118 replies to this topic

[Jonny Slam]

Well glad to see this thread is kicking along and offer my congratulations to all of you who have been doing your best to derail it and muddy the waters by answering everything but the actual thread question.

Also, extra points for attempting to demonize other members of the community because you disagree with them.

And a final tip of the hat to the Minimizer Brigade, who as always has hopped in to tell everyone they are just complaining because they are Badpilots/butthurt/noobs/dorks/ etc...... and all the other charming ways you talk down to people because you don't like anyone pointing out a problem....

Kudos to you all!

Now, back to it, the question that is being discussed and which has yet to be addressed by PGI is as follows:

Does PGI change quirks to drive revenue from players?

We are not talking about nerfing quirks (Thunderbolts etc..), or buffing quirks, we are talking about when a wholesale quirk change invalidates a entire weapon system the previous quirk version required and drove the owner/pilot to buy and modulize, thereby screwing the pilots out of all the money and time they put into the mechs being changed.

And before anyone wants to try the whole "you didn't have to change it to use AC5's !!! it was your choice to use AC5's and take advantage of the Quirk" Stop it, just stop it. We don't need any more intellectually dishonest shenanigans in the thread so just park that bullshit and provide some real input. Because the fact is that if PGI imposes a quirk onto any mech that benefits a specific weapon system you will need to master, unlock, and purchase the appropriate modules and weapon systems to take advantage of that specific weapon system. Otherwise you are not using your mech in a PLAYER VS PLAYER game to it's most effective.

To pretend otherwise is absolute hog-wash and you are ignoring the fact just to avoid it, so just stop.

So here is a fun example to illustrate: If PGI implements a brand new set of quirks on the Kingcrab KG-000 that provides its benefits only to some new thing called, let's say the "bubblegum pistol" then anyone who has that mech is going to be driven to unlucking, buying and installing Bubblegum pistols and Bubblegum pistol modules for rate of fire, range, etc.... so that they are using the mech in this competitive game to the best of there abilities. In fact, now that the KG-000 is quirked, or optimized for the Bubblegum Pistol a player's teammates, and lancemates have every right to expect that the pilot will do all they can to take advantage of the Bubblegum pistol Quirks to help the team and lance. That's just the way it is in competitive gaming.

But wait!!! Now look what happens! two months later after every Crabber has kitted out his 000 rigs with the everything required to rain wave of Bubblegum death on his foes a new quirk list comes out. Now for some reason the quirks for the KG-000 have been changed and these new quirks only benefit something called the "Pixie-ray" and all the modules and weapon systems the Crabbers have bought are as much as 50% less effective in some cases. So the Crabbers start over and have to go unluck more, purchase more, and install more new weapon systems and modules.

What is crazy here is that no one had been complaining about the Bubblegum pistol quirks, or claiming they were OP, in fact everyone was bitching about the Thunderbolt's new "peppermint-pudding-calibur" weapons instead, but for some reason, a reason that is no where discussed or mentioned by PGI the Bubblegum pistol is gone, the Pixie-ray is in, and the Pepperment-pudding keeps on going.

End of example.

My point being, that these types of quirk changes are being made to drive revenue, and they are being done on the non-marque mechs so as to avoid widespread screaming and still net PGI cash. Wholesale weapon system changes after previous quirks drove revenue to specific systems, are being done to drive more revenue. Take a look at the past quirk changes see how it is quietly done every time. Seriously, look and see and then complain to PGI because it is dishonest and it is ****** up.

Edited by Jonny Slam, 20 February 2015 - 10:03 PM.

[DaZur]

That's not an example of PGI driving revenue via swings of the quirks... That's an example of min/maxers chasing the white rabbit and PGI benefiting by proxie.

You are really stretching the limits of plausible possibility through this tenuous premise Slam.

[Kristov Kerensky]

DaZur, he's not stretching the limits, he done went to ludicrous speed with them.

