138 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

My issue with certain "solutions" is that those advocating them tend to commit so many egregious errors in argument. Ignoring known facts, hand-waving away the difficulties of implementing [thing they want,] all kinds of fallacies - all with an attitude of arrogant condescension, as if the only possible reason not to do what they say is laziness or stupidity.

[Koshirou]

Void Angel, on 09 February 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

You sound like Trump

And you sound like someone who doesn't bother to read an argument and instead goes for an ad hominem with an asinine political reference.

Quote

My issue with certain "solutions" is that those advocating them tend to commit so many egregious errors in argument.

Care to demonstrate any? Other than the still preposterous idea that the BLR-1S is a "missile variant" because of its stock loadout (and stock loadout derived HPs)? In any case, it has as many energy HPs as it has missile HPs - by the same standard the 1N would be the "missile variant" of the Dragon...

But hey, if that's your argument: I certainly would have any problem with the energy quirks being shifted to the 1G or 1D. I got the money. In fact, the blanket cut to 10% energy range quirks means that you can ditch your 1S anyway, seeing as how the 1G has the same and is superior in number and placement of HPs.

Edited by Koshirou, 09 February 2016 - 02:08 PM.

[Russhuster]

@Void Angel

not only one aspect, but general balance in itself is damaged by PGI s wonderful world of quirk balancing,.. Clan vs IS as well as IS vs IS as well and as a side effect destroying diversity and with this the Atmosphere of the Game - an aspect that is connecting most die hard BT fans imho to this game
but this aspect is fading at a enormous rate atm.

When there is little divergence, the result is boredom and that is the death of any multi player game

Its not a question what i may want, not even one of what the player wants, but a question what does the most positive effect

And workable or not, quirks had so far a most destructive effect to the game as a whole i doubt further playing try and error with the players will do any benefit, as i did not see any considerated and thoughtgful use of Quirks yet - Do you think this will happen?

under this premisses, what solution would you see there?

Edited by Russhuster, 09 February 2016 - 02:11 PM.

[Void Angel]

Void Angel, on 09 February 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

You sound like Trump: "My solutions are easy! The people in charge just aren't willing to man up and make Mechwarrior Online great again!" Forget that the devs have considered the very issue your "solutions" address, and decided to give the Clans weapons designed to be equal, but with a different flavor - including range. Forget that "simple" is not the same as "workable." Just proposing something you say would fix everything is sufficient, and it's just self-evident that you're right! In reality, your proposed "solutions" have a wide array of consequences, miss the point completely, and serve only to prop up a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that runs exactly counter to facts. How long has ECM been whined about on the forums, with no "caving in" done? But I don't want to confuse you with facts - you're obviously comfortable without them.

Your whole diatribe is based on faulty assumptions, straw man smear tactics, and proof by assertion. Your snide parting shot is a great example - the Battlemaster 1S is the missile variant of the chassis. This is obvious to any reasonable person, since it is the only Battlemaster with any number of missile hardpoints. That doesn't mean that you have to put any particular weapons on it, but it does mean that my characterization of the 'mech accurate. But you don't like my opinion, so you fluff up a nice straw man and "debunk" the idea that stock loadouts determine a 'mech's "role."

Koshirou, on 09 February 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

And you sound like someone who doesn't bother to read an argument and instead goes for an ad hominem with an asinine political reference.

Care to demonstrate any? [refering to egregious errors in argument] Other than the still preposterous idea that the BLR-1S is a "missile variant" because of its stock loadout (and stock loadout derived HPs)? In any case, it has as many energy HPs as it has missile HPs - by the same standard the 1N would be the "missile variant" of the Dragon...

But hey, if that's your argument: I certainly would have any problem with the energy quirks being shifted to the 1G or 1D. I got the money. In fact, the blanket cut to 10% energy range quirks means that you can ditch your 1S anyway, seeing as how the 1G has the same and is superior in number and placement of HPs.

