963 replies to this topic

[Alek Ituin]

LT Satisfactory, on 17 October 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

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

Yeah, the last 24 pages were people like you bi*ching about a perfectly valid method of steering people away from meta builds.

Do you know what the alternatives were? Sized hardpoints. You think Quirks kill customization? HAH, try again.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 17 October 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[1453 R]

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

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.

I don't really care that MWO's trying this quirk system. I could, and do, wish they'd executed it differently, but I've had some proper discussion on that with other folks in this thread and am willing to keep doing so. Believe it or not, I'm willing to talk to the TT purists who aren't being dinks and see what we can do.

What I want, and what you need to pay attention to here Alek, is for the rest of the TT purists (that would be you, Aus, and a number of other folks) to stop being so goddamned snobbish and scornful of everyone else. Whatever the reasons, we're all here, playing MECHWARRIOR, and telling anyone who doesn't want to sit around the table with you and throw dice to "go play Hawken and GTFO!" is both insulting as hell and harmful to the very game you're trying to prop up.

I don't bloody WANT to play Hawken, I WANT TO PLAY MECHWARRIOR. If I had any desire whatsoever to play Hawken, I'd already be doing so. Stop telling me to abandon MWO because you're irritated over the entire game NOT being Stock Mech Monday.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

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.

I lulz'd at "FOR BALANCE, CORERULE IGNORE" as much as the next guy, Bishop. Unlike most of the other non-TT players in this game - all seven of us, according to most of the TT guys - I fully understand that the tabletop canon is the wellspring from which the MechWarrior franchise flows and that there's a lot to be said for keeping it in mind and doing what you can to prop it up.

I'm not saying "Stop wanting to hew closer to TT canon", I'm saying "Stop f***ing telling me to play Hawken any time I dare to do anything but fall on me knees and worship-slobber over the nearest TT sourcebook."

[Little Details]

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Yeah, the last 24 pages were people like you bi*ching about a perfectly valid method of steering people away from meta builds.

Do you know what the alternatives were? Sized hardpoints. You think Quirks kill customization? HAH, try again.

Ugh. I can't take any more. NO ONE HERE IS PROMOTING META BUILDS. There is a big difference in some of us saying we want some customization options, that can still be lore-ish, without completely having forced a single 'best' build per variant on us. To use your own point against you, it's been proven these quirks aren't completely stock BT loadout based in the first place (cent and locust from the previous page). You should be screaming about that from your BT-fueled veil.

Hardpoints would have allowed for more choices in quirks if they made them generic (if you can fit a weapon in a hardpoint, it gets X quirk) than what we have now so...

I'll say one more time, I like and understand the value of quirks. I have zero issue with promoting a swing to a more lore-based quirk system per variant. That doesn't mean we should have weapon customization options locked down completely though (you will never win that we still have 'choice' in the loadout. It's patently absurd to take that position). Much like every PGI change, they swing TOO MUCH in their buff/nerf/change of play cycles and that pisses people off.

Edited by LT Satisfactory, 17 October 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

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.

AMEN!!!!!

[Mothykins]

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

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.

Ehem.

Firstly, Yes, this is a Battletech related game. But table top cannot translate perfectly into a well thought out FPS or simulator system, for starters. Armour, damage and firing speed all need to be modified. Can you imagine if we made all weapons do exactly the damage they did in table top at exactly the speed? Man, totally digging my fire rate of ten seconds sir. I sure do like that plan sir.

Not saying it's perfect, but a game played with figures on a table with dice does not translate well into an FPS. Changes need to be made. (Also, PGI, Please somehow make there be something to introduce lore into the game? Something to give more depth? Please? not related, but a gripe for sure)

Secondly, This is a Mechwarrior Game; it follows customization rules that have been around for a very long time and draws in a rather large crowd of folk who have never even heard of the table top game. I was raised on MW2 (WHICH HAD VARIANTS, BY THE WAY. Thanks for actually, you know, playing the games and knowing things like this. Mw4 Did not have variants though, sad face.) when I was just starting school. My first table top game was actually Hordes, all of two years ago.

A lot of the issue with the Quirk system is it's arbitrary, and pigeon holes some mechs into configurations that are head scratchers, or ignore lore entirely (Locust. ERLL. Seriously.) Where a split buff, where there's a small percent to the general mech design (AC buffs for a jager, for an example) and a larger buff for an intended gun (AC5 buff, for example) Where as now it's "USE THIS GUN." with all buffs on the singular recommended weapon.