IF a player goes and buys a set of Mechs and weapons only because the quirks make that Mech OP, even if only a perception of OP, then that player is a bit of a fool and is nothing but a Flavor of the Moment player, aka min/maxer. Not all competitive players min/max by the way, it's not always the best thing to do in order to actually, you know, WIN in a team oriented objective based game. Sure, it's usually the best option in a pure 1v1 deathmatch based game, but not so much in other games. I know, some of you are shaking your heads and thinking 'what an effing noob, he has no idea what he's talking about', and that's fine, I'm sure you all do great in 1v1 games and are experts on the subject. Now go play with your toys, the adults are talking, ok?

Did PGI offer MC sales on the items related to Mechs that had their quirks changed before they changed the quirks?

No, they did not.

Did PGI offer the Mechs who's quirks were changed for lowered MC costs before they changed the quirks?

No, they did not.

Ok, so, how exactly does PGI stand to gain a profit by changing those quirks now? See, they already profited from the people who SPENT real world money for no good reason on Mechs, weapons and modules that can be purchased with cbills. That's not PGI's doing, that was simple greed on the players part, they wanted to get those OP quirked Mechs and weapon systems maxed out ASAP, didn't feel like waiting to buy them with cbills and earn the xp, so they dropped real world cash on them. Did PGI TELL us the quirks were a work in progress and that things would change? Why, yes Jonny, they DID tell us that very thing, how about that!

Did Jonny spend real world cash to buy Mechs? Gee wilkers, I don't know, but I get the feeling that he probably did, he's a min/maxer and fancies himself a competitive player, so..confidence is high.

[Shadow Magnet]

Kristov Kerensky, on 20 February 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

Why did the Dragon 5N get UAC quirks? You mean, the Dragon 5N that comes with UAC5 stock on it? Now, this is JUST a wild eyed, pie in the sky guess here, so do NOT HOLD ME TO IT...but...

Because it comes with a UAC5 stock is the reason it got UAC quirks, that's just a guess remember!

Quirks are supposed to be based on the stock build of the variant, which part of that are you not quite getting here?

You obviously did not read what I wrote, but anyway. Yes, it got UAC5 quirks because it got UAC5 as stock.
And how many UAC5 can you put into that arm? Is the UAC5 a good choice of weapon for this mech? No. It's just another example where the stock weapons of a mech make no sense, at least in MWO. They may make sense in TT, but again - this is MWO. Game mechanics are different here.

And who declared or defined that quirks MUST be blindly aligned to the stock layout, without even thinking about if that layout is useful at all in MWO?

[Shadow Magnet]

Kristov Kerensky, on 20 February 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

No idea, does it matter? People who like the Dragons will play the Dragons. I happen to like Battlemasters, so I play them. I played them before they had quirks, I didn't change a single config on my Battlemasters once they added quirks, and I haven't changed a single config after they changed the quirks.

Want to know why?

Because I like the Battlemaster, I don't care what quirks it has or doesn't have, I like the MECH. I have a good time in it, I do well in it, did well before the quirks, do well still.

Certain players will always look for the Flavor of the Moment build, whatever chassis that may be, they don't care about anything but the highest possible DPS, it's the nature of their gaming. Some of them will be the so called Top Tier gamers, others will be the plebes who can't hit the broadside of an Awesome with a Arrow IV, they hit a wiki, see the 'top build' and grab it. Have you read the threads full of the screaming about the Quirkening? This thread has it, people who literally spent hundreds of real world dollars SINCE the quirks were first introduced to buy the top Mechs based soley on the quirks. Mechs these people, some of whom have played for the 3 years I have, have never even LOOKED at before the quirks were put in.

Why did they do that? There's not a single tourney going on that has a payout in real cash, not even one with decent prizes for pity's sake, so what exactly was the reason these people blew hundreds of dollars suddenly? Well?

So because you don't care about details, everyone else should do too? We are NOT talking about chasing the "top super quirk mech". The first pass quirks of the Dragon 5N were hardly OP and "flavor of the month". It was not OP. And still PGI for whatever reason that still escapes me wrecked it and made it a garage mech again.

