963 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

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?

why NOT give the 4G an AC20 quirk when the bloody entire mech was built around carrying that specific gun, to the point that none of the others are even factory variants, but custom modifications that according to lore, totally change the profile of the mech, resulting in the name "Swayback" (which contrary to current use, was originally used to designate ANY hunchback without an ac20, not just the 4P).

Goodness, that's like saying make the Awesome into an all purpose generic energy boat when the thing was designed to pack 3 PPC and in fact all the other variants with other weapons were considered inferior?

Some mechs what you say makes some sense, because the individual weapon systems are not as key to the design. Other mechs quite literally ARE their weapons.

Action Mac, on 17 October 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

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.

Lol, rich, considering.

[Hatachi]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

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?

Why would you focus the H further on energy when that is the entire point of the P variant? I don't mind the 10% ballistic bonus/ 15% AC20 general idea, but I love that IS mechs are finally being pushed to play the role they were originally built for. It wasn't nearly as viable when we had 4/8 mech plus variants; these aren't those days.

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

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.

or are maybe saying before we crap our pants about how terrible an idea it is, we actually wait til we see and play the whole "reveal"?

But of course, that would mean people refraining from drama llama QQing, which on these forums will never happen.

Hatachi, on 17 October 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why would you focus the H further on energy when that is the entire point of the P variant? I don't mind the 10% ballistic bonus/ 15% AC20 general idea, but I love that IS mechs are finally being pushed to play the role they were originally built for. It wasn't nearly as viable when we had 4/8 mech plus variants; these aren't those days.

4G: AC20 CQB Juggernaut
4H; More "rounded" and versatile Ballistic/energy HBK
4P: The energy Boat
4J/4SP Missile boats, one long, one short.

Pretty well got the bases covered save Gauss (traditionally rare in mechs under the Heavy Class) and various Light ACs.... which maybe will be the focus of ShadowHawks, Wolverines?

[Alek Ituin]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

or are maybe saying before we crap our pants about how terrible an idea it is, we actually wait til we see and play the whole "reveal"?

But of course, that would mean people refraining from drama llama QQing, which on these forums will never happen.


4G: AC20 CQB Juggernaut
4H; More "rounded" and versatile Ballistic/energy HBK
4P: The energy Boat
4J/4SP Missile boats, one long, one short.

Pretty well got the bases covered save Gauss (traditionally rare in mechs under the Heavy Class) and various Light ACs.... which maybe will be the focus of ShadowHawks, Wolverines?

But you forgot that we can't have variant diversity like in BT, because it will kill customization options for MW. /sarcasm

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the "/sarcasm".

Edited by Alek Ituin, 17 October 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hatachi, on 17 October 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why would you focus the H further on energy when that is the entire point of the P variant?

You still get a ballistic hardpoint which inherits a bonus, so say you want to run an AC20 with plenty of medium lasers instead of the MG like most 4Gs do. A heat generation quirk for any energy weapons would go a long way to making that less painful for the user while still keeping it different from the 4G and 4P.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

why NOT give the 4G an AC20 quirk when the bloody entire mech was built around carrying that specific gun, to the point that none of the others are even factory variants, but custom modifications that according to lore, totally change the profile of the mech, resulting in the name "Swayback" (which contrary to current use, was originally used to designate ANY hunchback without an ac20, not just the 4P).

Goodness, that's like saying make the Awesome into an all purpose generic energy boat when the thing was designed to pack 3 PPC and in fact all the other variants with other weapons were considered inferior?

Some mechs what you say makes some sense, because the individual weapon systems are not as key to the design. Other mechs quite literally ARE their weapons.

Lol, rich, considering.

Yes, because all the mechs are working as they were intended within lore and all of them are getting quirks to make them more stock oriented.

Answer me these two questions and then maybe your point has more validity.

• What lore oriented quirks are the top tier mechs getting?
  
• Why are the lesser mechs getting quirks oriented to their stock loadout and not how they fit within the game as well as how they were intended to play out within lore?

[Mercules]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

PS, Merc? Stop adding belittling comments and insults designed to garner more reaction out of me or others. Inciting rage in someone to make them seem less intelligent and just some angry fellow that you can laugh off is not winning an argument, it's being an *******. Don't do it.