Wow - way to "turn the tables," there. The problem is that while I justified my criticism and comparison as apt by providing reasons, you've just said, "I know you are, but what am I?" Do you... know what "asinine" means, or did you just pick it up as "pejorative term for thing I don't like?" It's actually a synonym for "foolish," which fits your argumentative tactics perfectly, I'm sad to say. "Making an unflattering comparison between my rhetoric and Donald Trump's" isn't asinine - but falsely accusing me of ad hominem attacks and skimming an argument by way of doing just that yourself? That qualifies.

Perhaps you were too busy lining up your scathing critique - which consisted of repeating a criticism of an idea I just told you I never held. So, no; I see no need to demonstrate any egregious breaches of the rules of argument when you so stunningly demonstrate them for me. Thank you.

Russhuster, on 09 February 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

@Void Angel

not only one aspect, but general balance in itself is damaged by PGI s wonderful world of quirk balancing,.. Clan vs IS as well as IS vs IS as well and as a side effect destroying diversity and with this the Atmosphere of the Game - an aspect that is connecting most die hard BT fans imho to this game
but this aspect is fading at a enormous rate atm.

When there is little divergence, the result is boredom and that is the death of any multi player game

Its not a question what i may want, not even one of what the player wants, but a question what does the most positive effect

And workable or not, quirks had so far a most destructive effect to the game as a whole i doubt further playing try and error with the players will do any benefit, as i did not see any considerated and thoughtgful use of Quirks yet - Do you think this will happen?

under this premisses, what solution would you see there?

I dunno - when did you stop beating your wife? I'm not going to accept your premises, because you are simply dead wrong on several points.

First, balancing the Clans against the Inner Sphere via quirks has little to do with reducing variety. Quirks are in fact specifically designed to allow a variant to differentiate itself from the rest of the chassis - whether its better laser brawling through beam duration and cooldown, better sniping via PPC velocity, etc. When the differences between many variants is one or two hardpoints, quirks allow for variants that would otherwise be close substitutes to support significantly different playing styles. Go look at the Hunchbacks, for example - or better yet, the Black Knight.

Next on my list is all of your unsupported assumptions about unquantifiable things like "the Atmosphere of the Game," or whether quirks make the game boring. Those are highly subjective things that you could not possibly know about on a demographic scale. So one of your premises is based on knowledge you don't have.

Then there's this talk about the "destructive effect" of quirks - while there's some room for subjectivity here, falling back on "it's opinion" will only go so far! Can you demonstrate these "destructive effects?" I'll warn you now, things like "I don't like them conceptually," or "I wanted another path to balance," are not going to be accepted. Quirks are the reason that Inner Sphere chassis are competitive with the Clans in CW. They're the reason anyone but a masochist plays a Locust, and they breathed new life into 'mechs like the Atlas that were being consistently left in the 'mech bay. They made which chassis I played be about more than "which one has the most laser hardpoints to go with my big Autocannon, and does it have jump jets and/or ECM? Yet you want to beg the question and make terrible, "destructive effects" part of the premises you require me to argue from?!

PGI is tuning the quirks; that's not some mystic omen that somehow Balance Has Failed - it's a part of the ongoing process of balancing and rebalancing in order to approach perfect balance while still developing the game. It's a painstaking and gradual process, and it will have errors - no game in the history of ever has avoided serious balance issues at times. So there's no "solution" to "problems" that are an intrinsic part of developing a multiplayer game. To insist on them is to beg the question.

Notice what you two are doing here: I've voiced objections to your positions, and given explanations of why I think the way I do - and you respond by trying to shift the burden of proof to me (by innocently asking for (more) proof,) or asking for alternative "solutions" to problems (like a nerf to IS range "breaking" balance) that don't exist.

Edited by Void Angel, 09 February 2016 - 04:12 PM.

[Koshirou]

To avoid my actual arguments from being buried too deeply under Void Angel's balderdash:

a.) The argument goes: The IS ER LL's range is a problem. We'll fix it by changing the energy range quirks on many IS Mechs.
b.) My response: If the IS ER LL's range is a problem, just reduce the IS ER LL's range.