You are fine if certain mech variants basically go extinct because they (again) become totally ineffectice?

It's all nice and candy as long your own beloved mech is doing ok?

Man, I really hope that PGI will one day f*** up your favourite mechs. I will be looking forward to see how fast you will change your opinion.

[Violent Nick]

To OP..

Well, it would make sense wouldn't it.

[Shadow Magnet]

cSand, on 20 February 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

What, besides AC2 or MG, are you going to fit 3 of in that arm?

That was exactly my point. A single UAC5 makes no sense on any mech. The Dragon 5N had good AC2 quirks and was an effective long range harasser with 3xAC2 and ERLL. Then PGI stock aligned the quirks, made them even more mediorce. And what we got now? The Dragon 5N is basically extinct again.
At the same time they left the Dragon 1N unchanged up to now, even if some people complained about it being OP. Sorry, I don't get the logic.

And the last quirk pass did the same for more mechs. If PGI does *intentionally* turns more mechs garage mechs that nobody plays, then please someone explain the business logic behind this to me.

They are surely not trying anymore to balance out the mechs. They seem to randomly f*** up mechs without any real concept that is based on logic. Stop telling me about the oh so holy stock layouts. They were designed for TT, not for MWO.
Only hardcore or purist people run those layouts.

Not the stock weapons define the character or role of a mech - the number, type and location of weapon hard points and the engine size limit does.

[Torgun]

Void Angel, on 20 February 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

You're not even trying any more; just "No, you! You're drunk or high!" You still haven't justified or corrected your earlier errors, and you're substituting conclusions for facts and just making things up - just being able to phrase an accusation as a syllogism doesn't make your reasoning valid. If you look at the quirks and understand them (you're still ignoring the many requirks that have only general quirks,) you can easily see that not making use of a single -10% Medium Laser Duration quirk is hardly going to break any build - it's hardly required that one "not care about quirks" to recognize that. What you are doing has several nasty philosophical names, but given your past performance you'll simply dismiss the terms as "wordcrapping," so I'll be blunt - it's also called lying, and you should stop.

Barring an undiagnosed or untreated mental disorder, there's really no other way to describe your willful disregard of contrary evidence and insistence on making things up to score what you fondly believe to be a "logical kill." Give it up, take your meds, drink your milk, and go home. I'll even give you some aspirin for the headache.

Oh so now we're talking mental disorders huh? Seriously man you have issues, but luckily I'm not paid to having to deal with them. Good luck, because from what I've seen you'll probably need it.

[Void Angel]

Enjoy your milk - here's an aspirin.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Shadow Magnet, on 21 February 2015 - 01:06 AM, said:

You obviously did not read what I wrote, but anyway. Yes, it got UAC5 quirks because it got UAC5 as stock.
And how many UAC5 can you put into that arm? Is the UAC5 a good choice of weapon for this mech? No. It's just another example where the stock weapons of a mech make no sense, at least in MWO. They may make sense in TT, but again - this is MWO. Game mechanics are different here.

And who declared or defined that quirks MUST be blindly aligned to the stock layout, without even thinking about if that layout is useful at all in MWO?

Stock based quirks are being used because the MAJORITY demanded they be done that way after the former set of quirks and seeing the results, that's according to PGI at any rate, Russ was pretty clear about that. The top competitive players do not make up a majority by the way, Russ has also repeatedly stated that fact.