My apologies. I was attempting to point out through an analogy, what some posts sound like. PGI is giving us a gift. People have complained that PGI only changes things that will earn them money. We own these mechs so PGI isn't getting money out of us for them. Maybe they might sell a different variant for C-Bills but that doesn't really gain them much. So they are spending time and effort to make mechs we own and don't use... usable.

Now, it may not be exactly what you wanted, or perfect but at least wait until the patch goes through and you have a chance to try things out before you condemn it.

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

For some reason even I don’t understand, the Thunder Hammer fits me like a glove. It’s one of my most consistent Inner Sphere ‘Mechs and a machine I can make dance.

This happens. I do better in Commandos than I do in Jenners.

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

For the Thunderbolt, perhaps something like this:

Additional Structure (LT&RT) +10
Energy range 10% (additional +15% to STD/ER Large Laser)
Energy cooldown 10% (additional +15% to STD/ER Large Laser)
Energy heat gen -10% (additional -15% to STD/ER Medium Laser, for that time fifteen years from now when the IS deploys I-ERML)
Laser duration -10% (additional -15% to STD/ER Medium laser)
Missile Weapon Cooldown +12%

This is actually more of what I was excepting and who knows, they might go to this eventually. However I prefer the LARGER boosts to specific weapons. I think it gives them more leeway to give LARGE boosts.

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

Put that free cake out there. But maybe everyone else could get a smaller piece of the cake, something that’d let them stay even half-competitive against The One Single Chosen Build Anointed From PGI On High, instead of getting a sign saying “NO CAKE FOR JOO” shoved in their faces?

They are. The Hunchback, for example, could run two ERPPCs or PPCs and get a nice boost to them for it's trouble. It could do the same with LL. I know it's not min-max, but it doesn't have to be.

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

No amount of "I'ma Sniper!" in all of existence is enough to offset a 50% cooldown bonus for a weapon which is halfway to sniper weapon itself. Dual AC/5 will put out 10 damage per shot more than twice as often as a Gauss rifle puts out fifteen damage per shot

At four times the heat. Since HEAT is the real factor in how often you can fire it will be better for a short burst of damage but not be able to maintain that damage very long. This is why 3 AC/2s are not better than a single AC/5.

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...

YLW is the one hero you shouldn't have picked for your example since it is one of the few taken straight from BT lore. LOL! Multiple Mediums do take on assaults in lore, even single mediums do.

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

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.

As I have stated numerous times in the past. A BT weapon doesn't fire once in 10 seconds. That abstraction is that over 10 seconds it can do X damage and creates X heat. The very description for an AC/20 is not a single slug but a rapidly firing cannon. The CLASS of weapons that AC/20 refers too all do about X damage in Y time and so are listed together as a class despite them having different fire rates and different calibers. So your argument is... silly.

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

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.

MW2 did not have variants, not at all. You could build the variants but no one did. In fact I think I beat the whole game all the way through using nothing but Medium Lasers the one play through.

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

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.

Unlimited customization broke MW 2, MW 3, and even MW 4 with it's more limited system for PVP. We had to enforce rules and limit what chassis people took or you would end up with very broken mechs and unbalanced games. PGI tried to do it right with hardpoints but that still wasn't perfect. The quirk system helps push certain mechs towards certain weapons without forcing you to use them.

It's like a bus. You probably want to step out of the way when a bus is coming at you, but no one is FORCING you to do so.

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

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.

You are certainly allowed to voice any opinion you want. That doesn't protect you from ridicule if it turns out to be a stupid opinion. I'm not saying, "Hi you spent millions for the right to us this IP that has a very loyal fanbase so please ignore it." is stupid, but it isn't smart.

[Mercules]

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

Could we perhaps hit a middle ground?

To me, this is the middle ground. Here is why I say that.

Very few people would use certain chassis without significant boost to them. They wouldn't care about a 5% or 8% boost. On the other hand PGI giving certain chassis a 15% boost to "energy weapons" might make them too good." So they have a really hard balance point to try and reach and some mechs have weird loadouts that don't lend themselves well to generic buffs like "Ballistics X% Recharge" since they will simply encourage something like putting on a Meta build with a Gauss.

So PGI stopped and asked themselves how they could give us LARGE bonuses, without encouraging more meta twinking. Their solution was to not give HBK-4G a generic Ballistic buff but instead go with it's iconic weapon system. This does limit using a gauss in it, which is a META BUILD. You can still use the Meta preferred Gauss, but you won't get as much of a boost to doing so. I mean they also improved it by letting it better protect it's hunch weapon no matter what it is, so even with a Gauss the HBK-4G is better off than it was before.

