963 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

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, in fact the only thing I think that remains is a .1 sec nerf to the duration.

and when players gave feedback that the Shadowhawk or KitFox were DoA?

Prognostication and Feedback are two different things. Both can be useful, but don't confuse the two.

[R Razor]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

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, in fact the only thing I think that remains is a .1 sec nerf to the duration.

But that wasn't feedback, that was voicing an opinion on something you THOUGHT might come to pass (and according to you it did, I wouldn't know as I don't play any Clan stuff).

I guess we just see things differently, coming from a military background, feedback to me is something that is provided AFTER you have had an opportunity to experience what you are providing your feedback (opinion) on. Anything else is just whining or wishful thinking depending on whether you are for or against whatever the changes are.

There are certainly no lack of whiners in these forums after all.

[Spades Kincaid]

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, 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.

Actually, I thought Bishop was going full frontal on me over a small poke. So I was trying to diffuse it basically. My misunderstanding as I told him.

It's not possible to give feedback on anything you read then? What about heard? Those aren't experiences you can give an evaluative response to? I could not give feedback to someone about the book they wrote, or the speech they gave?

Actually, pontificating carries an implication that you believe you are always right. So, no, I wasn't pontificating. Since I did clearly state it was opinion I was giving and nothing more. (edit - as per others above, perhaps the word you intended to use was prognosticating. It happens.)

At this point you just seem to want to pick an argument with me over a word though. Since I quite clearly otherwise stated a general agreement with you in appreciation of the promise I see in the quirk system. I'm not really sure what your issue is?

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 17 October 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Prognostication and Feedback are two different things. Both can be useful, but don't confuse the two.

They aren't mutually exclusive though, feedback can be prognostic.

I wasn't around when the Shadow Hawk was released so I can't say anything about that, but the Kit Fox is certainly not better than many IS lights that are at least of tier 2. Saying it is the top Clan light also isn't saying much. This is something that can't be said about certain other Clan mechs (including pre-laser nerf Nova). Vindicator is also with Trenchbuckets in tier 4 so that was pretty apt when declared DoA (depending on your usage of the term in reference to new content in video games).

[R Razor]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Actually, I thought Bishop was going full frontal on me over a small poke. So I was trying to diffuse it basically. My misunderstanding as I told him.

It's not possible to give feedback on anything you read then? What about heard? Those aren't experiences you can give an evaluative response to? I could not give feedback to someone about the book they wrote, or the speech they gave?

Actually, pontificating carries an implication that you believe you are always right. So, no, I wasn't pontificating. Since I did clearly state it was opinion I was giving and nothing more.

At this point you just seem to want to pick an argument with me over a word. Since I quite clearly otherwise stated a general agreement with you in appreciation of the promise I see in the quirk system. I'm not really sure what your issue is.

Naw man, not picking a fight at all, just pointing out that, in general, it's bad form to denigrate something you have not even given a chance yet that's all.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

R Razor, on 17 October 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

Naw man, not picking a fight at all, just pointing out that, in general, it's bad form to denigrate something you have not even given a chance yet that's all.

I don't think either of us are denigrating the quirk system, I know I fully support the Hunchback's hunch getting more armor/internals as well as the Awesome getting some boosts. I just take issue with the weapon specificity of certain quirks as well as ECM/JJs counting as a quirk.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 October 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[R Razor]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

I don't think either of us are denigrating the quirk system, I know I fully support the Hunchback's hunch getting more armor/internals as well as the Awesome getting some boosts. I just take issue with the weapon specificity of certain quirks as well as ECM/JJs counting as a quirk.

And I still think that waiting until it's implemented and in play is the best way to form a valid opinion on it. (the quirk system)

I will grant that, on the face of it, the JJ and ECM issue sounds suspect, but given the blanket coverage ECM provides (well beyond what Lore says it should do) and the maneuverability advantages JJ equipped Mechs have (on the maps PGI has seen fit to grace us with) I can easily see the reasoning behind the decision. Now, if changes to ECM or JJ come later on down the line, then perhaps it should be revisited, but for now........wait and see is my plan.