Why they put 3 ballistics in the arm is beyond me, I don't like the slotted type system they use in the first place, much less agree with their usage of it. Personally, I think it should be a generic ballistic quirk, the section is built to deal with an UAC5 after all, that's a top of the line hard thumping ballistic there, double action after all. I didn't vote either way on the quirks, I honestly don't bother with them right now and I know they are a work in progress and except for non-weapon/heat quirks, I have no opinion besides they should be based on the factory floor version of the variant in question, generic unless it's a specialized build like the Awesome 9M for ERPPCs, fluff supports the specific quirk there. Just because a Mech boats some weapons doesn't mean they should get a specific quirk however, it needs that fluff to justify it. Gives us more useful quirks across the entire range of possibilities and even creates some OP builds that may need to be tempered for balance issues. Until we get to that point, I don't see the point in worrying about it, it's going to keep changing often for a while, hopefully less dramatic from here on out but who knows. You see this in any MMO whenever something new is added in any way, drastic shifts followed by tempered evening out...sometimes..sometimes you take dramamine before you log in to read the patch notes

Shadow Magnet, on 21 February 2015 - 01:14 AM, said:

So because you don't care about details, everyone else should do too? We are NOT talking about chasing the "top super quirk mech". The first pass quirks of the Dragon 5N were hardly OP and "flavor of the month". It was not OP. And still PGI for whatever reason that still escapes me wrecked it and made it a garage mech again.

You are fine if certain mech variants basically go extinct because they (again) become totally ineffectice?

It's all nice and candy as long your own beloved mech is doing ok?

Man, I really hope that PGI will one day f*** up your favourite mechs. I will be looking forward to see how fast you will change your opinion.

I care about the changes, but right now there's little point in worrying about the, far too early in the testing to see what's happening properly, and there's a lot of behind the scenes work needs to be done before they EVER get them right, HSR and hitreg need to be working a LOT better before weapons are balanced. They tried the player advocated quirks, I've covered this and my feelings on it already.

I don't build around the quirks, I've been helped by the changes but that's it, my builds were in place before we HAD quirks, they worked fine without them totally so they don't affect my builds in a negative way, how can they? 0 net gain OR loss if the quirks don't help my specific weapons, positive gain if they help any of my weapons in any way, what's the problem?

3 years now in MWO, we had supposedly nonworking listed quirks, so we ignored them. We haven't really gotten any new Mechs until Resistance that were affected by the quirks BEFORE we got them. So why did certain Mechs suddenly become must haves? Already covered that too.

[cSand]

DaZur, on 20 February 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

That's not an example of PGI driving revenue via swings of the quirks... That's an example of min/maxers chasing the white rabbit and PGI benefiting by proxie.

You are really stretching the limits of plausible possibility through this tenuous premise Slam.

You always say what I want to say except more effectively


DAZUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[occusoj]

Kristov Kerensky, on 20 February 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

occusoj, the UrbanMech doesn't have an engine cap, it simply comes with a 60 stock, that can be swapped out, same as most people swap the engines in the Mechs we have already

They removed engine cap? Finally something better than the captain-slow-style 300 in the AWS-8Q?

AFAIK max engine size is(or was?) limited for all mechs, for assaults its about 1.2 times their stock engine size.
Lights should be 1.4 and the engine rating cant exceed 8.5 times the weight or something like that. Correct me if Im wrong please.
That would result in Urbie beeing capped at 85. It will get something above 200 though. Which is a gross violoation of keeping things anywhere near "stock" or in its intended role. Which is not beeing a nascar can.

Kristov Kerensky, on 20 February 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

PGI is attempting to make as many Mechs viable as possible, but viable isn't always what WE think it is compared to what PGI thinks it is.
...
Quirks make the Mech a little better at it's INTENDED job, which is determined by it's stock loadout, not by what people WANT to toss on it. Build it without using the stock weapons, it's still viable, it's not taking a hit anywhere, it's just not getting a boost. If there's no penalty, then there's no wrong way to build the Mech.

Well, some mechs - like the dragons or awesomes- received heavy quirks for a very specific reason. That is: They sucked and were rarely played. Except for stuff like dragonbowling or lurmageddons.
Quirks didnt made them a little better, they brought them to a state above practice targets.
Of course one can ignore the quirks. The mech falls back to where it was. Which, in some cases, is outright terribad.
And besides the looks of the mech or trollbuilding I see little reason to use it.

