118 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 19 February 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

By and large, the initial quirks were based on prevalent builds and advice from certain people who had build-path agendas in mind. The second pass has been in large part about correcting that poor decision making. You might notice that the bulk of the changes are in one of two categories: tweaking amounts to find a point of balance, or reworking a quirk set entirely so that they are relevant to the stock loadouts.

They'd have been best served doing stock-based quirks initially, so that people wouldn't have been spoiled by exotic quirk arrays that appealed to certain niche loadouts.

What? But I liked the groundless speculation based on unwarranted cynisism to make myself feel knowledgeable and edgy! It's much more gratifying to my ego to insist that PGI is just out to make money by changing the playing field, because none of you chumps are as smart as I am - so no one will notice when PGI damages their product for hypothetical short-term gains. PGI sure is stupid, and I see it, so I'm smart! I feel less insignificant and small already, so I'm going to ignore your reasonable explanation and continue to use Occam's Razor to cut myself.

PS: all the Battlemasters may have energy quirks, but they don't have all the same energy quirks, and they don't have the same loadouts. These details, combined with the split between weapon-specific and general quirks will still allow people to build their own loadouts, and will not force people to use the stock loadouts on their 'mechs. Heck, the most it might do is allow people to do so - because there's reason we don't use stock loads to be competitive, right?

[Vanguard836]

I think there needs to be a sale on tin-foil hats

[Brody319]

because I'm sure Russ and the rest of PGI made a whole bunch of money by Nerfing the Thunderbolt (who has no mastery pack or hero anyway), and changing the Wubverine, who has no champion, mastery pack, or hero!

First they give them a ton of quirks, put them on sale in the faction sales for cheaper c-bills, then nerfed them!

Its the most foolproof way to make money ever! offer a free product, change the product a bit, then make money!

[Torgun]

Void Angel, on 19 February 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

PS: all the Battlemasters may have energy quirks, but they don't have all the same energy quirks, and they don't have the same loadouts. These details, combined with the split between weapon-specific and general quirks will still allow people to build their own loadouts, and will not force people to use the stock loadouts on their 'mechs. Heck, the most it might do is allow people to do so - because there's reason we don't use stock loads to be competitive, right?

4 out of 5 Battlemasters have laser specific quirks based around medium lasers, and some of them even have 2 of them just for medium lasers. No large laser or large pulse quirks, but four with medium laser quirks. Terrible decision is terrible.

[Tarogato]

Shadow Magnet, on 19 February 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

I understand that playing stock mode matches where everyone uses stock mechs is good fun (and I fully support that).

Actually, the stock mode community would rather have a "Turn Quirks Off" button for private matches, because quirks can kinda ruin stock mode.

Quote

But who with half a brain otherwise runs mechs in their stock layout? ... The stock layouts are most of the time totally horrible, don't use all hard points and are usually totallly ineffective. Who in the hell would ONLY use that?

Wait, you think people are actually using stock builds? 0_o

The mechs are quirked to stock loadouts to reflect the weapon systems that variant was intended to carry. The TDR-9S is the absolute perfect example of this. It carries an ER-PPC in lore, so it gets ER-PPC quirks in MWO. You can put two on if you like, and even add medium lasers just like lore! Or Slap a gauss rifle on, or even put three ER-PPCs. But nobody's running around in the stock loadout, they're just optimising based on what the mech was designed to do and giving it their own flavour, which to me, is very much in the spirit of Mechwarrior, especially Innersphere.

[ToWcH]

And this is the reason why i buy mechs because i like them and not because of the amount of firepower they dish out. I am more of a looks guy, i only buy mechs i feel are good looking. That's the reason i bought the Vindicator. I didn't buy the dragon-1n because i thinks it is ugly, i don't care about its machine-gun AC5. I really dont play to quirks because i buy 3 chassis of a mech and make sure they are significantly different.

My advise, buy a mech because you love it and not for quirks. If quirks matches your planned build, good for you.

