doubt it with Victors having neg quirks removed).

Dragon 1N - Tier 5 Support, Additional Structure CT +24, Additional Structure RA +6, AC/5 Cooldown +50% 25x2, ER-LL Cooldown +25%, ER-LL Duration -25%, Energy Weapon Range +16%
They're making this a distance/stand-off mech. I run my 1N as a brawler. Doesn't mean either is better or worse, it's just that now I have no choice in the matter. Why would I want to take ac5's/ml/streaks in an inferior mech when the quirks make this a pretty strong stand off mech (so the nose is less of an issue further away...)?

Hunchback 4SP - Tier 4 Brawler. Additional Armor (RT&LT) +9, Additional Structure (RT&LT) +12, SRM/6 Cooldown +20%, SRM/6 Range +20%, Medium Laser Duration -20%, Medium Laser Heat Gen -20%
..f it, I'm done with this. I did enough.

The point is they are forcing a playstyle and loadout on a mech that makes it leaps and bounds better than other loadouts in their attempt to make the variant more viable.

One again, 'more viable' is not the issue, it's the "PGI-approved loadouts" only that's the problem.

This could be VERY easily changed to make it more generic while still allowing for a 'push' to certain weapon systems that are not so arbitrary. I think the credit for this idea is from SubjectSeven on mechspecs.com is where I first read it, but I can't recall - basically the gist is create groups of weapons - small/medium lasers are in 'light energy', ll/erll/ppc are 'heavy energy'. Similar thing with ac's and lrms. This would allow the different hardpoints for variants to stay reasonably close to Lore to keep those people happy and have a REASON to run a particular variant with a particular loadout design choice with the associated buffs, but allow the min/max crowd to decide if they want their 3 ballistic 5N to be 3mgs (dumb), 3ac2s, or 2 ac5's if given a 'light ac' quirk. You can increase the viability of a mech, while still making a particular variant have purpose, WITHOUT completely dictating what to run 'or else'.

Edited by LT Satisfactory, 17 October 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Not necessarily. With the medium Laser, a lot of damage potential is lost from range and missed shots/partial shots from the beam duration. Look on your stats page.; the damage total to hit total doesn't align 100%. Shorter beam duration increases damage way more than faster fire rate on lasers; this is why I tend to cram SPL in my mechs (Hello Raven. Jenner. Usually the Locust) The Locust is also getting blanket range buffs as well, if I recall. This increases effective range, which, if you recall, means less dropped off damage at longer ranges.

These seemingly small changes have a huge impact in magnifying overall damage. This is why when I pilot my 3L with 3 SPL and 2 SRM4 my damage hits ~800 more often than not. The sorter beam duration on the SPL gives me much more focused hits with less wasted damage. Now imagine if I could hit you from another 200m back.

LCT-1E
I have had fun with this guy, in some situations

[Mothykins]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

LCT-1E
I have had fun with this guy, in some situations

500 Damage bug. Great 'Mech, so long as they don't shoot you. Short range is the killer.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

500 Damage bug. Great 'Mech, so long as they don't shoot you. Short range is the killer.

That is indeed the trick.

Lots of patience, and praying you don't come around the wrong corner.

[Little Details]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Some players enjoy taking a sub-optimal chassis and making it into the best-performing 'Mech they can, pushing its performance as high as is possible and experimenting with it to see what sort of surprises they can find to make it sit up and dance.

The new quirks system completely and entirely eliminates that sort of experimentation - the highest possible performance in any given chassis is blind-stupid obvious, and nothing else the 'Mech does will ever even remotely compare to what it can do by following the one single build outlined by its given quirks.

Some of us are protesting the narrow focus of the quirks because we like playing in the 'Mechlab/Smurfy as much as we do on the field and Piranha is telling us to stop doing that.

Perfectly said. Min/Maxing isn't just about running T1 tryhard builds, it's doing the best you can with what is initially given you in the design. Now, what's 'given you' is a pre-built mech that the only thing that matters is the engine/ammo/dhs triangle to it since god knows there is no other weapons you can choose.

