963 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Ghost Badger, on 17 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

You have a cause...I get it. Can you use one of the dozens of 'CLAN IS OP' threads instead?

Naw. Those are full of too much counter evidence to his claims already. Here he figures people actually have to make the effort of posting to refute.

About the only mech genuinely OP is the Timber Wolf. DWs are only a big problem if you want to fight toe to toe, or get boxed in. Smart players figured out mobility and indirect fire beat Dire Whales, every time, quite some time ago.

[Prezimonto]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

*Catches up on thread for a bit*

I've got to say I'm disappointed, Bishop. I would have figured you for one of the biggest proponents of customization and personalization this system is undercutting. Sure this system improves battlefield diversity and, perhaps, diversity between individual pilots, but it effectively removes a pilot's ability to put his own personal flair on his ride of choice and not be smacked across the jowls for it.

As someone who started this game riding aroun in Dragons, for instance, let's look at the quirks for the DRG-1N - my very first owned 'Mech, still occupying pride of place in my first 'Mechbay slot. or it would if one could tell which of my slots was my first slot. Anyways:

[color=#00FFFF]Dragon 1N - Tier 5 Support[/color]

Additional Structure CT +24
Additional Structure RA +6
AC/5 Cooldown +50% 25x2
ER-LL Cooldown +25%
ER-LL Duration -25%
Energy Weapon Range +16%

So. Looking at these bonuses, it's pretty obvious that I have to run dual AC/5 on the DRG-1N. No other options - that godawful enormous bonus means it's the absolute height of utter stupidity to put together a DRG-1N that doesn'i maximize one of the biggest straight DPS bonuses in the game. As well, I don't even get any real choice of backup armaments - I get to stuff an ER large laser in that shoulder hardpoint, for the same reason of blind-stupid-obvious damage increases. My "choice", when it comes to this old friend, is whether I want a 300XL engine and two ERLL, or whether I want to use a 350XL and stick to only one backup laser. That is pretty much the entire extent of my choice when it comes to the DRG-1N. Fast dual AC/5 with a single ERLL backup, or average-speed dual AC/5 with dual ERLL backup.

The reason I bought the DRG-1N in the first place - its dual missile hardpoints and the 2x SRM-4 close-range sucker punch I used to get some pretty good mileage out of compared to my other Dragons, both more accurate and more damaging than a single SRM-6 - falls away entirely. Yes, it's an incredibly minor quibble in the scheme of things and I realize this, but this old hulk has been my buddy since I started playing the game. It hurts to watch the builds I struggled with, the lessons I learned with it, all the cool experiments I ran with it (successfully or not) just...sliced away. Discarded like so much trash, out the airlock never to return. My old buddy First-In has one thing it gets to do now, whether I wanted to do that thing with it or not.

As it turned out, that wasn't at all what I was doing with First-In, and so I get to either switch him over to dual AC/5s with an ERLL in the shoulder or I get to just sell him altogether.

Watching that happen to every T4 and T5 'Mech in the game hurts a lot of people, I'd imagine. This isn't nearly so disruptive as sized hardpoints would be, of course, and realistically we'll get over it. It just makes folks like Oogalook and I wonder what happened to the original plan.

The thing you're avoiding is that the double SRM4 punch is still there, still viable, and still better than a single SRM6. Just because it's not getting a buff doesn't mean it doesn't still work.

Though I agree, the 5N would be better off with a more generic energy tool set of quirks, overall I think the changes are very positive.

[Piney II]

Quote function inop...............

Zerberus: "Exactly, they`re just becoming better the closer they are to stock. No more, no less."

^^^^This is all there is to it. It's not nerfing current builds. It's not limiting customization.

Much hand wringing here over a basic non-issue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Watching that happen to every T4 and T5 'Mech in the game hurts a lot of people, I'd imagine. This isn't nearly so disruptive as sized hardpoints would be, of course, and realistically we'll get over it. It just makes folks like Oogalook and I wonder what happened to the original plan.

Funny how that worked out isn't it

That said, I am in agreement with Oogalook and 1453 R (weird) here. At least with sized hardpoints you weren't allowed to take some of the sub-par builds. I will wait for complete list to be released but honestly would've preferred more generic quirks (like laser buffs for the Jester over just large lasers) than a lot of what we are seeing.