Not design friendly, which is something that other Mechwarrior games really tried to be. This is why there's some complaints being raised. I'm not so much unhappy that it is happening, but I'm unhappy with how it's being done.


As for telling people to f*** off and play a different game? Really? Just, really? That's not classy dudes. Take a pause and look at who you're turning into. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are not allowed to voice their opinion.

Also, Hawken? Yeah, even harsher customization than this. Seems like a bad move, to tell people who want customization to go play a game with none to speak of.

[Hatachi]

How dare Inner Sphere mechs that are generally built to fit a single role in the battlefield, with variants made to fill other roles. The nerve of things such as giving Hunchbacks or Awesomes bonuses for being used in a way similar to what the mech was originally built for, like they were in the original canon It's not killing diversity. It's pushing you to try other mechs and variants that were actually built to play the role you're trying to play as without actually giving straight negatives.

*edit* I'm trying to be jokingly facetious, not rage mode. I realized it could be taken either way after writing it.

Edited by Hatachi, 17 October 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

I'm not saying "Stop wanting to hew closer to TT canon", I'm saying "Stop f***ing telling me to play Hawken any time I dare to do anything but fall on me knees and worship-slobber over the nearest TT sourcebook."

Well, we could say stop asking us to settle for MW4 or MechAssault, too, if the hyperbole machine needs to be in full force.

[Bishop Steiner]

LT Satisfactory, on 17 October 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Ugh. I can't take any more. NO ONE HERE IS PROMOTING META BUILDS. There is a big difference in some of us saying we want some customization options, that can still be lore-ish, without completely having forced a single 'best' build per variant on us. To use your own point against you, it's been proven these quirks aren't completely stock BT loadout based in the first place (cent and locust from the previous page). You should be screaming about that from your BT-fueled veil.

Hardpoints would have allowed for more choices in quirks if they made them generic (if you can fit a weapon in a hardpoint, it gets X quirk) than what we have now so...

I'll say one more time, I like and understand the value of quirks. I have zero issue with promoting a swing to a more lore-based quirk system per variant. That doesn't mean we should have weapon customization options locked down completely though (you will never win that we still have 'choice' in the loadout. It's patently absurd to take that position). Much like every PGI change, they swing TOO MUCH in their buff/nerf/change of play cycles and that pisses people off.

and what some of are saying is how is anyone being forced into "one build"?

As opposed to every other version of mechwarrior, each Chassis has multiple variants. Each variant is being quirked toward different Roles. Roles which are integral to the concept that MW:O was launched on. And in no way are you being stopped from building them any way you want, aside from already extant limitations.

But what you are missing is that the existing customization is exactly what leads to Meta. It's what makes many chassis obsolete, redundant or otherwise undesirable. It's a large reason why the Victor has been a better Awesome than the Awesome for the last 2 years.

Now you can still build your VTR into an Awesome....but the Awesome will actually be better at it. But if you use that 80 ton VTR chassis remotely in the roles it was meant for, it will excel at those.... while people who want an Awesome can, IDK, play an Awesome?

[Jonathan Paine]

Compared to the extremely limited number of competitive mechs we have right now, the quirks are definitely an improvement. I like improvements.

+1 Russ

[Alek Ituin]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

I don't really care that MWO's trying this quirk system. I could, and do, wish they'd executed it differently, but I've had some proper discussion on that with other folks in this thread and am willing to keep doing so. Believe it or not, I'm willing to talk to the TT purists who aren't being dinks and see what we can do.

What I want, and what you need to pay attention to here Alek, is for the rest of the TT purists (that would be you, Aus, and a number of other folks) to stop being so goddamned snobbish and scornful of everyone else. Whatever the reasons, we're all here, playing MECHWARRIOR, and telling anyone who doesn't want to sit around the table with you and throw dice to "go play Hawken and GTFO!" is both insulting as hell and harmful to the very game you're trying to prop up.

I don't bloody WANT to play Hawken, I WANT TO PLAY MECHWARRIOR. If I had any desire whatsoever to play Hawken, I'd already be doing so. Stop telling me to abandon MWO because you're irritated over the entire game NOT being Stock Mech Monday.

I lulz'd at "FOR BALANCE, CORERULE IGNORE" as much as the next guy, Bishop. Unlike most of the other non-TT players in this game - all seven of us, according to most of the TT guys - I fully understand that the tabletop canon is the wellspring from which the MechWarrior franchise flows and that there's a lot to be said for keeping it in mind and doing what you can to prop it up.