[CheeseyPeas]

So what are people to do with the hero mech's they payed real money for ?, be forced to die quicker against all the buffed IS mechs while using their chosen build (and earn less cbills) or run a build they don't enjoy to get the cbill bonus.

[Alek Ituin]

My god, people just aren't getting it.

PGI isn't arbitrarily deciding what builds are getting quirks. BT lore and canon loadouts for specific Mech variants are getting quirks, reinforcing the differences between chassis and between variants of the same chassis. If you don't like not being able to use one Mech for everything, too bad. That's not how BT/MW works.

You want an AC/20 on a Hunchie in real BT? You get a 4G, cause that 4H aint gonna fit an AC/20. Same goes for every Mech. You're lucky they don't just lock stock loadouts and only let you screw with HS type.


Quirks are reinforcing traditional BT canon loadouts, bringing this game closer to its roots, closer to what it was originally supposed to be - A BattleTech Game. You don't like it, go play another game and stop trying to ruin a solid (and beloved) franchise.

[Tezcatli]

If you're already playing builds that aren't "optimal" because you enjoy playing them. Then I don't see why you can't continue to do so. Instead of people saying that a particular variant is bad and you should feel bad for using it. Instead they'll ask why you didn't mount the quirk bonus weapon. At which point you're just doing what we've already been doing. BUT you still enjoy some of the other quirk bonuses. People can still get creative if they feel it so.

People are treating this like "Well I guess I have to run an AC20 because Russ has a gun to my Grandmother's head." That's not really the case. If you like building a weird way and thinking you're a badass. Continue to do so. Because you're more likely delusional anyway and this shouldn't make a lick of difference to you.

In a less rude phrasing, you'll not only be doing as good as you were before quirks, you'll do even better with the other general bonus quirks.

[Little Details]

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

My god, people just aren't getting it.

PGI isn't arbitrarily deciding what builds are getting quirks. BT lore and canon loadouts for specific Mech variants are getting quirks, reinforcing the differences between chassis and between variants of the same chassis. If you don't like not being able to use one Mech for everything, too bad. That's not how BT/MW works.

Oh, so Victors in lore run 2ac5 2ppcs? Multiple mediums could EVER take on an assault in lore? Lore doesn't work in a fps. Get over it. You can still make quirks 'lore-ish' without completely tying the hands of people that design mechs. I guess the YLW in lore shouldn't exist either since no one is allowed to change mech variants loadouts...

Edited by LT Satisfactory, 17 October 2014 - 05:34 PM.

[Impyrium]

I love it how the OP assumes the community is with him on a great crusade.

This patch will not make 'Mech builds weaker. It will simply give bonuses to the way 'Mechs are supposed to be run. And even then, it still offers a large swath of customization because the quirks do not in any way force a very particular set up. Hell, you can still take advantage of the Hunchback's RT and laser buffs even if you don't use the AC20.

If this means that 'Mechs are better in their stock, or close to stock, set up, then it's FAR MORE BattleTech and MechWarrior than any previous game has managed to be. People forget that full customisation is actually quite wrong and anti-lore, as well as leading to the so called 'Meta' where only a certain few builds are competitive because certain 'Mechs just excel at the more effective weapons more.

LT Satisfactory, on 17 October 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

Oh, so Victors in lore run 2ac5 2ppcs? Multiple mediums could EVER take on an assault in lore? Lore doesn't work in a fps. Get over it. You can still make quirks 'lore-ish' without completely tying the hands of people that design mechs. I guess the YLW in lore shouldn't exist either since no one is allowed to change mech variants loadouts...

Wrong. Lore does make this game. If it wasn't for the lore, then not only would this be written off as a generic 'Mech shooter, but it'd loose half its playerbase with the flick of a finger.

The closer to lore, the better this game is. If you don't like it, there's always Hawken for you.