The intended role can be fullfilled with similiar weapons, like PPC vs. ERPPC or AC5 vs. UAC5. Thats not a huge change like going from AC2 to gauss.
And if a slightly modified loadout makes for a much more useful build on a given variant then I see no problem in quirking for the that. Some stock loadouts arent exactly stellar performers, why not help them while keeping the mechs role unchanged?
I am all for keeping quirks close to stock and not diverting wildly from it. Mechs should perform better at their original job which isnt always the case with stock loadouts in MWO. Its not TT.

If a truly OP build is brought back to sane levels, Im all for it. But changing builds that arent even strong to begin with for something worse doesnt improve the games balance. It just leads to one more mech getting used less because its inbalanced against the others. Inbalanced in terms of "why the hell shall I even bother with that?".
And that is exactly where the DRG-5N now is again. The "why-bother" level.
Its absence on the battlefield reflects that. Turned into another garage-hugger.

Kristov Kerensky, on 20 February 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

If there's no penalty, then there's no wrong way to build the Mech.

LRM AS7-DDC without ECM to get moar weight for lurms like to disagree with you. There are wrong ways to build mechs and they go from AC40 Cicadas right up to lurm/mg crabs.

[Osric Lancaster]

Hells, stop making me defend PGI, you're making me feel dirty.
Wait a minute. . .

Guys, I got it! I understand the conspiracy now! These are all PGI employees! By throwing a tantrum over completely inane tangents they're distracting from actual problems in the game and gathering support! Tell the people! The heat system's a joke! The critical system is horribly implemented! Hit-boxes and 'Mech scaling are still poorly applied and/or wildly inconsistent!

Oh god, they're on to me, tell my wife and kids I lo

[Kristov Kerensky]

occusoj, PGI has self imposed engine limits, and they play with those as they see fit anyway. BTech, at least the version I played in from the 80s through the late 90s, engine size was usually limited by tonnage available and that's it. Speed is a product of engine size vs mass, so it self limiting by tonnage, you won't see Dire's keeping up with Firemoths except during a hot drop as they are both falling out of orbit

As for Dragons being useless, that's just the opinion of some players, some people enjoy them. Competition players are too small of a minority to be using as the basis for gaming balance in any form or shape. PGI tried that, listened to them, we've seen the results and the aftermath, now it swings to the majority, we'll see where it goes next. A DDC without ECM and loaded with LRMs, you and I both agree not a good use of that coffin, but it's not OUR ride either, so we don't get to decide if it's fun or not, the person who made it does. Most players are just looking to run around in giant stompy robots and see stuff blow up, they don't care about winning tourneys or anything like that, they just want to stomp stuff.

[occusoj]

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 February 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

PGI has self imposed engine limits, and they play with those as they see fit anyway.

Self imposed and valid until they would prevent some $$$ to be made. Nice concept though.

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 February 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

As for Dragons being useless, that's just the opinion of some players, some people enjoy them.

Without quirks like the -1N has received, they are useless. Some people just enjoy running useless mechs because they love that chassis more than they hate getting owned by Doomcrows, Timbers, FS9,...

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 February 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Competition players are too small of a minority to be using as the basis for gaming balance in any form or shape

That I completely agree with. Balancing only for the comp players doesnt end well. As could be seen.

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 February 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Most players are just looking to run around in giant stompy robots and see stuff blow up, they don't care about winning tourneys or anything like that, they just want to stomp stuff.

And thats the wrong end of the scale to balance for too.
They play whatever they want, no matter how bad it is. No reason in quirking for them as they dont really care for their performance anyway.

[Void Angel]

Osric Lancaster, on 21 February 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Hells, stop making me defend PGI, you're making me feel dirty.
Wait a minute. . .

Guys, I got it! I understand the conspiracy now! These are all PGI employees! By throwing a tantrum over completely inane tangents they're distracting from actual problems in the game and gathering support! Tell the people! The heat system's a joke! The critical system is horribly implemented! Hit-boxes and 'Mech scaling are still poorly applied and/or wildly inconsistent!

Oh god, they're on to me, tell my wife and kids I lo

ROSWELL! ROSWELL!