A blanket reduction of energy range quirks is a needlessly complicated "solution" which is bound to have serious consequences on balance issues far beyond long range ER LL sniping. If the problem is with a single weapon, change that single weapon.

[Koshirou]

Void Angel, on 09 February 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Notice what you two are doing here: I've voiced objections to your positions, and given explanations of why I think the way I do

Too bad none of them resemble anything a sane person could consider a coherent argument. The fact alone that you think...
a.) a range reduction in a single weapon will have a "wide array of consequences" and
b.) a reduction of crucial quirks affecting all energy weapons on dozens of Mechs won't
... disqualifies you as a participant in a rational discussion.

Quote

which consisted of repeating a criticism of an idea I just told you I never held.

Either you have confused me with Russhuster, or I have no clue what idea you refer to. You haven't addressed the substance of what I wrote in the first place, so I don't see where "ideas" that you hold play into it.

Edited by Koshirou, 09 February 2016 - 05:04 PM.

[Void Angel]

... Have you tried the quotes I read back to you? But that's ok - you've just "disqualified me as a participant in rational discussion." Forget all the objections you've ignored - just call it all "balderdash," and keep on repeating yourself, and hope that no one notices the "balderdash" was my responses to your own claims. Cross your fingers and hope that no one realizes that I've never said a general nerf to energy range wasn't far-reaching - I said your Trumpian "simple" solutions weren't. Perhaps you could have argued a technicality and quibbled about the one specific claim when I was addressing both together - you know, ask for clarification. But you didn't; instead, you went with the easy lie, the amateur hour misrepresentation.

I can only admire your optimism, but your sophistry needs work.

/unfollow

[Koshirou]

Void Angel, on 09 February 2016 - 08:21 PM, said:

Have you tried the quotes I read back to you?

I very much doubt that you read that in the first place, so you didn't really read it "back".

@ Everyone
Maybe I am not getting the nuances of Void Angel's brilliant argument. Can anyone explain how a range reduction in a single weapon will have a "wide array of consequences" and a reduction of crucial quirks affecting all energy weapons on dozens of Mechs won't?

[Russhuster]

@ Koshirou
I was referring to nothing in particular, but was, as Void Angel seemed to be so absolutely sure your approach to the solution was wrong, curious about what he would suggest instead

i think Void Angel is refering to the overquirking of range heat and burntime of the laser in specific Robots
And as these Robs as the result of the superior effectiveness these Chassis are used by the majority of players, when this Design is toned down by reducing the range ( burntime and heat efficiency wont be affected) abit it will lose one of its advantages

well being superior in just two of three subjects is appearently not good enough

But as many IS designs have these type of quirks all this robots will lose a bit of its advantages


@ Void Angel
When the quirk-desaster is resulting in the usage of less than a handfull of Variants for the most part where do you see these quirks supporting diversity? or at least differentiation?
Simply the robot with the most energy range and heat quirks is chosen and that ONE build we do see used in the dozen dont you?
Your Argumentation towards the PPC usage may have some point if PC werent bugy to point where these weapons are hardly seen anymore but hands down with the short quirked burntime and the exorbitant range the Lasers are the better sniper weapon even, when the PPC wouldnt tend to fly right through the target if they feel like it, that bug is known for years now and isnt fixed. So at this point that isnt a valid argument
The sad truth is at the moment that the difference IS exactly one or two more energy hardpoints
the little variety we see atm in the game is in the least cases caused by quirks ( Blackjack with Atlas quirks)
but more caused by a viable mech design, and Loadout capacity e.g King Crab, Marauder etc..

Well about destroying the athmosphere, the game feeling, there ve been several threads about this
and as i have no demographic statistic relating to this i do have read these threads and remember quite well what was written there, appearantly this "subjective" impression is not mine allone, the athmosphere isnt something you can pin to knowledge or numbers ( even when staying abit closer to the Lore would do no harm in this matter) it is a mixture of factors that give a player the impression of what we describe as "game feeling" and as it appears more and more of these factors are fading

- so are the players -
- also knowledge i do not have by a statistic number, you havent neither to prove the opposite right?