[Spades Kincaid]

R Razor, on 17 October 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

Naw man, not picking a fight at all, just pointing out that, in general, it's bad form to denigrate something you have not even given a chance yet that's all.

If you read back through my posts here, I think you'll find I haven't denigrated it. I've pointed out some things I think could be better, or changes that in my opinion! would tweak the effect it has on certain variants. Again, I keep coming back to the examples of the Hunch 4G and 4H. I think the 4G is fine. I think the 4H is too weapon specifically quirked.

[R Razor]

Spades Kincaid, on 17 October 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

If you read back through my posts here, I think you'll find I haven't denigrated it. I've pointed out some things I think could be better, or changes that in my opinion! would tweak the effect it has on certain variants. Again, I keep coming back to the examples of the Hunch 4G and 4H. I think the 4G is fine. I think the 4H is too weapon specifically quirked.

And I think that's a good thing if it will encourage more folks to run the 4H and stop flocking to the laser boat or AC hammer.

But since, until the quirks are actually implemented and in play, I won't know if it does that, I'm not prepared to say it's a good change. As a result, I'm not sure how you (or anyone else) can claim it's a bad one.

[Scratx]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread is already way veering off the rails?

Chill, folks.

[bobF]

I like these mouthbreathers saying to go play Hawken. Or these examples of genetic flotsam that use "bt lore" excuse to endorse band-aid game tweaks. Some schlep uses "lore" as an excuse to endorse this quirk thing, demanding the dirty gamers that actually want to play a Good Game™ "go play hawken," while we have only one gamemode. Zero immersion as far as houses, personalities, political skulduggery, resource management, technology levels, etc. We don't even have the conventional units or combined arms that was the ACTUAL LORE of Battletech, yet here you chumps are justifying half-assed solutions with lore. Please stfu already.

You guys need to understand how roles are established and what dynamics are needed to make all of them usefully flourish and synchronize. I'm all for buffs for useless mechs, but let's take an approach that preserves the customization we currently enjoy, and push for real mech differentiation.

[Alek Ituin]

bobF, on 17 October 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

I like these mouthbreathers saying to go play Hawken. Or these examples of genetic flotsam that use "bt lore" excuse to endorse band-aid game tweaks. Some schlep uses "lore" as an excuse to endorse this quirk thing, demanding the dirty gamers that actually want to play a Good Game™ "go play hawken," while we have only one gamemode. Zero immersion as far as houses, personalities, political skulduggery, resource management, technology levels, etc. We don't even have the conventional units or combined arms that was the ACTUAL LORE of Battletech, yet here you chumps are justifying half-assed solutions with lore. Please stfu already.

You guys need to understand how roles are established and what dynamics are needed to make all of them usefully flourish and synchronize. I'm all for buffs for useless mechs, but let's take an approach that preserves the customization we currently enjoy, and push for real mech differentiation.

Except this is a push towards BT canon. Mechs being used for what they were built for (with some exceptions).

Everything else is still on the "DO WANT" list. PGI is working on CW, and then they'll move on to the next thing. This mech customization isn't freedom, it's the opposite. Because Mechs have no diversity, they're boiled down to hardpoint locations and configurations, nothing more. Pilots in lore didn't just go "Ehh, I don't like the hardpoints, I'll go stuff two Guass Rifles on a Jaegermech instead because 'freedumb of customization".

Your free customization has led to our current metas, and like I said before, it's been proven that this model doesn't work. So basically, if you want a game where every Mech plays the same, with only 3-4 possible builds... HAWKEN is for you, plain and simple. It's exactly what you apparently want in a game, regardless of the arguments to the contrary that you present ad nauseam. IMO, It's you who doesn't understand the fact that Mechs were built with intended roles in mind, and these quirks are pushing most of them back to said intended roles.

Are there outliers with bad quirk sets? Indubitably. Is that to say that all quirk sets are bad? Not by far.

So for somebody who's trying to cite lore for reasons as to why we shouldn't get closer to lore, you're doing a piss-poor job of backing your case.

[ImperialKnight]

flawed argument by OP. There are general quirks on top of specialised weapon quirks.

