963 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

Kodyn, on 20 October 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Here's a request, stop lumping everyone that's for the quirks into this "TT guys" crowd...I'm all for customization in games, see why these quirks will actually help that, and I have never, nor will ever play any TT game of any genre, since I hate things determined by dice roles, and the TT community for all games is basically the chaff of the nerds, the guys us other nerdy guys avoid because they make us all look bad.

So just because we like the quirks, doesn't mean we're TT people...in my case, I've seen similar systems work well in games like EVE, so that's where my argument is coming from.

I am a TT guy...... I am a nerd and proud of it! "Chaff of the nerds".... I challenge you to a duel SIR!

[Alexander MacTaggart]

cdlord, on 20 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

I am a TT guy...... I am a nerd and proud of it! "Chaff of the nerds".... I challenge you to a duel SIR!

No, no, no!

You call him a stravag freebirth and demand to meet in the Circle of Equals!

[Metus regem]

Can we actually get back to the good and interesting conversation now, and stop all the whining... Gods my Toddler doesn't whine as much as some of the people on these boards...

[1453 R]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

I'm not going to explain for a third time why generic quirks are a bad idea, you ignored the first couple times I tried that.

100% generic quirks, yes. Agreed, I've never wanted those to be the focus of the system.

You never once touched upon the notion of split-effect quirks and why a 10/15 or a 20/30 split would be bad. You haven't, and neither has anyone else, except to say "anything generic is bad because TT." I get that the tabletop folks are a huge part of the player base, and I'm perfectly willing to agree and accept that bonuses for TT-appropriate loadouts would be cool.

But this system is cutting out Johnny players entirely. Folks like me who enjoy digging deep into a chassis and seeing what little hidden gems of performance can be wrung from it, who smile fat and wide whenever they can surprise someone in a T2 'Mech by taking them down with an inventive, unexpected T4/T5 they thought was a free kill and turned out to not be.

That aspect of the game is being removed. Now the 'best' build for any given IS chassis will be blindingly self-evident, with no nuance or room for pilot preference or ability. Quirk it up or GTFO. That's a lousy state of affairs, AND ONE WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN.

[CDLord HHGD]

Metus regem, on 20 October 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Can we actually get back to the good and interesting conversation now, and stop all the whining... Gods my Toddler doesn't whine as much as some of the people on these boards...

But the point of this whole thread was QQ about somone's favorite PWN ride not getting buffed so they can PWN more...

[ShinobiHunter]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Because the same system will eventually be applied to Clan 'Mechs, and in its current iteration it will completely and utterly ruin the entire point of the Omnipod system, which is supposed to be an enabler of widely, wildly diverse loadouts (a thing TT folks seem to hate for whatever reason) in exchange for a much more restrictive base chassis.

Ans also because I still own fifty-something IS 'Mechs, many of which I was looking forward to tinkering with again once the quirk system hit...except now I can't tinker with them at all, because any given IS 'Mech will have one, UND PRECISELY VUN, viable loadout which will be easily and immediately recognized via its given quirk package, and thus it'll be the work of perhaps three minutes per IS 'Mech to switch it over to whatever Piranha has officially told me I'm supposed to run on whatever I'm working on at the time.

It bloody well stinks, especially when I was so very much looking forward to the system until quite recently.

Fair enough. And this quirk system isn't necessarily the exact thing the clan mechs will get. Just wait til it gets here before getting too worked up about it.

The "play for fun" crowd will continue to screw around with the mechlab, and the meta crowd will stay with their meta. You will see more variants I think, but a lot of people still want to be unique, so they will adjust their loadouts to be different from the meta for that particular mech.

[Metus regem]

cdlord, on 20 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

But the point of this whole thread was QQ about somone's favorite PWN ride not getting buffed so they can PWN more...

And we derailed it, got into a good conversation that made people think, and the thread got much more interesting for a few pages...

This has been a case of "WAHHHHHH!!!!! My mech won't be as OMGWTF!PWNAGE!!!1111oneoneone111!! after the patch"...

So to that I say, "Who cares, so the gap between what you like the run, and what is thought to be sub-par has gotten closer. So put your big-boy pants on, and grow up."