Well to demonstrate some destructive effects i will use the Blackjack
its ridiculous quirks concerning survivability are destroying not only Clan vs IS balance but Game balance in itself as it can tank most Heavies or even Assaults on Clan side as well as most IS heavies the IS Assaults that got quirkbuffed as a result of the blackjack madness can survive a BJ attack those robots who have no extra ridiculous quirks still can not

This scenario that mindless given quirks arent fixed by reducing the damaged quirkbucket ( the BJ ) but are causing a spiral of further out of Lore quirks should demonstrate the way these quirks are destroying the game what will be the result a more and more raising spiral of quirking?

great form of balance indeed

I love my Atlants and i do play them regularly whilst i was the opinion assaults in general had to puny ar in general for the hightened damage ouput and these quirks do give the atlas some more survivability what i do like as a player of this mech
The way it is achieved is a wrong one as it will pull a rats tail of consequences rebuffs and requirks after so the spiral will keep turning

I do not want to lay any specific question to you
i was simply interested in your opinion, nor do i want to shift any burdo to your shoulders
nevertheless your answers gave me some insights

That PGI is playing try and error with the players is not new, nor is the fact that we did not see considerated and inteligent usage of quirks one singe time yet
just that the situation is turning that wrong so players leave on side in this numbers is a dangerous development and the real problem that is in need of a FAST solution

Edited by Russhuster, 10 February 2016 - 07:36 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Koshirou, on 09 February 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

And you sound like someone who doesn't bother to read an argument and instead goes for an ad hominem with an asinine political reference.


Care to demonstrate any? Other than the still preposterous idea that the BLR-1S is a "missile variant" because of its stock loadout (and stock loadout derived HPs)? In any case, it has as many energy HPs as it has missile HPs - by the same standard the 1N would be the "missile variant" of the Dragon...

But hey, if that's your argument: I certainly would have any problem with the energy quirks being shifted to the 1G or 1D. I got the money. In fact, the blanket cut to 10% energy range quirks means that you can ditch your 1S anyway, seeing as how the 1G has the same and is superior in number and placement of HPs.

To be fair, the BLR can be considered the missile variant because of it's tube counts. While the Dragon 1 N has crappy tubes, and even smaller hardpoints for the missiles. It's not a missile variant if it can't actually carry missiles effectively.

So that's a very shake-y leg your point is standing on.

Russhuster, on 09 February 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

@Void Angel

not only one aspect, but general balance in itself is damaged by PGI s wonderful world of quirk balancing,.. Clan vs IS as well as IS vs IS as well and as a side effect destroying diversity and with this the Atmosphere of the Game - an aspect that is connecting most die hard BT fans imho to this game
but this aspect is fading at a enormous rate atm.

When there is little divergence, the result is boredom and that is the death of any multi player game

Its not a question what i may want, not even one of what the player wants, but a question what does the most positive effect

And workable or not, quirks had so far a most destructive effect to the game as a whole i doubt further playing try and error with the players will do any benefit, as i did not see any considerated and thoughtgful use of Quirks yet - Do you think this will happen?

under this premisses, what solution would you see there?

I'm sorry, but quirks have actually increased diversity (the meta used to be only 4 chassis, with one variant per chassis, and only 1 or 2 builds, before quirks showed up. Now we have at least 10 times the mech variants on the field, with even more varied builds.). I'm not sure we're even playing the same game. In my game I see almost all chassis, running varied builds. It most shows on mechs with near identical variants.

Anyone remembers seeing an AC 10 on the HBK-4H before the quirks showed up? No, if you ran a ballistic hunchback, it was running the AC 20, and the builds were identical. Now we have a lot of variety there.

Remember the 4J and 4SP? You were significantly more likely to see the 4SP over the 4J (which isn't much, considering you NEVER saw an HBK-4SP), and now both are solid performing mechs.