Your whatever-customised-build is only going to get stronger. The system rewards people who specialised more, but it doesn't stop you from doing whatever the hell you want.

[Alek Ituin]

knightsljx, on 17 October 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

flawed argument by OP. There are general quirks on top of specialised weapon quirks.

Your whatever-customised-build is only going to get stronger. The system rewards people who specialised more, but it doesn't stop you from doing whatever the hell you want.

NUUUUUUUUHHHHHH

Specializing in intended roles is baaaaad. UGH, GOD.

[Hoffenstein]

How about we wait until the patch is released, play a good amount of games on it, then make our opinion based on experience? Give it two weeks for most of the players to give it a try and see what the majority would like.

[Glythe]

DarthPeanut, on 17 October 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Quirks give certain mechs a role that play to the strengths of their hard points.

The hard points of each mech tend to lead them in a direction for a build already unless you are just one of those people who like to try to make abstract loadouts work.

The changes nerf a mech unless you play it their way. No offense but I and many other people really like finding my own builds because the stock ones tend to be a pathetic joke from a competitive standpoint. If you want to go play big stompy robots with set builds why don't you try mechassault.

This set of quirks does not really favor good players. It favors bad and newer ones.

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

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. 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. 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.

Really great post.

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?

And this is another reason why these buffs suck. If they put in these quirks you can add 'Quirks' to the list of things that have really pissed off the MWO player base.

bobF, on 17 October 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

I'm all for buffs for useless mechs, but let's take an approach that preserves the customization we currently enjoy, and push for real mech differentiation.

Best thought in the entire 27 pages of this thread so far.

Edited by Glythe, 17 October 2014 - 11:28 PM.

[Ashan An]

Glythe, on 17 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

The changes nerf a mech unless you play it their way. No offense but I and many other people really like finding my own builds because the stock ones tend to be a pathetic joke from a competitive standpoint. If you want to go play big stompy robots with set builds why don't you try mechassault.

Additional Armor (RT) +18
Additional Structure (RT) +12
Energy Weapon Heat Gen -12%
Energy Weapon Range +16%

With such an horrific nerf the Hunchback will surely suck. How am i going to play my hunchback with bonus structure hp on the hunch and better energy weapons ? Curse you PGI, you killed one of the least used medium mech in the game, curse you!

Glythe, on 17 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

This set of quirks does not really favor good players. It favors bad and newer ones.

That's something only a bad player would say.
A good player, by definition, is capable of taking the most out of the situation and would be happy to see the buffs, and even if as you say "only bad or new players" will take full advantage of the quirks (which is wrong in so many ways) than you still have partial quirks and the advantage of being more skilld to more than make up for it

Glythe, on 17 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

And this is another reason why these buffs suck. If they put in these quirks you can add 'Quirks' to the list of things that have really pissed off the MWO player base.

If the "MWO player base" is composed just by you than maybe, but i can't see how buffs that we have been asking for months and months will piss off everyone.
The only one that will be pissed off are the usual whiners that protest every single change.

[Johnny Z]

One thing is for sure, the quirks will make it tougher for the clan mechs than has been the case over the past several months.

I am seriously not sure if they can adjust because the IS pilots have had to up their game to compete.
I think all the players have to wait till everyone has adjusted to the change to make a sound opinion of the new system, and that could take a couple months.

[Kirtanus]

I like quirks idea, it will bring some rare mechs back to the game or mb even in competitive matches. Anyway we need to give a try to it.

[Hatachi]

I understand how people like the super open customization, but variants really stop the need from the "original" variant needing to be everything. Why not let the Hunchback G be a AC20 monster, P be the laser master, and so on. I keep hearing, "What if I want to use light ACs? No one is stopping you, but why not look at a chassis that originally was built for a few light ACs. Why not try out most Blackjacks, the Trebuchet 7K,, or the Wolverine 6R if you're craving some AC5/AC2 action. Shadowhawks might get a small boost, but they're good with light ACs already and high tier already. Plenty of medium mechs were originally made to carry light ACs and will most likely get bonuses to carrying them.

Edited by Hatachi, 18 October 2014 - 01:21 AM.