The BJ-1DC did hurt even though i used only one AC5 (i hate single weapon monopoly i.e double guass Jaeger) i need variety. i ran 1xAC5, 1xMG, 2xMPL, 3xML. I will be taking out the AC5 and replace with a LBX, might have to remove the 2 mpl and add an extra ml

Edited by ToWcH, 19 February 2015 - 04:23 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

im just pissed that we had that nice module sale and I bought a lot of modules for mechs that NOW have different quirks than the weapon modules I bought for them

I was able to reallocate some to other mechs that could use them, but now i have modules sitting that I cant or dont want to put in mechs that im just not using right now.

I feel like i wasted a lot of C-bills on modules that are not being used.

[Rampancy]

Brody319, on 19 February 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

Forum whines
Gets what it wants
Whines some more.

A-bleeping-men.

[Jonny Slam]

DaZur, on 19 February 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

No offense but some of you are being myopic...

The quirks are supposed to create a sense of equity and parity across the board so no one mech is considered vastly superior to another to allow all mechs to be considered viable, not to specifically buff or nerf a singular mech.

You have to look at the mech as it's positioned within it's class and contrast, not pick out that single example and decry OMG they nerf this mech to death...

Yes, absolutely PGI was a little heavy handed if you look at just one or two examples... But that's not the intent of the quirks.

Sorry mate but this is bullshit, no one claimed the Blackjack was OP or even a concern to balance, in fact take a look at the highly humorous thread about how the OP blackjack has thankfully been nerf. So this whole parity line is full on bullshit.

What bothers me is that I am a huge PGI fanboi, but even I don't feel the need to hop in and be a transparent apologist for a absolute irrational, unannounced **** move by PGI.

And let me clear something up, I haven't even been piloting my Blackjack lately because it couldn't keep up with the current game, especially in CW where the ammo limits really kick in. But all the same, I still can see how this is shafting BlackJack pilots. Here is a little tip, if you like PGI and want to support it? don't defend everything they do, take a stand and call bullshit when it is clearly bullshit. The game we all love will be stronger for it.

Parity! my ass.

Edited by Jonny Slam, 19 February 2015 - 05:16 PM.

[Jonny Slam]

Brody319, on 19 February 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

Forum whines
Gets what it wants
Whines some more.

Hey smart guy! funny line! oh sooooo funny! and constructive....

Would you be kind enough to show me where the forum whined for a more powerful Blackjack? and then can you link where the forum whined for a Blackjack nerf? Because I'm sure you must be able to, otherwise you would just be talking out of you ass for attention right?

Asakara, on 19 February 2015 - 03:41 PM, said:

It seems to me that Russ sorta explained the reasoning for the recent quirk changes here:
https://twitter.com/...007454266171392

How does that friggen explain a wholesale change to the weapons system on a Blackjack buddy? what am I missing here? or are you just grasping at straws to defend Russ?

[WVAnonymous]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

Hey smart guy! funny line! oh sooooo funny! and constructive....

Would you be kind enough to show me where the forum whined for a more powerful Blackjack? and then can you link where the forum whined for a Blackjack nerf? Because I'm sure you must be able to, otherwise you would just be talking out of you ass for attention right?

I demand a more powerful Blackjack! No wait, I take it back, nerf it!

There you go.

And as far as being out of alignment on modules, if you only have one mech that can use AC5 modules, you need more mechs.

[Brody319]

hated the DC blackjack.
Preferred the 1 and the 3.

[Jonny Slam]

WVAnonymous, on 19 February 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

I demand a more powerful Blackjack! No wait, I take it back, nerf it!

There you go.

And as far as being out of alignment on modules, if you only have one mech that can use AC5 modules, you need more mechs.

Brody319, on 19 February 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

hated the DC blackjack.
Preferred the 1 and the 3.