Hey, who remembers when all the shadowhawks ran literally the same build? I do, now we've got variety there.

I'm not sure what variety you had before quirks showed up, but 1 build, and 4 variants, is not really variety. Espeicially not compared to now, where almost every variant has a viable build that can give it a chance.

Before quirks, you usually only saw the BLR-1G, because it could ridge hump really well. You never saw Thunderbolts, and if you did, it was only the JJ one. Only 2 Cataphract variants were considered viable. As far as victors go, it was either the dragon slayer poptart, or go home.

Quirks have allowed variants that were considered inferior, or straight up awful, to be viable, and have a chance. Yes, there are like 4 variants with overdone quirks, and they are getting adjusted, but the other 99% is doing fine.

[Russhuster]

the problem is
You see these mentiones 4 variants on rawly 90% of the dropdeck true or not?

you say there were 4 chassis with 1-2 Builds that makes app 8 different mechbuilds
now you see 10 times that variety really you see 80 !! different Mechbuilds ?????
we really must be playing different games

[Koshirou]

IraqiWalker, on 10 February 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

To be fair, the BLR can be considered the missile variant because of it's tube counts. While the Dragon 1 N has crappy tubes, and even smaller hardpoints for the missiles.

So? It still has more than all other Dragons. So it is the "missile variant" according to... not scrolling up... that guy.

Of course, in MWO, the 1N is not a missile Mech, and neither are any other Dragons, regardless of whether their main weapon in the TT was an LRM. Which was the point.

The underyling argument "1S shouldn't have energy quirks because it is the missile variant" is rubbish and you know it.

[IraqiWalker]

Russhuster, on 10 February 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

the problem is
You see these mentiones 4 variants on rawly 90% of the dropdeck true or not?

you say there were 4 chassis with 1-2 Builds that makes app 8 different mechbuilds
now you see 10 times that variety really you see 80 !! different Mechbuilds ?????
we really must be playing different games

No, not 8 different builds. 1 or 2 builds, that's it. The 4 variants (not chassis), used one of two builds. Because there were only 2 builds you ran if you wanted to be competitive.

Also, if we wanted to be accurate, I am seeing currently over 235 builds (give or take 5 because I may have miscounted).

It's really simple if you want to test it out. Go to mwo.smurfy-net.de and start going down the list of mechs, and for each chassis, check how many builds you will find across the variants. For example: the Wolfhound has only 2-3 builds (for the sake of being conservative, I counted the Wolfhound as having 2 builds between all it's variants: all lasers, and all lasers with missiles). On the other hand, the Stormcrow had: all missiles, all lasers, ballistics with lasers, lasers with missiles, brawlers, and snipers. The Atlas Chassis only has 2 builds, the HBK chassis has at least one build per variant... etc.

Count them up, Even if you wanted to count half the ones I counted (I didn't count any fringe, or joke builds like dual AC 20 Cicadas, I counted reasonable, and viable builds.), you'll still hit over 100.

[Russhuster]

The problem still is: one sees this 4-8 quirked builds on 90% of the dropdecks True or not?

There is a great difference between theoretical possible builds, and actual played ones
I do actually play my atlants in 2 if you include the Boars head 1 Balistic plus laz + srm
/ 2 Balistic + las + srm and 1 Balistic + lazers

IN the virtual Field i am miles away from seing just half of your mentioned 235 builds even the former 80 builds are a ridiculous number
you on the most do see half of these and that does include some funbuilds as the Boom-wolf is
and you know that very well yourself

edit: dual AC20 Cicadas??? sure youre speaking of the same game???
now i can unserstand where you see 235 different Mechbuilds played i must assume some typo

Edited by Russhuster, 11 February 2016 - 05:51 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Russhuster, on 11 February 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

The problem still is: one sees this 4-8 quirked builds on 90% of the dropdecks True or not?

