118 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

snip

So how does PGI get revenue from that? You know C-Bills don't pay real bills...

[Yellow Kat]

@OP, Maybe... You really can't put anything past any developer and what the marketing dept of their publisher might say they need to do.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

Sorry, but what are you smoking? Seriously!

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

But who with half a brain otherwise runs mechs in their stock layout? You do remove single heat sinks and add endo steel, right? Why stop there? I utilize the mech supplied hard points to figure out a weapon layout that is either very effective or a fun build I just want to try out. 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?

The more important question is why wouldn't the production Model have the best performance? Other than cost and kickbacks?

[Curccu]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 February 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

The more important question is why wouldn't the production Model have the best performance? Other than cost and kickbacks?

Because dudes at FASA weren't that good at optimizing

[Lily from animove]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

I'm not talking about nerfing quirks, or buffing quirks, I'm talking about when a wholesale quirk change invalidates a entire weapon system the previous quirk version required, thereby screwing the pilots out of all the money and time they put into the mechs being changed.

Here are just two recent examples:

The Catapult C4, initial quirks were for LRM10's then changed to LRM15's nearly the same quirk values.

The Blackjack 1DC, initial quirk passes were for AC5's then this week after none of the public bitching that follows the Thunderbolts or Timberwolves the Blackjack 1DC is all AC2.

So, my question is this: Are these types of uncalled for, and unannounced wholesale weapon system changes done by PGI solely to force us to buy new modules, and variants?

If so, isn't that seriously screwed up and dishonest?

And will Russ have the common decency to at least explain this at the townhall later today?

I don't think so, if it were true, why would they make a c-bill discount on these mechs during the revenue session? it would just make it too appealing to sell that mech for c-bills instead of mc's.

the Problem just is balancing is harder than you think and it just regulary fails in neraly any game. Not only those with itemshops also in p2p games. But the flavor of the Month crowd which buys the easy toys suddenly feels scammed when they hop on the OP-train and suddenly realise the steamtrain ran out of coal after some time. And then they need a scapegoat and excuses to blame someone for their impatient instant "thrown away" money. Because suddenly when its not Op anymore it loses any worth in their eyes.

Joseph Mallan, on 20 February 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

The more important question is why wouldn't the production Model have the best performance? Other than cost and kickbacks?

because that BT TT game would be horribly boring if they would have the chassis frequency and laodouts of MWO mechs

Edited by Lily from animove, 20 February 2015 - 03:05 AM.

[Asakara]

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?

Personally I understood Russ's quote to mean that quirks were changed on some mechs to more conform to that mech's stock loadout. This decision was based upon the feedback from the community.

How did you interpret Russ's Twitter quote?

[Shadow Magnet]

Asakara, on 20 February 2015 - 05:48 AM, said:

Personally I understood Russ's quote to mean that quirks were changed on some mechs to more conform to that mech's stock loadout. This decision was based upon the feedback from the community.

How did you interpret Russ's Twitter quote?

So because a handful of people (or even just one person) said something, PGI does such kind of changes?!?
While ignoring mechs that alot people agree on that need alot more powerful quirks badly?

Some people said that the Arrow needs other quirks - ok it got some but who called for the changes to the other Blackjacks?

Who called for the Locust changes? Raven 2X? Who complained about the Banshee?

Why they didn't simply run some polls? They already did that in the past, asking for the mechs to do next.

Just poll:

Which IS mechs needs better quirks? (list of mechs) -> improve the top 3 voted mechs.
Which IS mechs are too powerful? (list of mechs) -> lower quirks of the top 3 by 5%

That would make alot more sense and involve more than just a handful of players.

[MoonfireSpam]

Asakara, on 20 February 2015 - 05:48 AM, said:

Personally I understood Russ's quote to mean that quirks were changed on some mechs to more conform to that mech's stock loadout. This decision was based upon the feedback from the community.

How did you interpret Russ's Twitter quote?

He doesn't know the BJ-1DC is stock with 2xAC2s. Posted that earlier but he probably ignored it.

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 20 February 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Asakara]

Shadow Magnet, on 20 February 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

So because a handful of people (or even just one person) said something, PGI does such kind of changes?!?
While ignoring mechs that alot people agree on that need alot more powerful quirks badly?

Some people said that the Arrow needs other quirks - ok it got some but who called for the changes to the other Blackjacks?