[CheeseyPeas]

I love how all the "lore" guys tell everyone to go play Hawken, seems they are the ones who play it considering they keep bringing it up.

[Mothykins]

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

My god, people just aren't getting it.

PGI isn't arbitrarily deciding what builds are getting quirks. BT lore and canon loadouts for specific Mech variants are getting quirks, reinforcing the differences between chassis and between variants of the same chassis. If you don't like not being able to use one Mech for everything, too bad. That's not how BT/MW works.

You want an AC/20 on a Hunchie in real BT? You get a 4G, cause that 4H aint gonna fit an AC/20. Same goes for every Mech. You're lucky they don't just lock stock loadouts and only let you screw with HS type.


Quirks are reinforcing traditional BT canon loadouts, bringing this game closer to its roots, closer to what it was originally supposed to be - A BattleTech Game. You don't like it, go play another game and stop trying to ruin a solid (and beloved) franchise.

Untrue.

The Cent with the SRM buff and the ERLL Locust 1V buff fly in the face of that statement.

[Alek Ituin]

LT Satisfactory, on 17 October 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

Oh, so Victors in lore run 2ac5 2ppcs? Multiple mediums could EVER take on an assault in lore? Lore doesn't work in a fps. Get over it. You can still make quirks 'lore-ish' without completely tying the hands of people that design mechs. I guess the YLW in lore shouldn't exist either since no one is allowed to change mech variants loadouts...

Lore works, these quirks are "lore-ish", incredibly so. Mediums could take an Assault if you ganged up on it.

You just hate to lose the ability to run one variant of one chassis and do the work of 5 other chassis and their variants. This is a BattleTech game, so logically, it should follow BattleTech as closely as possible. YLW and the like are unique for a reason, there aren't entire battalions of these custom builds. It takes YEARS to change even the basics of a weapon loadout in BT lore.

Don't like that MWO is going closer to its BT roots? GO PLAY HAWKEN AND GTFO. @Action Mac, I do play HAWKEN actually, it's a fun arcade shooter with a fast pace. BT/MW should not be HAWKEN however.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 17 October 2014 - 05:43 PM.

[Little Details]

AUSwarrior24, on 17 October 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

Wrong. Lore does make this game. If it wasn't for the lore, then not only would this be written off as a generic 'Mech shooter, but it'd loose half its playerbase with the flick of a finger.

'Lore' isn't just locking down weapon loadouts. It's the styling of the mech, the houses, is vs clans, etc.. You, sir, are the one providing a narrow focus on defining what lore is, not I. I agree that this game would have died 2 years ago if BT wasn't tied to it. But BT isn't just locked loadouts in locked down mechs.

Edited by LT Satisfactory, 17 October 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[1453 R]

AUSwarrior24, on 17 October 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

Wrong. Lore does make this game. If it wasn't for the lore, then not only would this be written off as a generic 'Mech shooter, but it'd loose half its playerbase with the flick of a finger.

The closer to lore, the better this game is. If you don't like it, there's always Hawken for you.

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Don't like that MWO is going closer to its BT roots? GO PLAY HAWKEN AND GTFO. @Action Mac, I do play HAWKEN actually, it's a fun arcade shooter with a fast pace. BT/MW should not be HAWKEN however.

Hey.

Hey, buddy.

Hey hey, Auswarrior [EDIT] and Alek Ituin.

Some of us have been playing MechWarrior games for as long as they've existed, without a single day spent on the tabletop game. Customization and personalization of our machines has always been a fundamental building block of the MECHWARRIOR franchise, and us old MECHWARRIOR players have put just as much time and dollars into this game as TT diehards have.

So maybe, just once in a while, KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE HAWKEN CRAP. I've had it up to here with TT purists saying "Anyone who doesn't want to play the game bone stock as a 110% faithful adaptation of the TT ruleset should just go play Hawken already!"

Maybe I want to play MechWarrior instead, eh? And in every MechWarrior game I've ever played, every game in one of my most beloved franchises, I had this thing called the 'MechLab, that let me modify my 'Mech as I saw fit.