There is a great difference between theoretical possible builds, and actual played ones
I do actually play my atlants in 2 if you include the Boars head 1 Balistic plus laz + srm
/ 2 Balistic + las + srm and 1 Balistic + lazers

IN the virtual Field i am miles away from seing just half of your mentioned 235 builds even the former 80 builds are a ridiculous number
you on the most do see half of these and that does include some funbuilds as the Boom-wolf is
and you know that very well yourself

edit: dual AC20 Cicadas??? sure youre speaking of the same game???
now i can unserstand where you see 235 different Mechbuilds played i must assume some typo

I said I didn't include joke builds, and yes, you can actually run dual AC 20s on a cicada. It's just not viable. I didn't count non-viable builds. I only counted viable builds. CDA-3C

Look, I even explained the methodology of my process to you, if you didn't bother to read it, I don't know what else to do.

While yes, the top optimized decks will be running similar mechs. It's still at least a 100% improvement over 2-4 chassis only, every game.

Let's look at the T-1 Drop decks for Clans, and IS Let's see what mechs are common, and how many there are

Clans

Spoiler

HBR

TBR

HBK-IIC

SCR

EBJ

ACH

JR7-IIC

DWF

So that's at least 8 for the clans (I'm only counting Tier 1s here. Not tier 2s)

Inner Sphere

Spoiler

BJ1

QKD

TDR

STK

BLR

FS9

RVN

GRH

JM6

That's 10 for the IS.

We have a grand total of 18 tier 1 chassis (not 18 builds, 18 chassis, with more than 18 builds)

Just by counting the tier 1s.

Let's go with the unrealistically optimistic number of 8 builds we had before, and we'll go with a very conservative 18 builds we have no (we have more, but we'll go with 18) that's a 225% increase in variety right there.


For the record, the count of 235 builds, was not for the competitive scene, just for viable builds that people run in the game, not just the competitive queue. Of course, the competitive queue will have less, but because we have such a staggering increase in variety (thanks to quirks), the competitive scene has an increased variety as well.

[Mi Ro Ki]

Spadejack, on 04 February 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

How long have you been on the game? Honestly?

If you are a player that plays at least a fair amount of time, you know that streaks are only good against lights or light mediums, against everything else not so good...

Clans use LRMS now because there isnt any other weapon system that works well! If you had played at least a year, you would see that the meta on the clans were the laser vomit build!

Ok, i understand your frustration on how IS will be nerfed, at least the super-quirked mechs... but you will overcome, like always, by crying back to PGI that the big bad clans are so OP!!!!

Criticizing someones play time to what actually happens on the field regarding SSRM's, it's fair to say, since Davion does not actually have a clan front "ever", you would know little of it when good teams in CW that can run it successfully dropping heavies in seconds, have a go against top teams running them 12v12 then come back with your results because i can bet $100 bucks on it that if you come up against the right team/s running it, the tune will change.

[Russhuster]

sorry such a mechbuild as your dual AC20 cicada i dont even consider as a fun build thats plain out a ridiculous constellation
you say yourself you donmt count not viable builds - and what do you call your CDA-3C then?

I did read your line of reasoning, but on some corners of it i had hard to think if you were trolling me

OF COURSE i do speak of COMPETETIVE builds what would you bring to a dropdeck things like that Cicada???

Quote

While yes, the top optimized decks will be running similar mechs. It's still at least a 100% improvement over 2-4 chassis only, every game.

good to hear you do at least acknowledge that

Quote

For the record, the count of 235 builds, was not for the competitive scene,

then why did you mention those
as a goal of any balance worth that word should, no MUST, be a competetive equality of some sort
with a at least nininal equality of weapon groups
PPC are not to be crippeled by the braindead projectile speed slowing they still suffer from as are the AC and UAC
the tonnage/damage relation is simply destroyed there