Who called for the Locust changes? Raven 2X? Who complained about the Banshee?

Why they didn't simply run some polls? They already did that in the past, asking for the mechs to do next.

Just poll:

Which IS mechs needs better quirks? (list of mechs) -> improve the top 3 voted mechs.
Which IS mechs are too powerful? (list of mechs) -> lower quirks of the top 3 by 5%

That would make alot more sense and involve more than just a handful of players.

Sorry, I wasn't part of any quirk discussion or decision on these forums or with PGI. I personally do not know who did or did not want these changes... Nor how many people are in each camp. If you are interested in finding that out I suggest you start looking at old threads. I personally don't care enough to bother.

I just posted a tweet from Russ which I thought may answer OP's question as to the "why" and my understanding of what that tweet stated. Beyond that I have no other answers and an not taking any side in any debate on this quirk pass.

[Coolant]

so what if they do?

[Gauvan]

There is a Latin phrase: cui bono? Who benefits?

Cui bono is a launchpad for a lot of the conspiracy thinking--I don't think that because PGI can possibly benefit from a change that a change was therefore engineered solely for PGI's benefit. So no, they aren't changing quirks to make money directly.

But I do think they are too reactive with changes and don't take into account the impact big changes will have. It takes a long time to earn the Cbills to outfit a mech properly, and a massive change can potentially wipe out a lot of time sunk into the game. I feel you better have a damn good reason to do that to a player.

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

These kind of comments irritate the hell out of me. "Everyone" did not call for these, or any change. As best I can tell, PGI doesn't have any formal process for attempting to sample player opinion on changes. Russ specifically seems to interact with players through a very narrow set of channels (Twitter, primarily) and what his comment says to me is "lots of people in my narrow sample have strong opinions about topic X."

Now Russ is a busy guy and I don't expect him to include player surveys in his duties. But I do expect him to recognize the value of having good player data and making decisions based on that, not based on what he hears from a particular and likely unrepresentative minority.

Fenrisulvyn, on 19 February 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

Don't chase quirks. And don't powergame without accepting that your fav mech will eventually be "balanced"

It's not a matter of chasing quirks for me, it's a matter of finding viable counters to IS vs Clan inbalance in CW. My experience is that between two organized groups the Clan range and durability advantage is marked. This change may have balanced IS vs. IS issues, but it ignores that there is a much more pressing balance issue to sort out first.

As to the argument of keeping quirks "cannon," that's just silly to me (and I'm a BT geek from way back). Quirks need to make a mech viable in MWO which has a completely different set of mechanics than TT. That's not to say mechs can't be both viable and hew close to lore, but if it's a call between lore and viability, viability should trump lore.

Summary:

- Big quirk changes have a huge impact on players' sunk time. Don't make them so seemingly lightly, or based on anecdotal input.
- In lore vs. viability, viability should trump lore.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Some of you are either seriously in need of a break from ANY online gaming for a while or making great parodies...I'm not sure which.

Quirks were supposed to be, originally at any rate, something to make the Mechs fits the fluff and lore tidbits about the different variants, since there's no actual mechanic to do that in TT or any of the previous MW titles. It gives people a reason to use the different variants instead of JUST picking the one with the most hardpoints of X weapon type and boating them.

First quirk pass, we saw the quirks based on what the PLAYERS DEMANDED, that's it, and it was really quite fubar. The threads about the changes and how they suck and screams of anger that I swear to god I can hear from here are proof that the original quirk pass WAS quite fubar.

Seriously, why in all the hells should a Mech that doesn't even come with an AC5 have AC5 quirks? Explain that please, come on, you can do it without saying 'because we wanted it, that's what we use on that Mech!' can't you?

No? You can't actually give any logical reason for it? Well, guess what, that means those quirks shouldn't have existed for that Mech in the first place.

People were complaining about the quirks and how they did not fit the Mechs they were on, especially the ones that made no damn sense and/or made a particular variant suddenly incredibly OP when it hadn't even been ON the radar prior to the quirks. There's threads on these very forums about it, there's reddit and tweets about it, has been since we got the quirks. The fact that you didn't bother to read them or dismissed them out of hand because you used the Mechs being discussed doesn't change that they existed and people complained about them.

Quirks now fit the stock loadout of the Mech/variant, which means you can't go tossing weapons on a chassis that it never came with and get awesome quirks that make a semi-useless Mech suddenly freaking AMAZING! Now you can tailor the build to the variant and get more bang for your buck. Or do what I do, ignore the quirks totally and build for what you want.