The HBK-4G, however shines with an AC/20. They then gave you more generic buffs of lessor effect so that you can equip what Energy you prefer with your AC/20 and still get a boost.

This did 2 things. It gave them permission to do things like some really huge boosts like the Dragon's RoF boost to AC/5s. This also brings them closer to classic iconic builds away from meta, AND makes it so the rest of us can make some really educated guesses as to what to shoot first on that mech if not CT. If I have a shot at the Dragon's RA but not it's CT(say from behind) I will happily blow that limb off to cut out a large amount of it's burst firepower since I am going to expect at least one AC/5 in there if not two.

So this IS the middle ground. It allows them to give us large enough boosts we can seriously compete with Tier 1 but doesn't do it so generically that we then surpass Tier 1 and end up with something even more broken. Sure with an AC/20 the HBK-4G will hammer people, but it is limited on range. If it had a big but generic AC buff in there it could apply that massive buff to various weapons some of which are really long range. It's strength becomes it's weakness since it encourages a particular build which others can then expect and take advantage of.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

or are maybe saying before we crap our pants about how terrible an idea it is, we actually wait til we see and play the whole "reveal"?

But of course, that would mean people refraining from drama llama QQing, which on these forums will never happen.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize giving feedback and opinion was limited to only after something has been implemented. I don't believe I've said anything about it being crap or done any 'drama llama QQ'ing'. But good job not responding to the point of question I guess?

Quote

4G: AC20 CQB Juggernaut
4H; The AC10 and ML mech
4P: The energy Boat
4J/4SP Missile boats, one long, one short.

Pretty well got the bases covered save Gauss (traditionally rare in mechs under the Heavy Class) and various Light ACs.... which maybe will be the focus of ShadowHawks, Wolverines?

Fixed that for you. Because again, I'm not saying the quirks are crap as they are. But I do think there is some tweaking that might be a bit better implementation. Why is the 4H so narrowly quirked to AC10 and ML? Would not the AC10 and energy of the 4G suffice? Since with an AC10, you have some weight to play with in your laser choices. 5ML? 3MPL? 1LL and 2 ML?

Or ML and a general AC quirks??

Or 1 AC10, 1 ballistic, 1 ML, 1 energy quirks?

Now if that kind of treatment was applied to all the variant's quirks, each variant would still have a 'best quirks' build that favored 1 or 2 specific weapons and generally gave incentive toward it's original design. But they'd also have a bit of quirk benefit even if you deviated from it.

[Spades Kincaid]

Mercules, on 17 October 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

..snip..

So this IS the middle ground. It allows them to give us large enough boosts we can seriously compete with Tier 1 but doesn't do it so generically that we then surpass Tier 1 and end up with something even more broken. Sure with an AC/20 the HBK-4G will hammer people, but it is limited on range. If it had a big but generic AC buff in there it could apply that massive buff to various weapons some of which are really long range. It's strength becomes it's weakness since it encourages a particular build which others can then expect and take advantage of.

Just wanted to say, I think the 4G is fine. In fact, a good example of what all the mech quirks should be more like in a general sense. Some buff to a specific weapon, some generic. Per my previous post.

I 100% agree that just giving every variant fully generic buffs would both require they be lower and result in a rather bland mash of alot of mechs with the same set of buffs. I don't want to see every Tier4 mech that has ballistics and energy just running around with 2 ballistic and 2 energy buffs either.

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

I'm sorry. I didn't realize giving feedback and opinion was limited to only after something has been implemented. I don't believe I've said anything about it being crap or done any 'drama llama QQ'ing'. But good job not responding to the point of question I guess?

While the drama llama was not pointed at you, but the general glut of "whoa is me, these quirks arent perfect for my pet build" comments, I guess I have to ask..... you had a point?

Must have missed it in the backhanded swipe. My bad.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 07:52 PM.

[R Razor]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

I'm sorry. I didn't realize giving feedback and opinion was limited to only after something has been implemented. I don't believe I've said anything about it being crap or done any 'drama llama QQ'ing'. But good job not responding to the point of question I guess?