Sure you CAN still run the terrible older builds, but considering how much they are used now, I don't see that mattering that much. It is pigeon holing mechs but still allowing people to take builds that don't take advantage of the quirks. Not sure how this will affect new players trying to do different builds but it seems more like it is simply increasing the divide between bad builds and good builds. I don't know, we will see.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Sure this system improves battlefield diversity and, perhaps, diversity between individual pilots

that is really the only thing that matters. You can still put the flair you like on a mech. But you know, in TT, when you mod a mech, you actually have a chance of ending up with negative quirks. Here you simply lose the bonuses for sticking with the systems they were DESIGNED around.

You can modify almost anything. But whether it's tossing a bunch of TOW rocket launchers in place of the 120mm on an Abrams, or stuffing a Viper V10 into an RX7, it almost never actually performs as well, as a total package, as the way they were engineered to in the first place. Especially in a combat vehicle.

I'm sorry you have apparently misread or ignored my posts since Closed Beta, but I have always been a proponent of sized hardpoints, which would limit customization far more than this. Because I am a huge proponent of anything that actually opens up and makes more variants useful, not obsolete.

Unlimited customization is actually the biggest enemy of diversity.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prezimonto, on 17 October 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Though I agree, the 5N would be better off with a more generic energy tool set of quirks, overall I think the changes are very positive.

And this will always be one of the biggest dangers and sources of complaints. "But my pet mech didn't get the quirks I FEEL IT SHOULD GET!!!!".

[Scratx]

1453 R, I understand your POV. I really do. I myself have a founder hunchie that doesn't use an AC20, for example. I don't really like following meta or anything, I just do whatever the heck I want and can make work. Still, overall what we're getting is far better than how things stand right now.

I plan to keep my hunchie as it is. If your Dragon still works for you, you don't have to change it, either. That's the beauty here, if it works, don't change it.

Jury's out on whether any of our off the wall mechs will work well enough after the quirkage hits (because those we're fighting against will have quirks too), and I admit I am a bit leery of some of these very specific and enormous buffs (like the AC5 on Dragon 1N or the Large Lasers on Pretty Baby) because they really do create such an enormous incentive to use them that it does get hard to ignore that siren call... but in the end, we're not forced to use them if we really don't want to.

I'm eager to get my hands on these quirked mechs and see how it all plays out.

[DocBach]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Sure you CAN still run the terrible older builds, but considering how much they are used now, I don't see that mattering that much. It is pigeon holing mechs but still allowing people to take builds that don't take advantage of the quirks. Not sure how this will affect new players trying to do different builds but it seems more like it is simply increasing the divide between bad builds and good builds. I don't know, we will see.

Just because SRM's on the Dragon don't have a buff, doesn't mean they won't still do the same thing they do now. I'm not seeing the controversy, its pretty much exactly what the people saying sized hardpoints said would fix the game without limiting customization, now they are saying quirks are too limiting.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

that is really the only thing that matters. You can still put the flair you like on a mech. But you know, in TT, when you mod a mech, you actually have a chance of ending up with negative quirks. Here you simply lose the bonuses for sticking with the systems they were DESIGNED around.

This is actually how CW/ thepersistent world should've been. Whenever you repair or reconfigure your mech, you get a quirk attached. Give us RPG like elements we want from an MMO, but also allow us to play outside the persistence for private/competitive matches.

[Prezimonto]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

And this will always be one of the biggest dangers and sources of complaints. "But my pet mech didn't get the quirks I FEEL IT SHOULD GET!!!!".

heh.

that's fine. In the long run I think it's a strange choice for the 5N to lock it into a single non-cannon build, but the selection of weapons make sense together, the build isn't bad, and you still customize (though not 100% use the quirk set) to your heart's content.

I'm 100% okay with that. If I really want to run an SRM brawler, I'm sure there will be a dog tier mech with HUGE quirks to do it soon (and YES I want that mech... even if it is the splat cat all over again). Now I have a reason to keep these odd-ball mechs if they fit a play/build I enjoy.

[Mothykins]

VtTimber, on 17 October 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Negative Movement Buffs, etc will be removed. Russ confirmed on Twitter that HGN movement buffs (torso twist, etc) are all removed.

Allow me to explain to you a thing.





One is Quirks.

The Other is the Chassis.

Shall I repeat?

THE JESTER HAS NO NEGATIVE QUIRKS, BUT IT HAS A GIMPED CHASSIS. HOW MANY NEGATIVE QUIRKS ARE THERE TO FLUSH? NONE. IT HAS A GIMPED CHASSIS. NO QUIRKS. NO FIX TO THE CHASSIS. POOR TORSO YAW STAYS.