Of course diversity is needed but you do not achieve that by using prooven dirt like quirks

you achieve diversity in making more weapon systems reliable and usable

we dont need false diversity caused by quirkbuckets like the Blackjack
but we need more sense of AR in relation to the artificial hightened weapon damage in this game

we dont need overquirked mechs on neither sider not IS nor Clan

but we do need a consideration of the Chassis one by one and if for gods sakequirks are needed then considerated ones that follow the lore the stock build etc
We do need at the same time a consideration of the chassi in themselves esp the loadout of many clan mechs and braindead cripling hardcoded inbuilds or free ENDO / FF
IN connection with giving the usage of Ferrofibrous a definite sense in the game
for example a bolster of AR with FF usage by 30% lights and medium 40% heavy and 50% assault
these on both sides Inner Sphere as well as Clan

when every mech has its certain advantages it will become more seen in a game but when a overquirked Thunderwubb or a Blackknight can fulfill all necessities of combat why chosing something else?

[Bud Crue]

Couple observations:

I do love these debates. No matter what the topic it always gets side tracked and/or devolves down to a misunderstanding (intentionally or not) of what the participants' definitions of "competitive" or "balance" is in the first place. Errors of origin if you will.

Seems like the tone of these debates are always along the lines of:

"I am comp level, and this is how I see it, and thus it is an issue that requires a complete re-work of some aspect of the game so that my comp level play is no longer detrimentally affected!"

The fun part is you can replace "comp level" with "a lore nerd", or "a TT enthusiast", or "a IS partisan", or "a clan partisan", etc. and the argument is still the same.

[IraqiWalker]

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

sorry such a mechbuild as your dual AC20 cicada i dont even consider as a fun build thats plain out a ridiculous constellation
you say yourself you donmt count not viable builds - and what do you call your CDA-3C then?

I'm assuming you don't have a reading disability, and actually bothered to read where I repeatedly said that build is not viable. I did not count builds like it, and I did not count other joke builds. Really, this is the third time I am stating this. Plus, it doesn't matter if you don't think it's fun. That's not for you to decide, that's for the one piloting it. I've seen people run 12 flamer Novas, which don't seem like fun to me, but some people like their kills extra crispy, and have fun with that. That's no my call, or yours.

Those builds get put under non-viable/joke builds, and that's about all I can do to them. They don't get counted (4th time I'm stating this)

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

I did read your line of reasoning, but on some corners of it i had hard to think if you were trolling me

OF COURSE i do speak of COMPETETIVE builds what would you bring to a dropdeck things like that Cicada???

No, but you can bring any of the 235+ viable builds, to a drop deck. For competitive play, you'd bring about 4 of the 18 different chassis (at 2 viable builds per chassis, that's still 36 different set ups, instead of just the 2-4 we used to have) that are tier 1. Some people might even dip into the Tier 2 mechs, because they perform better in them, almost exponentially increasing the viable builds count.

All of this still illustrates one very simple, and indisputable point: Quirks added more variety by several orders of magnitude, and thus have had a very positive effect on the game.

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

then why did you mention those
as a goal of any balance worth that word should, no MUST, be a competetive equality of some sort
with a at least nininal equality of weapon groups
PPC are not to be crippeled by the braindead projectile speed slowing they still suffer from as are the AC and UAC
the tonnage/damage relation is simply destroyed there

Now we delve into what you think the game should be like. First, let's address the fallacy that every chassis should be competitive. That's very much a proven impossibility, (unless you want to make it so there is only one mech in the game, with only one weapon system, so everyone has the same exact build, and mech, and thus it's viable). MWO has too many mechs for them all to be competitive. They can all be made viable, and effective though. In every game out there, the competitive selection of tanks/frames/ships/guns/units ... etc. is always a fraction of the total available options.

However, those options are still decent, and can perform well in the game, competitive scene or not. They're just no as efficient in the upper tiers, which is okay. Because the game isn't about the competitive scene, which is a minority of not only the player base, but matches played.

By the way, balance, and competitive viability, are not the same thing.

Now let's move on to possibly the most dangerous word in that post "equality". You need to toss that word out the window. The minute we had mechs of different weight classes, equality disappeared. MWO is balanced through Asymmetric balance. Not equality.