How exactly does one give "feedback" on something that they have yet to experience? All you are doing is giving an OPINION on what you THINK will happen. That isn't feedback.

I am thrilled that PGI is taking this game down a path that leads closer to LORE and implementing a system that will encourage the use of mechs in a way that is more closely tied with the way they were originally designed. I hope it works out as well as it appears that it will, but this is PGI, so I'll wait until a week or so after the patch to pass final judgement.

It is, I must say, extremely enjoyable reading all of the QQ'ing on here from the min-maxers and other try-hards. Passes the time quite nicely, please continue.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

While the drama llama was not pointed at you, but the general glut of "whoa is me, these quirks arent perfect for my pet build" comments, I guess I have to ask..... you had a point?

Must have missed it in the backhanded swipe. My bad.

I don't know, I thought it was a pretty straightforward swipe. A mild one at that. Pretty much the same swipe you'd taken, if not at me. I'm sorry it blinded you from being able to read everything after that.

A good portion of your posts must not ever get read.

(Seriously. You dish it out readily enough. It was hardly seriously meant to be offensive. Really going to go down this route with it?)

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

I don't know, I thought it was a pretty straightforward swipe. A mild one at that. Pretty much the same swipe you'd taken, if not at me. I'm sorry it blinded you from being able to read everything after that.

A good portion of your posts must not ever get read.

(Seriously. You dish it out readily enough. It was hardly seriously meant to be offensive. Really going to go down this route with it?)

Not sure what route it is. AS said, apparently your post was lost in the MWO SPam" file.

As for my posts, well, I can indeed be belligerent though in general it starts by responding to the tone of the posts around me. Take that for what you will. After a full day of QQ about the Quirks (as opposed to whatever the QQ of the day is around these forums on any other given day. The whining on this site is pretty nonstop) I must admit to pretty well justified most posts as junk mail. If there was something else in your post, then I apologize for missing it.

Needle, haystack, all that jazz.

And yes, judging by the responses posted, I would say it is safe to assume that a large number of my posts (not here, but in general)are either not read or the "reader" is incapable of comprehending them. (Since I usually find I have to spell out every bit of minutiae to avoid butthurt responses, anyhow.)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 08:20 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

R Razor, on 17 October 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

How exactly does one give "feedback" on something that they have yet to experience? All you are doing is giving an OPINION on what you THINK will happen. That isn't feedback.

I am thrilled that PGI is taking this game down a path that leads closer to LORE and implementing a system that will encourage the use of mechs in a way that is more closely tied with the way they were originally designed. I hope it works out as well as it appears that it will, but this is PGI, so I'll wait until a week or so after the patch to pass final judgement.

It is, I must say, extremely enjoyable reading all of the QQ'ing on here from the min-maxers and other try-hards. Passes the time quite nicely, please continue.

Ummm...I can't give feedback on what I read? I do think I said feedback and opinion. Or, feedback that is opinion if that helps you. Has PGI not put out requests for feedback on things before they put them in game? Yes, it's feedback. Slow down, chill out a bit.

I'm thrilled they are doing the quirk system too. And I like a great deal of it. If it goes in exactly as is for the mechs they have listed so far? I'm not going to raise a fuss. Overall it looks like it will improve the fate of alot of variants and hopefully bring them back out onto the field. But, I think they could achieve that same thing, without 'quirk locking' any of them to very specific weapons. Again, like the Hunch 4H. While I think the 4G is just fine.

People are getting awfully cranky in here.

[R Razor]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Ummm...I can't give feedback on what I read? I do think I said feedback and opinion. Or, feedback that is opinion if that helps you. Has PGI not put out requests for feedback on things before they put them in game? Yes, it's feedback. Slow down, chill out a bit.



People are getting awfully cranky in here.

Who's cranky (aside from maybe you given your full frontal on Bishop anyway)?

Feedback is, by definition, something provided after experiencing whatever the feedback is given on. Reading about some proposed changes, or even guaranteed changes, that have yet to see the light of day is not feedback, it is pontificating. Pontification, by its very nature, is clouded by personal opinions and preconceptions. It is, at the end of the day, an exercise in futility and nothing more.

My OPINION is that the route PGI has announced that they are planning on taking is close to exactly what has been needed for a long time. Short of hard point limitations, this is the best we Lore Lovers can hope to see and it's good enough for me............If it works.