I'm not saying "Stop wanting to hew closer to TT canon", I'm saying "Stop f***ing telling me to play Hawken any time I dare to do anything but fall on me knees and worship-slobber over the nearest TT sourcebook."

Then how about not saying "FOR BALANCE, CORE RULE IGNORE"? Quirks are bringing MWO closer to BT, which it was originally proposed as being - MWO: A BattleTech Game.

What we have now is not BT. It's MW2-4 Online, which is not what the "hardcore TT players" came for, they came for BattleTech.

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

Ehem.

Firstly, Yes, this is a Battletech related game. But table top cannot translate perfectly into a well thought out FPS or simulator system, for starters. Armour, damage and firing speed all need to be modified. Can you imagine if we made all weapons do exactly the damage they did in table top at exactly the speed? Man, totally digging my fire rate of ten seconds sir. I sure do like that plan sir.

Not saying it's perfect, but a game played with figures on a table with dice does not translate well into an FPS. Changes need to be made. (Also, PGI, Please somehow make there be something to introduce lore into the game? Something to give more depth? Please? not related, but a gripe for sure)

Secondly, This is a Mechwarrior Game; it follows customization rules that have been around for a very long time and draws in a rather large crowd of folk who have never even heard of the table top game. I was raised on MW2 (WHICH HAD VARIANTS, BY THE WAY. Thanks for actually, you know, playing the games and knowing things like this. Mw4 Did not have variants though, sad face.) when I was just starting school. My first table top game was actually Hordes, all of two years ago.

A lot of the issue with the Quirk system is it's arbitrary, and pigeon holes some mechs into configurations that are head scratchers, or ignore lore entirely (Locust. ERLL. Seriously.) Where a split buff, where there's a small percent to the general mech design (AC buffs for a jager, for an example) and a larger buff for an intended gun (AC5 buff, for example) Where as now it's "USE THIS GUN." with all buffs on the singular recommended weapon.

Not design friendly, which is something that other Mechwarrior games really tried to be. This is why there's some complaints being raised. I'm not so much unhappy that it is happening, but I'm unhappy with how it's being done.


As for telling people to f*** off and play a different game? Really? Just, really? That's not classy dudes. Take a pause and look at who you're turning into. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are not allowed to voice their opinion.

Also, Hawken? Yeah, even harsher customization than this. Seems like a bad move, to tell people who want customization to go play a game with none to speak of.

This game was marketed as a BATTLETECH GAME. Not "BattleTech related", but "BattleTech". It's right at the top of the GD page, I kid you not. Go look, top left under the MWO emblem.

Yeah, and MechWarrior games are notoriously cheese. Assaults rule the day, and only certain builds guarantee victory. Sound familiar?

But sure, I can see your point on some of the quirk sets. LCT-1V ERLL quirks don't make sense. CDN-9 SRM-4 quirks sure don't make sense. But the quirks that actually promote canon BT builds? Yeah, there's not a damn thing wrong with those. But a "BattleTech Game" trying to follow BattleTech lore and canon, god forbid, right?

God forbid you can't just use your one chassis with a min-max meta cheese build, with everybody else running the same thing. Because yeah, right now with "free" customization and no perks for bringing stock-a-like loadouts, all you get is 3-4 of the same builds on the same chassis, AKA - HAWKEN. You like that style, go play a game built around that style (HAWKEN) without trying to keep out any semblance of Mech variation.

Not even trying to be rude right now, I'm flat out saying that with current meta and customization rules, you might as well play HAWKEN. (It's a fun game IMO, not to give it some negative connotation or anything)

Edited by Alek Ituin, 17 October 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

As opposed to every other version of mechwarrior, each Chassis has multiple variants. Each variant is being quirked toward different Roles. Roles which are integral to the concept that MW:O was launched on. And in no way are you being stopped from building them any way you want, aside from already extant limitations.

I wanna make this clear, there is a big difference between being quirked towards roles, and quirked towards configs.

Many of believed or felt we were told that quirks were geared more towards roles, otherwise what is the point in allowing those other 'sub-optimal' builds? To mislead new players into taking sub-optimal builds? To further the gap between sub-optimal builds on a particular variant an optimal builds? Honestly if this is what they intended quirks to be, I'd much rather see sized hardpoints so at least the gap between the sub-optimal and truly optimal builds is shallower.