Edited by 1453 R, 17 October 2014 - 05:44 PM.

[Triordinant]

Not sure what was discussed over the two dozen pages I'm not going to read, but here's my take: anything that discourages 6 PPC Stalkers, Gaussapults, 6 UAC 5 Whales, Boomjagers, triple Gauss anything and Direstars is a good thing.

[Alek Ituin]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Hey.

Hey, buddy.

Hey hey, Auswarrior [EDIT] and Alek Ituin.

Some of us have been playing MechWarrior games for as long as they've existed, without a single day spent on the tabletop game. Customization and personalization of our machines has always been a fundamental building block of the MECHWARRIOR franchise, and us old MECHWARRIOR players have put just as much time and dollars into this game as TT diehards have.

So maybe, just once in a while, KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE HAWKEN CRAP. I've had it up to here with TT purists saying "Anyone who doesn't want to play the game bone stock as a 110% faithful adaptation of the TT ruleset should just go play Hawken already!"

Maybe I want to play MechWarrior instead, eh? And in every MechWarrior game I've ever played, every game in one of my most beloved franchises, I had this thing called the 'MechLab, that let me modify my 'Mech as I saw fit.

And, in every Mechwarrior game, they only gave you one chassis. They didn't give you variants.

You got a Raven, or a Victor, or a Hunchback. You didn't get a HBK-4G, or VTR-9B, or RVN-4L.


Don't like variant roles? Don't have variants. Go petition PGI to remove all variants, repay everybody who bought the variants being removed (C-Bills or MC), make every IS hardpoint a sized weapon-specific hardpoint (Clans are sized Omni). Now you have MW4:O. Go on, have fun playing the exact same game you've played since MW2. God forbid somebody tries something different in a MW game, like bringing them closer to BT from whence they came.

[Little Details]

Triordinant, on 17 October 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

Not sure what was discussed over the two dozen pages I'm not going to read, but here's my take: anything that discourages 6 PPC Stalkers, Gaussapults, 6 UAC 5 Whales, Boomjagers, triple Gauss anything and Direstars is a good thing.

99% of people agree with you. That's not what the 24 previous pages has been about

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Hey.

Hey, buddy.

Hey hey, Auswarrior [EDIT] and Alek Ituin.

Some of us have been playing MechWarrior games for as long as they've existed, without a single day spent on the tabletop game. Customization and personalization of our machines has always been a fundamental building block of the MECHWARRIOR franchise, and us old MECHWARRIOR players have put just as much time and dollars into this game as TT diehards have.

So maybe, just once in a while, KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE HAWKEN CRAP. I've had it up to here with TT purists saying "Anyone who doesn't want to play the game bone stock as a 110% faithful adaptation of the TT ruleset should just go play Hawken already!"

Maybe I want to play MechWarrior instead, eh? And in every MechWarrior game I've ever played, every game in one of my most beloved franchises, I had this thing called the 'MechLab, that let me modify my 'Mech as I saw fit.

While I get where you are coming from, you know that argument goes both ways? Maybe us TT guys are "UP TO HERE" with MW titles that poorly translate the feel of TT, so when we finally had one advertised "as close to TT as possible", we'd IDK, actually like to see it?

Since you got 4 other iterations not counting console games with unlimited customization and stuff?

Just to play devil's advocate here. Since there are as many people on the forums harping the "core rule forget, screw TT, IDC about fluff/lore" crap as TT guys saying if you don't like the Btech IP, go play something else.

Just food for thought in this emotionally overcharged rant thread.

[CheeseyPeas]

It's a shame a happy medium can't be found tbh I'm a Mechwarrior fan but I can understand the views of the Battletech fans too. PGI giving a smaller secondary buff to the generic main weapon of a Mech (not stacking with the specific weapon buff) would make things easier to swallow on both sides. This would encourage stock builds but not give people who like a little more customisation the feeling their getting left out.