[Alexander MacTaggart]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

That aspect of the game is being removed. Now the 'best' build for any given IS chassis will be blindingly self-evident, with no nuance or room for pilot preference or ability. Quirk it up or GTFO. That's a lousy state of affairs, AND ONE WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN.

No it isn't. And we are not. And we won't be, since quirks are only positive and there is no downside to not building to them.

And split quirks have been addressed, maybe not in as many words but they offer the same problem as strictly generic ones - people will ignore the specific half and simply build with the generic portion. It is, in effect, the same as suggesting 'half-power' generic quirks.

[1453 R]

Ye know, for a while there this thread was actually being remarkably civil for a MWO argument thread. Sad to see that fall by the wayside, Meteus.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Ye know, for a while there this thread was actually being remarkably civil for a MWO argument thread. Sad to see that fall by the wayside, Meteus.

It's hard to fault him getting frustrated when things have been explained about a dozen times in about as many ways and people still reply with "You TT grognards are just butthurt because some people like to customize stuff".

In fact, I don't really think I would agree that Metus was the first to resort to non-civil posting to begin with.

[Sjorpha]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

This is where you're falling into the trap. There absolutely is a difference in an absolute sense. You are looking at things relatively.

You are saying 'since the difference between Build X and Build Y is smaller since Build Y got buffed, that's a nerf to Build X' and that's not the case. The other guy getting something doesn't take anything away from you. A buff to Build Y is not a nerf to Build X.

How is there any non-relative way to look at it?

Nerfing the clans can be construed as a nerf to the clans or as a buff to IS, the only difference is psychological. Same with the quirks, saying it is "only buffs" has absolutely no meaning, what matters is only how it changes the relative power balance and viability between builds. They say they are "only buffing" not to offend the communitys delusions, but from a game design perspective that is a stupid limitation to put on yourself, as a system with both positive and negative quirks would be far more flexible and sutainable.

Saying "The other guy getting something doesn't take anything away from you." is, and no offense, nonsensical. If I am playing against that other guy every increase in his power is a decrease in my chances of winning the match, how does that not impact me? That's as silly as saying giving someone an extra queen in chess wouldn't impact his opponent.

Think of it as a scale with weights on boths sides, adding weight on one side has exactly the same effect as removing it on the other. Only in this case there are more than two parameter balancing against each other, but the underlying principle is the same. The relative viewpoint IS the absolute one, since the relativity is an absolute fact of the game universe.

That's not to say I'm against the quirk pass, I welcome it, but there shouldn't be this silly notion floating around that there is inherently positive and negative balance changes. It's mostly a matter of convenience to change the one instead of the many that decides whether a buff or nerf is warranted. Broadly speaking, if a single thing is OP, you nerf that. If a singe thing is UP, you buff that. And of course there is a matter of when a type of change extends it's possibilities thematically, for example with IS-Clan they can't really nerf clan lasers much more without screwing the thematic setting too much, so they are pretty much forced to work with buffing IS instead. And when the balance problems are faction internal you can't approach it generically, hence the quirks.

I want the game to be balanced and the workflow to get there efficient, but whether it's done with buffs or nerfs doesn't matter in the slightest to me.

Edited by Sjorpha, 20 October 2014 - 02:27 PM.

[Metus regem]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

It's hard to fault him getting frustrated when things have been explained about a dozen times in about as many ways and people still reply with "You TT grognards are just butthurt because some people like to customize stuff".

In fact, I don't really think I would agree that Metus was the first to resort to non-civil posting to begin with.

Admittedly, I am just getting so sick and tired of how toxic this community is in this game. I've had several very civil and constructive conversations with members of PGI, as well as some of the more level headed of the community on here. But some people are just too much of a CoD crowd to see anything beyond their twitch short sightedness to see the bigger picture, that this is a team game, that rewards team work. Or that the world isn't about them, sure you can be that special snowflake, but just remember when you have a 1000 other snowflakes on the ground, it's just snow at that point.

I think if this game, had been able to grow in the way the DEV team had intended we would have had a very enjoyable game, rather than something that is trying to please everyone and having issue pleasing anyone.