So what you two are saying is: "uh well uh we just make funny comments and justify later, do we reeeeeeeally have to be accountable for what we post?? bummer". This is how some posters stack up thousands and thousands of posts without actually helping the game or saying anything that matters.

Because I just see two guys attempting to dodge the question about why wholesale weapon system changes are made when there is no complaints about the existing system and quirks. And if the drive for revenue is the most rational answer because no other reasons are presenting themselves.

Try and keep up.

Edited by Jonny Slam, 19 February 2015 - 05:34 PM.

[Brody319]

Because PGI wants more Stock builds! There are you happy?! you bullied the truth out of me!

[MoonfireSpam]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

How does that friggen explain a wholesale change to the weapons system on a Blackjack buddy? what am I missing here? or are you just grasping at straws to defend Russ?

Stock BJ-1DC's came with AC2s so Russ' tweet still relevant. <3 Sarna

SLAM!

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 19 February 2015 - 06:04 PM.

[Osric Lancaster]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

Sorry mate but this is bullshit, no one claimed the Blackjack was OP or even a concern to balance, in fact take a look at the highly humorous thread about how the OP blackjack has thankfully been nerf. So this whole parity line is full on bullshit.
. . . .
Parity! my ass.

He was speaking to the intent of the quirk system, not it's current effectiveness. Understanding the difference there will save you a lot of angry feelings over imaginary arguments.

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

especially in CW where the ammo limits really kick in.

That's valid. Ammo was never doubled to compensate for doubled armor, and ammo weight in a system where people get to select their load outs boils down to simple weapon weight. A number of ammo based weapons are heavily crippled, especially in endurance matches and especially on light 'Mechs.

Brody319, on 19 February 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Because PGI wants more Stock builds! There are you happy?! you bullied the truth out of me!

Maybe. In any case, the stock build of the 'Mech should have some relevance to the way people actually use it, otherwise they're just blank platforms who's value is determined entirely by the number and position of hard-points with which to fit the meta weapon of the day.

0rionsbane, on 19 February 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:

The quirk pass that irked me the most and in general irks me are heat quirk changes, heat quirks are the strongest quirks for many reasons, you cant take full advantage of cdr and range quirks as easily without them.

This is important, and harkens back to one of the fundamental problems with MWO's weapon system;
They roughly doubled the rate of fire of all weapon systems and left the heat dissipation rates the same, Then also gave people the entire 40 point overheat range as a heat buffer on top of the normal heatsinks/10sec buffer.

That's thrown out of whack the entire balance-by-heat system and negatively influences the current meta and game-play.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 19 February 2015 - 06:28 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Vanguard836, on 19 February 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

I think there needs to be a sale on tin-foil hats

New cockpit standing item for 1000 MC

[Fate 6]

The changes on weapon systems were, in general, pretty dumb. The Arrow change was the only good one I can think of off the top of my head. Nearly every other change was dumb.

I just got a Huggin in anticipation of getting my third Raven (the RVN-3L(C)) tomorrow from the challenge. If that thing loses anything on its quirks I'm gonna flip.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I had an Arrow, a -1, and a -1X all mastered. Then they gave some quirks to the 1DC that made it stand out from the others. It made it actually great in combat, albeit with very little armor and health compared to the Heavy Mechs is has to contend with.

Then, they took the AC/5 quirks away, and gave it the same profile as the 1. Now the DC is just another bland BlackJack with ineffective quirks for LOLigoof weapons. I got it specifically because the AC/5 quirks made it unique, fun to play, and actually effective. Now I feel like it was a waste of funds.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 February 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[cSand]

In 2 weeks hardly any of you will remember what the old quirks were. While I understand on some level the frustration.. life is change bros (especially in the online game world) and if you can't deal with it then you best learn quickly.

But a handful will cling on to the butthurt forever, and then bring up these changes, along with 3PV and gauss charging, 3 years down the road as some example to back up whatever the hell they are raging about at the time

Edited by cSand, 19 February 2015 - 07:04 PM.