33 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

Prosperity Park, on 24 November 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

Still cannot save loadouts...

Agreed, this is crazy. It should be easy to save a current loadout, give it a name, and recall it by name.

Also, multiple Drop Decks. Create them by name, assign Mechs to them, call them up in CW in the one minute window before drop.

(I'm building a Mech Inventory App at the moment. As part of it, I can create as many named Drop Decks as I want, assign Mechs to them, remove Mechs from them, etc. It wasn't hard to create ... and I don't even code for a living.)

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 24 November 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

I have played since CB and recently returned from about a year off.

Hey, welcome back man

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 24 November 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Hey, welcome back man

Why thank you kind sir! Now let's see how long it takes me to piss off the rest of the community lol

[Lazor Sharp]

Glad to see ya made it back, i guess RoadBeer will be along shortly.....

And where were ya'll a few weeks ago when i needed your help with the solo / rambo / moron / antisocial / refuse to join a unit and play a team game as a team, then whine about premades in the forum warrior threads.....

[Sandpit]

Lazor Sharp, on 25 November 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

Glad to see ya made it back, i guess RoadBeer will be along shortly.....

And where were ya'll a few weeks ago when i needed your help with the solo / rambo / moron / antisocial / refuse to join a unit and play a team game as a team, then whine about premades in the forum warrior threads.....

I'm trying to round up some "old timers" lol I'm hopefully going to rekindle a unit I created years ago within Marik and under the RMA banner.

[Lazor Sharp]

RMA ?? Return Merchandise Authorization....lol........

i had a job once upon a time, inspecting / testing returns, and listing what was wrong, and then sorting into different bins for future dispatch......

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 25 November 2015 - 09:35 AM.

[Sandpit]

Red Moon Angels in Marik lol

[GRiPSViGiL]

I can't believe you see quirks as an acceptable thing considering they remove choice from builds. They force you to build the chassis a certain way....why even let us build mechs? They should just have premade loadouts for the quirks because who would build a gimped chassis?.

We should have a quirk system where we can choose our strengths or rather a real skill tree. PGI dropped the ball here big time.

[Sandpit]

GRiPSViGiL, on 25 November 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

I can't believe you see quirks as an acceptable thing considering they remove choice from builds. They force you to build the chassis a certain way....why even let us build mechs? They should just have premade loadouts for the quirks because who would build a gimped chassis?.

We should have a quirk system where we can choose our strengths or rather a real skill tree. PGI dropped the ball here big time.

They do?
You sure about that?
My stats and builds would beg to differ sir.

A Misery and 5M are NOT quirked for LL boating. Guess what I've done with those two mechs for 4 years now?

Quirks do not in ANY way "force" you to build anything specific. If you want to optimize a chassis and squeeze a little more juice out of it, you CAN and those builds and quirks are almost always designed to fit in with a mech's stock loadout.

Quirks allow each chassis and variant to be customized and provide diversity between the chassis. If you represent it as anything else you either misunderstand the system of quirks, haven't read up on them, or put WAY too much stock in the advantage they give you.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

They do?
You sure about that?
My stats and builds would beg to differ sir.

A Misery and 5M are NOT quirked for LL boating. Guess what I've done with those two mechs for 4 years now?

Quirks do not in ANY way "force" you to build anything specific. If you want to optimize a chassis and squeeze a little more juice out of it, you CAN and those builds and quirks are almost always designed to fit in with a mech's stock loadout.

Quirks allow each chassis and variant to be customized and provide diversity between the chassis. If you represent it as anything else you either misunderstand the system of quirks, haven't read up on them, or put WAY too much stock in the advantage they give you.

Just because you can use them without taking quirks into account doesn't mean it is good or smart. Plenty of people don't play the meta. Quirks are silly, like I said a real skill tree should have been in place to begin with. PGI could control the percentages based on mech tier that the skill tree would buff or whatever but the choice should have be with the user. PGI can't make a robust engaging game so we get what they say we get. There are several chassis that are pigeon holed into useful builds purely on quirks alone.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 25 November 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[adamts01]

GRiPSViGiL, on 25 November 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

I can't believe you see quirks as an acceptable thing considering they remove choice from builds. They force you to build the chassis a certain way....why even let us build mechs?

Quirks are absolutely fantastic, and I want to see more of them. They took absolutely DOA chassis and made them not only viable, but competitive in some cases. Is there a best loadout for them? Yes. Is a totally different loadout still better than it was without quirks? Probably so, thanks to generic quirks stacked with specific quirks. Just for an example, Ravens. Aside from a troll gauss or ac build there was no reason not to take a 3L. Now you see the 2x and 4x more frequently, due to heat or range/duration quirks. I actually had to re-buy those chassis because they're good now. The first time I ever spent real money in this game was to convert xp to gxp because those two were so bad. Some quirks go overboard, but on general, they're good.