Seriously, you were buying and leveling up Mechs that you had NEVER EVER touched before, from the sounds of it some of you spent a lot of cbills and even real world money to get JUST certain Mechs leveled up and equipped, Mechs that have been in the game for a good amount of time in some cases. Suddenly they became the MUST HAVE MECHS!

And you didn't see that that was fubar?

[occusoj]

The insanity in calling a quirked AC5 BJ1-DC "powergaming" or OP is astounding.

It wasnt an overpowered build to begin with but now its back to "meh"-level. Whats also annoying is that theres now two AC2 blackjacks. So instead of promoting diversity it was reduced.
Quirks should benefit the mechs intended role and stick as close to stock loadout as possible but at least keep it viable over other variants.

Quote

Seriously, why in all the hells should a Mech that doesn't even come with an AC5 have AC5 quirks? Explain that please, come on, you can do it without saying 'because we wanted it, that's what we use on that Mech!' can't you?

Because it generates a second AC2 blackjack that happens to have less torso movement and lacks JJs plus it "nerfs" a build that wasnt even strong to begin with. As a result, it goes from a bit of use straight back to permanent storage in a garage.
AC2 vs. AC5 doesnt totally change the mechs role like quirking it for Gauss or flamers would have done. Its not the end of the world.

[Shadow Magnet]

Kristov, then please explain to me why the Dragon 5N got UAC quirks? Ok, UAC5 is the stock build. But wait, the mech got 3 ballistic hard points - all in the same arm. That does make sense to you?

I would prefer to replace all weapon specific quirks with generic ones (e.g. UAC cooldown with ballistic cooldown). That would allow you to run any build matching the hard points, including stock and have a good bonus to make the mech more viable.

How about that? Stop forcing any builds on the players. Just boost by the hard points of a mech.

[Void Angel]

Jonny Slam, on 19 February 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

Yeah well I got my answer today at the townhall, Russ won't even touch the subject, so it's pretty clear it's about revenue and forcing pilots to move and spend.

Every time quirks came up he would just spout the same Thunderbolt story he had already tweeted hours before.... talking points anyone?

The Thunderbolt talk is nothing but a smoke screen because this has nothing to do with any of the Mech that people call OP and the quirk changes to them, this is about the run of the mill mid level mechs that are being given wholesale weapon system changes that invalidate the previous effort, time and money invested in them by their owners/pilots. They have changed the mech entire weapon systems as they did before months ago with no rational other than driving revenue. This is not about Stock mechs, it may be for the wolverines and others, but what I am concerned about it the bait and switch played on pilots on these mid-level mechs, tricking players into investing and then invalidating the investment just short months later.

It's dishonest, and the silence and misdirection (thunderbolt posts etc...) from Russ and PGI make it clear that they know it but just don't want to cop to it.

Appalling.

Yes, slanderous arguments from silence are appalling. They are dishonest and silly, substituting bias confirmation for evidence and shifting the burdern of proof away from the person making the claim. You should stop using them, and try honesty and realism instead of conspiracy theory and lies.

This bit of utter nonsense relies on accepting your premise before we actually evaluate the evidence - see if we assume that PGI is just changing the quirks on c-bill 'mechs to increase sales, it all makes sense! We know they're doing just that because they haven't bothered to respond to our irresponsible accucations. It's true because they've hidden all the evidence, just like the faked moon landings, and vaccination truth! Roswell! ROSWELL!!

Sorry, forgot my meds, what's your excuse?

[Void Angel]

Void Angel, on 19 February 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

Circular logic is circular, too. You should reverse the terrible decision to use it. "I dislike this change, so it is terrible; therefore it is a terrible decision." Where's my dramamine... Or you could, you know, pick a position - you're responding to my response to someone saying "this is just to force us all to play stock builds!" [emphasis added] So your response is that the quirks don't match stock builds? Are you taking your meds? It's hard to tell which one of you I'm talking to.

Torgun, on 20 February 2015 - 01:38 AM, said:

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Where did I ever mention anything about how I want stock builds when it comes to quirks? Why would I need to refer to who you replied to when I was replying to what you were writing about? [emphasis added; self-embarrassment is all the OP's] All you were saying is that you can still build whatever you like because you just waste 1-2 quirks, which is pretty much disregarding quirks in the first place if you don't even care about 2 of them being wasted unless you want to play Mediumlaser-master mechs. As for circular logic I don't think you got what I meant, because that's an often used expression when something is very obvious and hardly needs explaining, for example bad "thing" is bad etc. Well now you know.