• No negative quirks
  
• Still gets gimped maneuverability

Edited by Cavale, 17 October 2014 - 12:51 PM.

[Mercules]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

So. Looking at these bonuses, it's pretty obvious that I have to run dual AC/5 on the DRG-1N. No other options - that godawful enormous bonus means it's the absolute height of utter stupidity to put together a DRG-1N that doesn'i maximize one of the biggest straight DPS bonuses in the game. As well, I don't even get any real choice of backup armaments - I get to stuff an ER large laser in that shoulder hardpoint, for the same reason of blind-stupid-obvious damage increases. My "choice", when it comes to this old friend, is whether I want a 300XL engine and two ERLL, or whether I want to use a 350XL and stick to only one backup laser. That is pretty much the entire extent of my choice when it comes to the DRG-1N. Fast dual AC/5 with a single ERLL backup, or average-speed dual AC/5 with dual ERLL backup.

Actually I would be pretty tempted to run 2 MLs along with those AC5s. The Energy range boost makes MLs a bit more attractive and I'd still be able to bring 2 SRM4s which would boost my brawling damage without a ton of heat. It would make the mech more "hit and run" for me which is how I like to play my Dragons.

Of course I am going to bring AC/5s... but the rest is more open.

[1453 R]

Prezimonto, on 17 October 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

The thing you're avoiding is that the double SRM4 punch is still there, still viable, and still better than a single SRM6. Just because it's not getting a buff doesn't mean it doesn't still work.

Though I agree, the 5N would be better off with a more generic energy tool set of quirks, overall I think the changes are very positive.

Not really. I'll admit that the gut missiles in First-In haven't been a real selling point of the chassis in a long time. I'm not arguing for a shift in emphasis on the DRG-1N to whatever my favorite build is, as that's actually as dumb and pigheaded as folks like Mercules and GHost Badger are claiming me to be.

What I'm saying is that when your dual AC/5 build can kick out the damage of four AC/5 builds, you don't really have any excuse to waste tonnage you could be devoting to those AC/5s on SRM systems instead. Used to be that I could do largely whatever I liked on First-In, and so long as I understood that I was in a bottom-tier heavy I could go nuts in trying to figure out how to best leverage what strengths it did have.

Now...well, this or a close-enough derivative of it as to make no nevermind is the only thing in the entire game that makes the remotest amount of sense whatsoever on a DRG-1N. Do anything else - try and find weight for SRMs, or dig up weight for that extra ERLL in the arm, or pretty much anything but this - and you're wasting your time.

Again, at this point I'm mostly resigned to it. I just wanted to throw my support behind Oogalook, and add my own dismayed curiosity at wondering where the original plan, where things like the DRG-1N's impossibly huge AC/5 buff, were split between the AC/5 in specific and ballistics in general as a way of encouraging the 'Mech's PGI-chosen standard build without just completely mouth-punching anyone else who wanted to do anything else with the 'Mech in question, went.

Edited by 1453 R, 17 October 2014 - 12:52 PM.

[DocBach]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Allow me to explain to you a thing.

One is Quirks.

The Other is the Chassis.

Shall I repeat?

THE JESTER HAS NO NEGATIVE QUIRKS, BUT IT HAS A GIMPED CHASSIS.

The counter explanation is that the gimped chassis gimping will be reversed to make Inner Sphere chassis which were balanced against each other to be more competitive in combat against Clan 'Mechs.

So it won't be a gimped chassis anymore, because the negative debuffs to movement speed/rate/ability will be removed.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Allow me to explain to you a thing.





One is Quirks.

The Other is the Chassis.

Shall I repeat?

THE JESTER HAS NO NEGATIVE QUIRKS, BUT IT HAS A GIMPED CHASSIS.

So those two bright red negatives to agility under "quirk summary" are not quirks?

Huh.

[Prezimonto]

Mercules, on 17 October 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Actually I would be pretty tempted to run 2 MLs along with those AC5s. The Energy range boost makes MLs a bit more attractive and I'd still be able to bring 2 SRM4s which would boost my brawling damage without a ton of heat. It would make the mech more "hit and run" for me which is how I like to play my Dragons.

Of course I am going to bring AC/5s... but the rest is more open.

I was about to post this after a brief stint in smurfy. I think your build is exactly what I'd do as well. It might not optimize the quirk set, but it's still a good hit and run mech, making use of a short engagement to rapidly fire those AC5's, then disengage to cool down. Exactly how I play my Flame with 2LPL and 2ML.