[Sandpit]

GRiPSViGiL, on 25 November 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Just because you can use them without taking quirks into account doesn't mean it is good or smart. Plenty of people don't play the meta. Quirks are silly, like I said a real skill tree should have been in place to begin with. PGI could control the percentages based on mech tier that the skill tree would buff or whatever but the choice should have be with the user. PGI can't make a robust engaging game so we get what they say we get. There are several chassis that are pigeon holed into useful builds purely on quirks alone.

Just because you seem them as bad doesn't make them bad or stupid. Nor does it account for acting as if they're this insurmountable edge. They're a slight boost for those that want to min.max and such. That's all, so they don't really factor into a "huge" factor of balance. They do, however, offer rewards to players who build a design that mirrors the mech's original loadout and design. That's what quirks really do alongside giving each chassis a little more flavor and some being flat out better at specific jobs (you know, like they're SUPPOSED to do?)

[Chuanhao]

Remove Need For 3 Chassis

Will the general crowd be okay if say, per mech price is doubled, but the need for 3 mechs to Master is taken away?

The requirement for 3 mechs relates to grind. And it is through grind that Premium Time and thus actual cash is spent. Removing the grind in its entirety would mean a lost of necessary income. There is even secondary impact to the way mech packs are sold. I am personally prepared for the doubling to mech cbill prices if the need for 3 is removed entirely. Most people just play one variant of each chassis anyway? That way, I can at least save on one, but there is still sufficient grind to make all the additional transactions such as PT, XP conversion, mech packs etc still viable

The fixed equipment of CLAN mechs is what drives up per mech costs. But the utility of clan equipment, especially engines is much less since it cannot be swapped around. If there can be a discount to clan mechs when bought in threes, to take into account the lack of utility of the CLAN XL engine, that would be more palatable, and allow more to enjoy clans.

I only play weekends and so my cbill earnings are maybe 1-2M a week. I already have PT. so any additional mechanism to reduce costs would be most welcomed.

Reduce cost of Modules.

As for the cost of weapon modules, their impact is marginal, and only really important for those that have been long enough in the game, who by then probably have enough cbills to afford it. In any case, I only wait for modules sales to get them, and am very selective.

Saving Loadouts.

Applying loadouts is the problem. Most people may not have spares of all their most important equipment. so if you click "apply loadout", there will be missing equipment. What method should PGI apply to this then? a simple "buy" using cbills to fill in the blanks? Or a more difficult to code function of presenting which owned mechs currently have said equipment and can have said equipment removed from? That mech then lacks a weapon / engine / module and is no longer qualified to be part of say, a saved faction play deck. Its is a compounded problem with no real solution. Smurfy doesn't count as it has no limit to parts.

I can actually understand the difficulties of always having to adjust armour, weapons, engines etc.

A nice compromise is a search function for which chassis has which particular piece of equipment. It sucks more to have to find which of those many mechs is mouting that single 350XL engine, or that expensive Radar Dep module.

I have taken to emptying out any mechs that I am not playing in the longer term and focusing only on equipping my faction play deck and a few other mechs requiring levelling up in my quick play deck.

[Grey Ghost]

Appogee, on 24 November 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Agreed, this is crazy. It should be easy to save a current loadout, give it a name, and recall it by name.

I personally don't understand the need for this, but if it's something people really want then I don't see any harm in adding that function.

Appogee, on 24 November 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Also, multiple Drop Decks. Create them by name, assign Mechs to them, call them up in CW in the one minute window before drop.

This I can understand. Hell, I'd settle for a toggle between 2-4 drop decks on a drop by drop basis. Heck, it even benefits them to do this, seeing as it will increase the need for more modules.

Chuanhao, on 26 November 2015 - 12:44 AM, said:

Remove Need For 3 Chassis

Will the general crowd be okay if say, per mech price is doubled, but the need for 3 mechs to Master is taken away?

Triple the cost (c-bill & MC only, continue the current pack purchases unchanged) of the base Chassis only (not the equipment), and adjust new player 20ish game boost accordingly. Would that be a fair enough compromise?

It's silly to make someone buy a Mech they don't want in order to Master the one they do like. I don't care about the rare occasion such an individual turns out to like their forced purchase. I know from my own experience that it is so rare I cannot even remember a time when that has ever happened.

Chuanhao, on 26 November 2015 - 12:44 AM, said:

Saving Loadouts.

Applying loadouts is the problem. Most people may not have spares of all their most important equipment. so if you click "apply loadout", there will be missing equipment. What method should PGI apply to this then? a simple "buy" using cbills to fill in the blanks?

The way I see it is that the people who want this ability will always have the equipment on hand. If they don't; then just have a popup with the c-bill cost for the missing equipment with a Purchase / Cancel prompt. I don't think PGI should invest any more time and/or money beyond that basic function.

Edited by Grey Ghost, 26 November 2015 - 02:11 AM.