Bishop Steiner, on 18 May 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:
I'm fine with specific quirks, because those mechs were engineered from the ground up around specific weapon systems. They SHOULD perform better with those systems that some jury rigged weaponry. To me it's the degree of superiority. Many mechs are either overquirked period, or quirked with poor forethought (leading to boating) or quirked just plain wrong. And even the ones that are better thought out (most of the Hunchbacks nad Centurions) I feel the quirks should focus more on the General, with a smaller percent to the specific. So instead of say a 15% Ballistic and 15% AC10, for 30% with the stock gun, it should probably be 20% Ballistic and 10% AC10. But I do feel the stock weapon SHOULD be it's most efficient. But that quirks should never be such high percentages that they define the mech, and the meta, as they really are in many cases, now.
But again, different argument for a different day.
I'm looking also at the ones that are quirked for the wrong weapon entirely...let's use the new Urbie as an example. UM-60 is meant to be a small laser and AC10, but the quirks it got were for generic laser, and
Machineguns...This entirely ignored the namesake weapon that the urbie was built around for a platform.
Or the Locust 1V getting a quirk for the ERLL, it's the off-platform or non-lore based quirks I take the most offense with, The example for the Centurions and the Hunchback is fair. If we ever saw the Hollander I'd want it to have a quirk toward the lone gauss rifle it carries because it is a walking gauss rifle. There are always exceptions to the rule.
As it goes for the TBR and SCR, I personally think the negative quirks should've been oriented toward maneuverability rather than weapons performance. But they are geared toward the laser spam that's popular and evident today as the core gameplay. Everytime I fight I feel like I'm looking through a kaleidoscope.