[Mercules]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Allow me to explain to you a thing.





One is Quirks.

The Other is the Chassis.

Shall I repeat?

THE JESTER HAS NO NEGATIVE QUIRKS, BUT IT HAS A GIMPED CHASSIS.

Allow me to point you to:
http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/

Scroll down till you find quirks. Scroll further till you find the Catapults. Can you please tell me what is listed for quirks for the Jester? Remember, Smurfy pulls the data from the game files.

[Joe Mallad]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

And this will always be one of the biggest dangers and sources of complaints. "But my pet mech didn't get the quirks I FEEL IT SHOULD GET!!!!".

you know what's happening here right? Those that are complaining about the quirk system are those that want mechs to have general ballistic or laser quirks so they can STILL stick any ballistic or laser/PPC they want on their pet mech.

[Prezimonto]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Not really. I'll admit that the gut missiles in First-In haven't been a real selling point of the chassis in a long time. I'm not arguing for a shift in emphasis on the DRG-1N to whatever my favorite build is, as that's actually as dumb and pigheaded as folks like Mercules and GHost Badger are claiming me to be.

What I'm saying is that when your dual AC/5 build can kick out the damage of four AC/5 builds, you don't really have any excuse to waste tonnage you could be devoting to those AC/5s on SRM systems instead. Used to be that I could do largely whatever I liked on First-In, and so long as I understood that I was in a bottom-tier heavy I could go nuts in trying to figure out how to best leverage what strengths it did have.

Now...well, this or a close-enough derivative of it as to make no nevermind is the only thing in the entire game that makes the remotest amount of sense whatsoever on a DRG-1N. Do anything else - try and find weight for SRMs, or dig up weight for that extra ERLL in the arm, or pretty much anything but this - and you're wasting your time.

Again, at this point I'm mostly resigned to it. I just wanted to throw my support behind Oogalook, and add my own dismayed curiosity at wondering where the original plan, where things like the DRG-1N's impossibly huge AC/5 buff, were split between the AC/5 in specific and ballistics in general as a way of encouraging the 'Mech's PGI-chosen standard build without just completely mouth-punching anyone else who wanted to do anything else with the 'Mech in question, went.

So your argument is essentially, "I like my bad mech so I have an excuse to try bad builds."? Just try bad builds... it's the same thing, except the mech isn't just BAD for everyone.

I'll even add: I too have fun playing bad builds. It's fun. It's so fun I do it on bad mechs and good mechs. This changes nothing except making bad mechs also have honestly GOOD builds as well as bad builds.

Edited by Prezimonto, 17 October 2014 - 01:01 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Not really. I'll admit that the gut missiles in First-In haven't been a real selling point of the chassis in a long time. I'm not arguing for a shift in emphasis on the DRG-1N to whatever my favorite build is, as that's actually as dumb and pigheaded as folks like Mercules and GHost Badger are claiming me to be.

What I'm saying is that when your dual AC/5 build can kick out the damage of four AC/5 builds, you don't really have any excuse to waste tonnage you could be devoting to those AC/5s on SRM systems instead. Used to be that I could do largely whatever I liked on First-In, and so long as I understood that I was in a bottom-tier heavy I could go nuts in trying to figure out how to best leverage what strengths it did have.

Now...well, this or a close-enough derivative of it as to make no nevermind is the only thing in the entire game that makes the remotest amount of sense whatsoever on a DRG-1N. Do anything else - try and find weight for SRMs, or dig up weight for that extra ERLL in the arm, or pretty much anything but this - and you're wasting your time.

Again, at this point I'm mostly resigned to it. I just wanted to throw my support behind Oogalook, and add my own dismayed curiosity at wondering where the original plan, where things like the DRG-1N's impossibly huge AC/5 buff, were split between the AC/5 in specific and ballistics in general as a way of encouraging the 'Mech's PGI-chosen standard build without just completely mouht-punching anyone else who wanted to do anything else with the 'Mech in question.

well, for one thing, when you run 2ac5, you only get a 25% cooldown boost, not 50%, so no, you are not getting 4 ac5 for the price of 2.

But you are getting close to 3 for 2. on a mech notorious for it's horrible hitboxes and comparatively mediocre agility for its size. One that is still going to be hard pressed not to be outclassed by a simple Jagermech with 2 ac5, due to superior hitbox and weapon height.