To make my point more concise, the quirks give lower tier mechs a config that is more optimal and maybe more competitive with the optimal mechs, but it does little to the mech outside of that build. This means that the tier of that mech only changes when running specific builds rather than what many of us probably thought quirks would do is make a variant more competitive regardless of the build or at the very least more than a handful of builds more optimal.

[Bishop Steiner]

Action Mac, on 17 October 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

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.

You notice not every weapon system and type on every mech is getting buffed in the first place, yes? As in, why do they need to give you BONUSES to play everything, when you can already play those builds fine. The Chassis will simply be somewhat better with certain weapons.

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

I wanna make this clear, there is a big difference between being quirked towards roles, and quirked towards configs.

Many of believed or felt we were told that quirks were geared more towards roles, otherwise what is the point in allowing those other 'sub-optimal' builds? To mislead new players into taking sub-optimal builds? To further the gap between sub-optimal builds on a particular variant an optimal builds? Honestly if this is what they intended quirks to be, I'd much rather see sized hardpoints so at least the gap between the sub-optimal and truly optimal builds is shallower.

To make my point more concise, the quirks give lower tier mechs a config that is more optimal and maybe more competitive with the optimal mechs, but it does little to the mech outside of that build. This means that the tier of that mech only changes when running specific builds rather than what many of us probably thought quirks would do is make a variant more competitive regardless of the build or at the very least more than a handful of builds more optimal.

Odd. I would feel adding 18 armor, and 12 Internal to the RT was pretty solid boost, even if I ran a Gauss or AC10. Especially since any size lasers I slap on also get a boost. Just as an example. And yes, some got less boosts, which imply they needed less love to begin with.

[Little Details]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

But what you are missing is that the existing customization is exactly what leads to Meta. It's what makes many chassis obsolete, redundant or otherwise undesirable. It's a large reason why the Victor has been a better Awesome than the Awesome for the last 2 years.

I completely understand this position, Bishop. I truly do, and I agree with it 100%, especially the part about the bastrdization of a completely open mechlab (awesomey-Vic > an awesome iteself). We are not on opposite sides of the coin.

I see your position as pretty much: if you want to play X way, take out X mech from your stable that fits that playstyle.

The problem is, there is no mechlab at that point. You think that provides a reason to play more mechs? I don't think it does, I think it shoehorns you into playing/buying the absolute best version of that mech playstyle and forgoing the rest.

Why would I want an ac5 dragon when I can take a jager? Or gauss/ll drg stock loadout vs numerous better gauss build mechs in what is truly amounting to a locked down weapon system because it's overly pushing a SINGLE weapon loadout system per variant.

What makes me buy and play them currently is the customization options of making them the best they can be or finding my OWN role for them. I know I willingly shoot myself in the foot by not playing T1/2, but I don't have a win-at-all-cost mentality and can enjoy the mechs for what they are because they're my creations. You can rope in the awesome-y Victors by providing a certain type of quirk without locking down an Awesome loadout entirely through an insanely buffed single build.

What I said earlier was:
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 - 06:42 PM.

[Mothykins]

STOP FIGHTING, STOP FIGHTING. EVERYONE STOP FIGHTING.

EVERYONE, LOOK UNTO ME, FOR I POSSES A LEVEL HEAD RIGHT NOW.


Could we perhaps hit a middle ground? This is what I'm sayin' here. We should have gotten split quirks; something to nudge into stock, but something more overall helpful to the chassis. The 4G is a prime example. Three ballistic slots. No ballistic buffs except for the AC20. This is rather dumb to me, as there are now two useless slots on this 'Mech, as with the ammount of buff to that Gun, you'd be an idiot to take anything else. It should have given a SMALL generic buff AS WELL as that larger AC20 buff is what I'm saying. You still get stock mech reinforcement, just not "ONLY RUN STOCK OR SUFFER." This is what we thought we where getting. This would have been perfect.

This is not what we are getting.




Also, Alek? Don't be a ****. I run around toting the (near stock) Locust 1V as "The best mech ever" in game and then saw off Atlas Legs (And somehow survive Dual gauss. worst Jager, I swear.) I never once said we needed to ignore everything, just that it isn't entirely possible to translate table top into a video game.

On top of that, I'm not against you (Just suggesting a middle ground), attempting to be polite, and you are raging out of control and going off on me. Stop, get some hot chocolate or something and try to relax, okay? It's a game, and people talking about the game. This is advice I needed a few hours back. I know it's frustrating, but you need to step back, okay?