Ever notice how people who can't think or read properly accuse other people of that same inability? It's one of the fun things about arguing with the inept. No word has a meaning outside of context - I pointed you back to the post I was referencing in order to point out that you didn't understand my point in the slightest. Instead, you just skimmed to find a talking point to pull out and "disprove," thus making me wrong and you right! Yay for you, Nick Naylor. Unfortunately, that's not going to work on me. The position I was critiquing was that the quirk changes forced people into stock loadouts. Take the Battlemaster for example; objections have been raised over "forcing" people to use Medium Lasers. In reality, not only are Medium Lasers a very common go-to weapon anyway, but since - as has been pointed out ad nauseum - the stock builds are not optimal builds, it's still better to build what you like and let the quirks inform that decision. Seriously; do you really think any quirks to medium lasers are going to make or break an Assault build? Phrased another way, maybe you're not required to use absolutely every quirk - and in fact forgoing quirks can make for some interesting alternate builds. Consider the range of an ER Large Laser placed on the Thunderbolt 5SS.

In any case, the bolded quotations convict you of your own accusation - lack of reading comprehension and ignorance of rhetorical devices. You start by being told that you're misrepresenting a response to someone else's position, and then accuse me of attributing that position to you, telling me I have poor reading comprehension... and the world whirls round and round; where's the Dramamine? My rebuttal at this point is merely out of charity; take your meds and have a nice lie-down.

[cSand]

Shadow Magnet, on 20 February 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

Kristov, then please explain to me why the Dragon 5N got UAC quirks? Ok, UAC5 is the stock build. But wait, the mech got 3 ballistic hard points - all in the same arm. That does make sense to you?

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

[Torgun]

Void Angel, on 20 February 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

Ever notice how people who can't think or read properly accuse other people of that same inability? It's one of the fun things about arguing with the inept. No word has a meaning outside of context - I pointed you back to the post I was referencing in order to point out that you didn't understand my point in the slightest. Instead, you just skimmed to find a talking point to pull out and "disprove," thus making me wrong and you right! Yay for you, Nick Naylor. Unfortunately, that's not going to work on me. The position I was critiquing was that the quirk changes forced people into stock loadouts. Take the Battlemaster for example; objections have been raised over "forcing" people to use Medium Lasers. In reality, not only are Medium Lasers a very common go-to weapon anyway, but since - as has been pointed out ad nauseum - the stock builds are not optimal builds, it's still better to build what you like and let the quirks inform that decision. Seriously; do you really think any quirks to medium lasers are going to make or break an Assault build? Phrased another way, maybe you're not required to use absolutely every quirk - and in fact forgoing quirks can make for some interesting alternate builds. Consider the range of an ER Large Laser placed on the Thunderbolt 5SS.

In any case, the bolded quotations convict you of your own accusation - lack of reading comprehension and ignorance of rhetorical devices. You start by being told that you're misrepresenting a response to someone else's position, and then accuse me of attributing that position to you, telling me I have poor reading comprehension... and the world whirls round and round; where's the Dramamine? My rebuttal at this point is merely out of charity; take your meds and have a nice lie-down.

You're debating about quirks whether they're corrently done correctly and then claim it does not force you into using any weapons since you can totally ignore quirks and build whatever you want anyway? What the heck are you even doing in this thread of you think quirks don't matter when you build the mechs! The whole point of quirks is to make them less of bad mechs, and by not using the quirks fully you're simply running mechs that are still worse than they should be since you are actually wasting the potential to build the mech into something better. Any quirk that is not used is simply wasted, and to actually give the Battlemasters some diversity the whole medium laser quirk for everyone decision needs to go away, because if some got large pulse laser quirks, you could actually use large pulse lasers and use the quirks that you got to bring them up to a better standard, instead of using lots of weapons with no quirks and thus building mechs with wasted potential. These terrible quirks for Battlemasters need to be fixed ASAP.

[Rebas Kradd]

This conspiracy theory is once again dismantled by the one simple fact that dismantles it every time...

The mechs in question are entirely free.

[Xetelian]

Some of these changes made little sense and they totally missed Victors and Cataphracts...