118 replies to this topic

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mister Blastman, on 04 November 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Well I don't care about lore. Thus, I answered your question with what is relevant to MWO as a player, not a purist. I play to win. Everything else be damned.

Yes, I'm one of those.

Then quirks aren't about or for you, and you shouldn't care what the Catapult gets because obviously if you play one it'll be the ballistic build anyway.

So you have no reason to argue against it getting PPC buffs.

[Kaox Veed]

Tastian, on 04 November 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

But some are just terrible. These are the ones that bug me the most:

3) Catapult K2 - Best known for its high mounted PPCs and controversial exploited ballistic slots, PGI quirks medium lasers and the ballistic slot. Really?

And the one that bothers me the most:

4) Dragon Flame - I paid good money for this and have mainly enjoyed 4 Large Lasers or a Gauss and 4 Medium Lasers. Stock it has ER Large and AC2 (which they give buffs to the other Dragon variants) But, no, PGI gives it an AC20 buff. And not even a good one like cooldown. The Flame is NOT a Hunchback. Dragons have to go fast which mean XL engines. This makes no sense to me. And why oh why is it considered a Tier 3 mech??




Sure there are others including the Blackjacks, but these 4 really bug me.


Which ones bothers you the most?

I agree with both of these. The K2 should have got some PPC buffs which would have buffed the mlas slightly as well, the range buff on the ballistics is fine too. But if you want to run a ballistic 65tonner, go Jager.

And the Flame buffs are just sickening. It makes for a terrible hunchback. It was only rated t3 because someone runs it with the AC20, and that is straight from Russ. They should have treated it as the same tier as the other dragons and focused on it's energy weapon potential, not a lame gimmick build that is bad for Dragons.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 04 November 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

I don't see why everyone gets hung up on the PPCs. Sure, they are stock. Sure, it goes with lore. But beyond that, without how MWO plays, there is no reason at all to use PPCs on them.
PPCs on it are pointless.

Let's see, let me paraphrase a quote from the Devs in Closed Beta:

"The goal of MWO is to be the closest to Battletech of any MW title".

So when we see most chassis flipping the script, and turning their secondary hardpoints into their primary builds, and the primary hardpoints relegated to back up weapons, or nothing at all, it appears that we are missing that mark. Yes, one cannot translate TT Lore 1 for 1 to FPS game. But one can certainly keep the ideas of roles and chassis flavor alive, while being competitive, if not "optimal".

If one wanted a ballistic 65 tonner, one should be encouraged to lean toward the Jagermech, not a mech built with 2 afterthought MGs. THAT alone indicates how badly the planning has failed, and by catering quirks toward those Meta builds alone, it simply exacerbates those faults, instead of using this as a chance to promote using the mechs successfully in closer to stock forms.

The "Meta" builds for each only need minor buffs at most, as they already ARE the "optimal" builds.

What needs buffs is characteristics that would encourage diversity in those Chassis, not simply making one single build on each chassis "better".

[Mavairo]

The K2s are probably the most disappointing.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 04 November 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Well I don't care about lore. Thus, I answered your question with what is relevant to MWO as a player, not a purist. I play to win. Everything else be damned.

Yes, I'm one of those.

Which makes you...what...part of the 2-3% of the playerbase? Maybe, just maybe for the Game to stay viable, PGI needs to cater a little bit to the majority, too, so as to encourage people to open wallets?

[stjobe]

That Guy, on 04 November 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

the CN9-A getting all SRM-4 quirks

This.

CN9-AH gets AC/20 quirks.
CN9-YLW gets AC/20 quirks.
CN9-D gets LB10-X quirks.
CN9-AL gets LL quirks.

CN9-A gets... SRM quirks?

Every other CN9 gets their right arm weapon quirked except the base variant? That doesn't even come with SRMs stock?

Madness.

Give the CN9-A some proper AC/10 loving, please!

[Bishop Steiner]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 04 November 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

and w/o any energy backup weapons

So freaking disappointing that.
So much could have been done with the Arrow.
Buff crit percentage on MGs. Increase range, or narrow CoF.
Buff Lasers, increase agility, etc.

But nope.


BUT, in fairness, Russ replaced Paul over a month ago on the balance stuff. The issue being Russ listens almost exclusively (though not 100%, thankfully) to a small circle of competitive players about this.

Which would be fine, if the majority of the playerbase were "win at all costs, nothing else is fun" players. But the overwhelming majority are not.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 04 November 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Then quirks aren't about or for you, and you shouldn't care what the Catapult gets because obviously if you play one it'll be the ballistic build anyway.

So you have no reason to argue against it getting PPC buffs.

I love that he won't answer me back.... mostly because realistically, all emotion aside, what can he say to counter my points?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 November 2014 - 09:15 AM.

[TercieI]

stjobe, on 04 November 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

This.

CN9-AH gets AC/20 quirks.
CN9-YLW gets AC/20 quirks.
CN9-D gets LB10-X quirks.
CN9-AL gets LL quirks.

CN9-A gets... SRM quirks?

Every other CN9 gets their right arm weapon quirked except the base variant? That doesn't even come with SRMs stock?

Madness.

Give the CN9-A some proper AC/10 loving, please!

Ha. And I thought the problem there is that you should be running 6-packs instead of 4s.

[stjobe]

Terciel1976, on 04 November 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Ha. And I thought the problem there is that you should be running 6-packs instead of 4s.

Well, if you were to run SRMs on the -A you should either do triple artemis sixes or triple non-artemis fours.