Same order for the rest of you. Jeeze.

[Bishop Steiner]

LT Satisfactory, on 17 October 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Why would I want an ac5 dragon when I can take a jager? Or gauss/ll drg stock loadout vs numerous better gauss build mechs in what is truly amounting to a locked down weapon system because it's overly pushing a SINGLE weapon loadout system per variant.

Because the Dragon plays different from the Jager? Jager isn't run at near 90 kph, usually. Same reason I use a Vindicator, because the specific odd mix of attributes on them work well for how i play?

Should I start complaining because the Vindy is not as good a ballistic mech as the Blackjack in the current system? Because that is basically what people are doing. "OMG! This mech was designed for role X, and excels at role X, while still being good at Role Z, but because we can't make it do roles X, Y aND Z as good, we are upset.!!".

Overlooking that being the reason that with so many mech sin the game currently only 1 variant if ANY get played at all.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Odd. I would feel adding 18 armor, and 12 Internal to the RT was pretty solid boost, even if I ran a Gauss or AC10. Especially since any size lasers I slap on also get a boost. Just as an example. And yes, some got less boosts, which imply they needed less love to begin with.

It is indeed, but why buff the AC20 specifically for the 4G? If I wanna run an AC10 I should switch to a 4H even if I don't need the energy hardpoints or boosts. Wanna run Gauss, well you get no boosts so you are probably better off running a Shaq Hawk.
Why not just make the 4G have more ballistic oriented quirks while the 4H had more energy. For example on top the hunch armor/internal bonuses they could give the 4G two-three ballistic quirks while the 4H only has one ballistic and two energy quirks?

[Hatachi]

Aww, Bishop answered the Jager vs Dragon question before I could. Huge difference in top speed and lower actuators make them extremely different before you even start talking about quirks.

[CheeseyPeas]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

You notice not every weapon system and type on every mech is getting buffed in the first place, yes? As in, why do they need to give you BONUSES to play everything, when you can already play those builds fine. The Chassis will simply be somewhat better with certain weapons.

Maybe you should read what I said, I said MAIN weapon not every weapon, take a step back from your defensive stance for a while and maybe you will see other people are allowed opinions too.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Odd. I would feel adding 18 armor, and 12 Internal to the RT was pretty solid boost, even if I ran a Gauss or AC10. Especially since any size lasers I slap on also get a boost. Just as an example. And yes, some got less boosts, which imply they needed less love to begin with.

Odd, I didn't see him say the Hunchback 4G.

How about the Hunchback 4H instead then if we're just picking mechs. If you don't run AC10 and ML specifically, all you get is the armor/structure. Which is more to his point. Some of you are just arguing with anyone who makes any kind of suggestion about a change to the system as if they are trying to do away with any specific weapon quirks entirely.

[Alek Ituin]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

Also, Alek? Don't be a ****. I run around toting the (near stock) Locust 1V as "The best mech ever" in game and then saw off Atlas Legs (And somehow survive Dual gauss. worst Jager, I swear.) I never once said we needed to ignore everything, just that it isn't entirely possible to translate table top into a video game.

On top of that, I'm not against you (Just suggesting a middle ground), attempting to be polite, and you are raging out of control and going off on me. Stop, get some hot chocolate or something and try to relax, okay? It's a game, and people talking about the game. This is advice I needed a few hours back. I know it's frustrating, but you need to step back, okay?

Same order for the rest of you. Jeeze.

I don't think you even read what I posted. I didn't say you want to ignore everything, and I didn't say it was possible to perfectly translate TT to FPS. What I did say was that people need to deal with quirks, because they translate a good amount of TT in to FPS. Free customization lead to the s**t fest meta we have now, just like ti lead to s**t fest metas in other MW titles, obviously it doesn't work.

And if something doesn't work, why would you stick with it? Maybe because you like that it's broken and allows you to cheese-fest meta without penalty. I'm not saying you specifically like abusing meta, you is a general term in this instance.

Also, this is not raging. This is moderately angry with a side of annoyance, so maybe you need to learn what rage really is. Just FYI, I'll start raging if you keep telling me how I feel for me.

EDIT: The 1V is my favorite Lolcust as well because it feels like a tiny bipedal fighter aircraft. Running along, hearing the clatter of 4 MG's and watching the tracers fly down range... It's a fun little Mech. Do I want it to get ERLL quirks? Hell no. I would like MG quirks for my MG Lolcust.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 17 October 2014 - 06:49 PM.