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 February 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

As for Dragons being useless, that's just the opinion of some players, some people enjoy them. Competition players are too small of a minority to be using as the basis for gaming balance in any form or shape. PGI tried that, listened to them, we've seen the results and the aftermath, now it swings to the majority, we'll see where it goes next. A DDC without ECM and loaded with LRMs, you and I both agree not a good use of that coffin, but it's not OUR ride either, so we don't get to decide if it's fun or not, the person who made it does. Most players are just looking to run around in giant stompy robots and see stuff blow up, they don't care about winning tourneys or anything like that, they just want to stomp stuff.

Competitive players have a distinct impact on the metagame, so you can't simply dismiss their opinions as a minority. You should also take note of a few of things: first, PGI used the competitive set to get a starting point for quirks; it's not terribly surprising that they need to adjust the system. Second, not all of the 'mechs actually needed requirking, and some of the important requirks (Thunderbolt 9S) were balance tweaks rather than a revamping. Finally, whether or not a Dragon - or a D-DC LRM failboat - is dramatically underpowered is unrelated to whether or not any individual players enjoy it. I've had people argue all sorts of things based on anecdotal evidences like that. One guy a while ago rabidly insisted that frontloaded pinpoint damage would always, under any circumstances in the fracking future, be superior to any amount of DPS-type damage. I thought of him when the Clans came out; then I laughed. Anyhow, my point is that you shouldn't conflate anecdotal measurements like enjoyment with arguments about the balance of empirical capabilities.

[Jonny Slam]

Oh this is just charming, how nice to see the conspiracy conspiracy nut turn out.

Meaning the jack-offs who call everything a conspiracy if they don't like it, cant comprehend or don't have a answer but want to post anyway.

Welcome to the party wingnut-nuts. Glad to see you brought along your lazy intellects as well.

So once again lets get back on track and avoid the derailers and apologists and address the question at hand:

DOES PGI CHANGE QUIRKS JUST TO CREATE REVENUE?

DaZur, on 20 February 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

That's not an example of PGI driving revenue via swings of the quirks... That's an example of min/maxers chasing the white rabbit and PGI benefiting by proxie.

You are really stretching the limits of plausible possibility through this tenuous premise Slam.

No, I'm not.

It's not min-maxing when it is a quirk designed post launch by the developers. That is akin to saying anyone who takes cover in a new map feature is min-maxing. Or anyone who buys a module is min-maxing.

Next!

Violent Nick, on 21 February 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

To OP..

Well, it would make sense wouldn't it.

Thanks Nick, you are a shining beacon of Non-bullshit in this immense storm of egos falling all over themselves.

[Void Angel]

Because he feeds your ego? Try honesty for a second - you're not asking a question here. You're making a claim and pretending it's a question that other people have to "answer" (i.e. "disprove") for you. Protagoras must be terribly disappointed - it's terrible what passes for a sophist these days.

Next!

[Kristov Kerensky]

Actually occusoj and Void, PGI has already made clear in the past that they will cater to the LCD in all things. They tried the Comp way, because they managed to become the Vocal minority and overwhelm the LCD crowd, who weren't really interested in the quirk thing anyway at first. The LCD crowd got to deal with the Comp players decision, and not only did the LCD crowd cry foul, members of the Comp crowd did as well and PGI swung back to LCD again, as they have time and time again.

" NO 3PV in MWO ever! " Remember that from Russ? What happened? Don't ever think PGI doesn't listen to and cater to the LCD crowd, that is where the money is and they know it. People like to say that the big spenders who buy the Packages are the lifeblood of this game, guess what, we're not. The lifeblood is the LCD crowd who drop money every week on the game for MC, colors, camos, Heros, Champions, little hits here and there, all day long, every day of the week, that adds up quick. That's the lifeblood in any F2P game out, it's why they offer the little things for low prices constantly, including the 'sales' on camos, colors and Mech variants you can buy for cbills. PGI knows who pays the bills, and that's who they will cater to in the end.