Neither of them are anywhere near what the 'mech was intended for though, which is mid-range support (direct-fire LRM and AC/10 fire - the MLs are backup weapons).

Edit: Either way, it's insane that all the other CN9 variants get quirks for their right-arm weaponry but the A doesn't. So change it, please.

Edited by stjobe, 04 November 2014 - 09:22 AM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

stjobe, on 04 November 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Every other CN9 gets their right arm weapon quirked except the base variant? That doesn't even come with SRMs stock?

Madness.

And actually, the -AL is getting LPL quirks, not LL.

Double madness.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 04 November 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Well, if you were to run SRMs on the -A you should either do triple artemis sixes or triple non-artemis fours.

Neither of them are anywhere near what the 'mech was intended for though, which is mid-range support (direct-fire LRM and AC/10 fire - the MLs are backup weapons).

Edit: Either way, it's insane that all the other CN9 variants get quirks for their right-arm weaponry but the A doesn't. So change it, please.

should be a base Missile buff across the board, with focused extra buff on LRMs, because the role the CN9 was designed for was midrange support of the Trebuchet.

I find it distressing that the quirks, which could have done so much to open the doors for build diversity in general, are instead more often than not, simply reinforcing overspecialized comp builds.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 November 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

should be a base Missile buff across the board, with focused extra buff on LRMs, because the role the CN9 was designed for was midrange support of the Trebuchet.

The really sad thing is that a stock-ish CN9-A build (AC10, 2xML, 2xLRM5, add AMS/DHS/Endo) is actually pretty darn decent and can strike at any range. But people won't even consider it because it's a 'bracket build' and apparently crap because it's not boating only two types of weapon systems.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 November 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

should be a base Missile buff across the board, with focused extra buff on LRMs, because the role the CN9 was designed for was midrange support of the Trebuchet.

Couldn't agree more - for once!

Bishop Steiner, on 04 November 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

I find it distressing that the quirks, which could have done so much to open the doors for build diversity in general, are instead more often than not, simply reinforcing overspecialized comp builds.

Or, in the case of the CN9-A, to reinforce the trial CN9-A(c) build.

Which isn't the most fun, interesting, effective, unique, lore-friendly, or even great build. It just happens to be the Champion build because SRMs were way, way overpowered when it was designed and triple-ASRM-6 CN9-A's were the go-to medium brawler.

That time is long past, and the CN9-A deserves a better fate than being pigeon-holed and relegated to SRM brawler.

Edited by stjobe, 04 November 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Grid Iron with UAC/5?
They could have justified giving it AC20 perks - as that's a fine build.
They could have justified giving it NARC perks - as it's is the only HB with a single Missle Hardpoint and it would have make the mech unique.
They could have justified giving it Gauss perks - as that was the stock build.
They could even have gone with AC/10 perks - as that's the effective single ballistic skirmish weapon.

Instead they gave it UAC5...

[Bishop Steiner]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 04 November 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

And actually, the -AL is getting LPL quirks, not LL.

Double madness.

CN9-AL
Cuz that resembles it's intended use so well, right?

vs how I would rather run it, myself: CN9-AL

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 November 2014 - 09:39 AM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 November 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

CN9-AL
Cuz that resembles it's intended use so well, right?

vs how I would rather run it, myself: CN9-AL

I feel dirty for having looked at an SRM-carrying Cent build.

CN9-AL is how I would run it.

Edited by Alexander MacTaggart, 04 November 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 04 November 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Couldn't agree more - for once!


Or, in the case of the CN9-A, to reinforce the trial CN9-A(c) build.

Which isn't the most fun, interesting, effective, unique, lore-friendly, or even great build. It just happens to be the Champion build because SRMs were way, way overpowered when it was designed and triple-ASRM-6 CN9-A's were the go-to medium brawler.

That time is long past, and the CN9-A deserves a better fate than being pigeon-holed and relegated to SRM brawler.

Ugh. And the myth of the ZOmbie has always neutered the Centy. In reality all it did was perpetuate bad play in them as it was people who never learned to twist enough to protect their right arm. I know you love Cents as much as I do. I have almost without fail ran big guns in the RA of them, and always done well. YLW has always been one of my top chassis.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 04 November 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

I feel dirty for having looked at an SRM-carrying Cent build.

I can almost understand the AH packing them. It makes some sense to simply convert it to an in your face city fighting brawler with it's AC20. But in all other Centies, it should be LRMs.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 November 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 04 November 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

Then quirks aren't about or for you, and you shouldn't care what the Catapult gets because obviously if you play one it'll be the ballistic build anyway.

So you have no reason to argue against it getting PPC buffs.

I'm sorry, I'll let myself decide if I want to have one opinion or the other. You Sir, have no right to tell me what I do and do not have a reason to argue for and against.

If it came down to PPC buffs or AC buffs, I'd pick AC buffs every time.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mister Blastman, on 04 November 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

I'm sorry, I'll let myself decide if I want to have one opinion or the other. You Sir, have no right to tell me what I do and do not have a reason to argue for and against.

If it came down to PPC buffs or AC buffs, I'd pick AC buffs every time.

I know you would, because you're a competitive player and thus looking for any advantage.

Unfortunately, quirks are specifically for bringing non-'competitive' options up, instead of making the already-accepted options better.

Thus, no reason for the K2 to get ballistic quirks instead of PPC ones.

[kapusta11]

So where is the patch, btw?