[UnsafePilot]

Sjorpha, on 20 October 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Saying "The other guy getting something doesn't take anything away from you." is, and no offense, nonsensical. If I am playing against that other guy every increase in his power is a decrease in my chances of winning the match, how does that not impact me? That's as silly as saying giving someone an extra queen in chess wouldn't impact his opponent.

Except that the guy on the other team wasn't running these mechs. We're not talking about making the mechs that you're playing against any stronger. We're talking about making the mechs that no one's been playing with strong enough to be used.

No one is being given any extra queens; The people who didn't have them before are being given one so they can start competing.

Edited by UnsafePilot, 20 October 2014 - 02:14 PM.

[Kodyn]

Just to clear my statement up, so I only offend the correct people, my anti-TT bias is due to only my own personal experience with a few dozen or so TT game players, plus the TT guys here. The ones I've known have been without fail, obnoxious neckbeard-types with nasally voices who live off of Mountain Dew and Doritos, and will literally hit on a woman by trying to explain what an amazing TT-gamer of whatever genre they are...while wiping Dorito dust off on their pants and fondling their 20-sided die in their pocket...

I'm sure all you TT people aren't like that, but when that's my experience with them, I do tend to be biased, and not wanting to be lumped in with them simply because I want the same things atm.

As far as the rest of this thread goes....everyone, please just see how it goes. If the quirks get a week or two of solid play, PGI gets some numbers, and everyone's unhappy, ok, then there's an issue. But right now, people are predicting that this system will do this, that, and the other thing, without even seeing all the quirks or how they work out. Patience.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Sjorpha, on 20 October 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

How is there any non-relative way to look at it?

By looking at it in absolute terms.

That's what I was trying to get at with an earlier posts about kids having money. If you have $10 and I have $5, and someone gives me an additional $3, I just got a 'buff' but your money wasn't 'nerfed' - you still have $10, and it is worth the same as it always has been.

[Mothykins]

Metus regem, on 20 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

Admittedly, I am just getting so sick and tired of how toxic this community is in this game. I've had several very civil and constructive conversations with members of PGI, as well as some of the more level headed of the community on here. But some people are just too much of a CoD crowd to see anything beyond their twitch short sightedness to see the bigger picture, that this is a team game, that rewards team work. Or that the world isn't about them, sure you can be that special snowflake, but just remember when you have a 1000 other snowflakes on the ground, it's just snow at that point.

I think if this game, had been able to grow in the way the DEV team had intended we would have had a very enjoyable game, rather than something that is trying to please everyone and having issue pleasing anyone.

The jabs at folk around here as the "CoD crowd" and the like really isn't great for making people calm, or having a good conversation with them. Pretty much inflammatory and aimed generally so that it will insult anyone that disagrees with you. I understand being upset, but aiming to make others upset so you can continue to be upset yourself (Causing a reason to be "justified" in your actions) is the type of thing I would strongly discourage. I fall victim to that sort of thing myself, but I'm not going to encourage it.

Stop adding to the toxicity, and smarten up.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

By looking at it in absolute terms.

That's what I was trying to get at with an earlier posts about kids having money. If you have $10 and I have $5, and someone gives me an additional $3, I just got a 'buff' but your money wasn't 'nerfed' - you still have $10, and it is worth the same as it always has been.

You still gave a bad analogy.
If you used an allusion to sets, you would've been in a slightly better position.

[Metus regem]

Cavale, on 20 October 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

The jabs at folk around here as the "CoD crowd" and the like really isn't great for making people calm, or having a good conversation with them. Pretty much inflammatory and aimed generally so that it will insult anyone that disagrees with you. I understand being upset, but aiming to make others upset so you can continue to be upset yourself (Causing a reason to be "justified" in your actions) is the type of thing I would strongly discourage. I fall victim to that sort of thing myself, but I'm not going to encourage it.

Stop adding to the toxicity, and smarten up.

Good point, I'm going to make an effort to be better, thank you for calling me on it.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Cavale, on 20 October 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

The jabs at folk around here as the "CoD crowd" and the like really isn't great for making people calm, or having a good conversation with them. Pretty much inflammatory and aimed generally so that it will insult anyone that disagrees with you. I understand being upset, but aiming to make others upset so you can continue to be upset yourself (Causing a reason to be "justified" in your actions) is the type of thing I would strongly discourage. I fall victim to that sort of thing myself, but I'm not going to encourage it.