Edited by R Razor, 17 October 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

Not sure what route it is. AS said, apparently your post was lost in the MWO SPam" file.

As for my posts, well, I can indeed be belligerent though in general it starts by responding to the tone of the posts around me. Take that for what you will. After a full day of QQ about the Quirks (as opposed to whatever the QQ of the day is around these forums on any other given day. The whining on this site is pretty nonstop) I must admit to pretty well justified most posts as junk mail. If there was something else in your post, then I apologize for missing it.

Needle, haystack, all that jazz.

And yes, judging by the responses posted, I would say it is safe to assume that a large number of my posts (not here, but in general)are either not read or the "reader" is incapable of comprehending them. (Since I usually find I have to spell out every bit of minutiae to avoid butthurt responses, anyhow.)

My mistake then I guess if you simply didn't read the post at all. Apparently I misunderstood your comment the way it read.

Anyway....for the record, no QQ'ing here. I just think some things about it could be a little more forgiving in utility and still give incentive to the original mech design. Don't see a need to so narrowly define all of the weapon quirks on any variant. As some like the 4H have been listed for.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

R Razor, on 17 October 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Who's cranky (aside from maybe you given your full frontal on Bishop anyway)?

Feedback is, by definition, something provided after experiencing whatever the feedback is given on. Reading about some proposed changes, or even guaranteed changes, that have yet to see the light of day is not feedback

Feedback, by definition (if we really want to get all letter of the law): "helpful information or criticism that is given to someone to say what can be done to improve a performance, product, etc."
Taken from Merriam-Webster, and nowhere does it mention by experience. That's not to say that we are not using some sort of experience in our speculation. That is the beauty of it, we are all using some sort of experience about the game in general to speculate on how well this system will work and give decent criticism (decent being the keyword here).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 October 2014 - 08:40 PM.

[R Razor]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Feedback, by definition (if we really want to get all letter of the law): "helpful information or criticism that is given to someone to say what can be done to improve a performance, product, etc."
Taken from Merriam-Webster, and nowhere does it mention by experience. That's not to say that we are not using some sort of experience in our speculation. That is the beauty of it, we are all using some sort of experience about the game in general to speculate on how well this system will work and give decent criticism (decent being the keyword here).

But you can't provide feedback on a product (in this case the Quirks system) that you haven't yet interacted with. It isn't feedback when it is just hollering from the top of the steps "this is not gonna work" or "this is the best thing ever"......it's just hollering about something that you have zero knowledge about.

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

My mistake then I guess if you simply didn't read the post at all. Apparently I misunderstood your comment the way it read.

Anyway....for the record, no QQ'ing here. I just think some things about it could be a little more forgiving in utility and still give incentive to the original mech design. Don't see a need to so narrowly define all of the weapon quirks on any variant. As some like the 4H have been listed for.

Yeah. Could see that. Just don't want to see too broad of quirks maintaining the "meta minmax" mentality. I guess, I oddly enough would prefer to err on the side of slightly less customization than the open customization mess tha MW3 was as an online multiplayer.

Would rather see how it actually plays out and see all the quirks before I pass any sweeping judgement on the success or failure though. I actually expect some of the posted quirks to need to be .....moderated slightly, after actual use, and certainly others will need more attention and buffs.

As for the "I play MW for the Open MEchlab" that some tout, again, to me that is very similar to the people that are on their bully pulpit to advance timelines so they can have Bushwackers, Uziels and Rotary ACs.

We've had those games already. It would be nice for the folks who have wanted something different, to finally get to taste that, especially since that was the sales pitch the devs threw to Founders in the first place. Nothing will please everyone.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

R Razor, on 17 October 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

But you can't provide feedback on a product (in this case the Quirks system) that you haven't yet interacted with. It isn't feedback when it is just hollering from the top of the steps "this is not gonna work" or "this is the best thing ever"......it's just hollering about something that you have zero knowledge about.

If we have played this game, we have knowledge about it. Sure the knowledge is not complete, but to those who understand the game we can do a decent enough job to speculate and give feedback on the quirks.

For example when the cERLL was nerfed to oblivion, how many of us gave 'feedback' on how bad the nerf was and it turned out we were right after adding experience after the fact. Funny part is, the only thing I think that ended up being changed is a .1 sec nerf to the duration.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 October 2014 - 08:46 PM.