Stop adding to the toxicity, and smarten up.

Honestly that was the first time I noticed any jab at a 'CoD crowd' or anything similar. 'Cheeto-dusted TT neckbeard' jabs have been a LOT more common, at least in this thread.

I was actually tempted to post basically your post earlier, but aimed at the weirdly hostile anti-TT crowd. Shows me for having restraint.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Ye know, for a while there this thread was actually being remarkably civil for a MWO argument thread. Sad to see that fall by the wayside, Meteus.

Hmmmm.

Ya don't think ridiculous posts like this one:

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

BLAAARGHHTBHJKRB@JHIP@BUJIP



The big deal, Zultor, is that T4/T5 'Mechs are being given one, UND PRECISELY VUN, build they get to run if they want to derive any benefit from the new quirks system. Don't want to run that build for whatever reason?



NO CAKE FOR JOO!



The disconnect comes from Piranha's original stated plan, which was a split buff wherein a 'Mech such as the HBK-4G would gain, as per Russ' original example, a 12.5% cooldown buff to ballistics in general and an additional 12.5% buff to the AC/20 in specific. This permitted the HBK-4G to retain its AC/20 specialization - and, in fact, to be a better ballistics platform in general than the Shadow Hawk, its current competitor - without iron-fisted mouthpunching the folks who enjoyed using more than one of the ballistic hardpoints on the ballistic-hardpoint-heavy 4G.



This split quirk system struck many as being as close to an ideal solution to the problem as could readily exist, shoring up weaker 'Mechs in their entirety whilst still promoting niche-specific, TT-inspired loadouts. They would not introduce such gob-smackingly gigantic performance differences between the 'Mech as a whole and the 'Mech as equipped as its quirkset demands that non-compliant loadouts are effectively removed from contention, as is currently slated to be the case for T4 and T5 'Mechs. It still promoted lore-appropriate niche roles without demanding those roles.



TT folks throughout this thread, all desiring maximum differentiation between chassis (not bad of itself) and as much minimizing of a player's ability to modify or alter their 'Mechs as they desire (YES bad of itself), argue that no existing build is losing power and that "you can still be just as terrible as you always were in your terrible builds". This is generally untrue, or only true given certain other precepts are also held to be true. Whether or not it's true, it's also unequivocally stamping PGI's Seal Of Approval™ on a single given build for any lowball chassis, and effectively discouraging (extremely harshly, in the case of T4 and T5 'Mechs) any builds which deviate from the given and established norm as indicated by a 'Mech's quirkset.



In essence, the proponents are arguing that inter-chassis diversity, i.e. the number of different 'Mechs you see on the field, is more important than intra-chassis diversity, the number of different viable builds within a single given chassis, and that furthermore anything which can attempt to force players into playing stock or near-stock loadouts is by default a Good And Positive Thing.



The detractants, which are not and never have been arguing against the quirk system itself but only against its given, highly restrictive implementation, are stating that there's no reason to sacrifice intra-chassis diversity as the current system intends to do when less narrowly-focused quirks could accomplish the same goals of role/niche differentiation whilst not completely eliminating any/every other build on a given T4/T5 chassis from contention, as the current system is set up to do. In the current list, there is no reason to ever play a Pretty Baby without large lasers, or a DRG-1N without AC/5s, or a CN9-D without an LBX-10, or any of these other 'Mechs which have been effectively hard-locked into one, UND PRECISELY VUN, primary weapons system by the razor-focused quirk system.



THAT is the Big Deal. Or rather, the entire deal, but either way.

Might not have helped steer it away from that?

Hard to have calm and collected debate/argument/Discussion when you start throwing out such melodramatic nonsense. Yes, not a nice way to describe it, but I am hard pressed to find a better way in this instance.

Which by the way, you might notice I answered, rather reasonably as to why I believe you are overreacting. Although apparently, either you have chosen to ignore my posts, or can't argue with the rationale?