Each option has pros and cons, and

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

Of course diversity is needed but you do not achieve that by using prooven dirt like quirks

you achieve diversity in making more weapon systems reliable and usable

Which you do by using quirks. Because not all weapons are made equal. Why would anyone pick a small laser over a medium laser? Make an argument, please. Even on light mechs, most will pack MLs, or SPLs, but not SLs.

If you had the choice between the SL, and the ML, why would you ever use the SL? The half ton weight difference? Shave half a ton off your mech's armor, and you can fit the ML, for better range, and damage. Heat is a non issue, because merely waiting for 1 second, or less can offset the 2 heat difference, and if you are that desperate that 2 heat are a problem, you can override shutdown, fire a shot, get the kill, and power down for minimal damage.

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

we dont need false diversity caused by quirkbuckets like the Blackjack
but we need more sense of AR in relation to the artificial hightened weapon damage in this game

Oh, you mean the blackjack that's getting it's quirks rolled back?

It seems your problem isn't with the quirks system, but with some mechs receiving very powerful quirks. Newsflash: It happens all the time, and it gets fixed. So where is the problem, really?

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

we dont need overquirked mechs on neither sider not IS nor Clan

We clearly don't need overquirked ones, but we definitely need quirked ones. Because of the disparity between the two sides. Unless you want clan lasers to generate more heat, fire for shorter ranges, and have the XLs die to ST loss, and upgrades cost 14 slots.

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

but we do need a consideration of the Chassis one by one and if for gods sakequirks are needed then considerated ones that follow the lore the stock build etc

No. Look, take stock builds out of the equation. No one in their right mind ran stock builds in BT tourneys, not unless they were very specific stock mech events, or lore specific battles. Stock builds have always been terrible, and quirks shouldn't be geared towards them. Even in lore no one preferred a stock build over a custom one. Name one instance in BT history where a pilot chose a stock mech, over a custom one for live combat.

Let me introduce the case of the Firestarter. Do you really want it's quirks to follow the stock loadout of FLAMERS?

Even if flamers were made viable again, that would still be a crippled mech in all regards. Quirks should help a chassis play better, not be terrible.

If we follow your logic, then the meta would go back to being 1 or 2 variants, not even a whole chassis in 90% of cases, because only the ones with good stock builds (mainly clan TBRs, DWFs, HBRs, ENJs, and SCRs), will be useful, while every other mech is made even worse.

Hey, how about the Banshee? That 3E would sure be intimidating with it's PPC, AC5, and SL quirks.

A 95 ton assault with the firepower of a light mech at short range, is not a good idea.

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

We do need at the same time a consideration of the chassi in themselves esp the loadout of many clan mechs and braindead cripling hardcoded inbuilds or free ENDO / FF

Could you clarify more on this point?

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

IN connection with giving the usage of Ferrofibrous a definite sense in the game
for example a bolster of AR with FF usage by 30% lights and medium 40% heavy and 50% assault
these on both sides Inner Sphere as well as Clan

So you want an Atlas to have 927 armor, but the DWF will only have 618. Are you sure this is a wise thing to do?

Also, for someone who wants to use lore, and stock, it's quite a departure to give FF armor magical armor increasing abilities it never had in lore (which would really upset lore enthusiasts, btw).

Russhuster, on 12 February 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

when every mech has its certain advantages it will become more seen in a game but when a overquirked Thunderwubb or a Blackknight can fulfill all necessities of combat why chosing something else?

Because you like playing other weight classes, or other mechs, and the quirks actually give each mech it's own advantages.

Again, before quirks, 2-4 builds in the competitive scene. After quirks, at least 18. The results are right there for all to see.

Yes, we have some mechs that received very powerful quirks, but you know what's really awesome about the quirk system? They get changed, and balanced, without crippling the mech, or the weapon systems. Especially considering PGI are not allowed to change the tonnage costs, or slot costs of weapons, and they don't get to deviate from the heat values by much (as the IS ML, and IS SL what their heat should really be)

Edited by IraqiWalker, 12 February 2016 - 11:37 AM.

[Russhuster]

Yes one CAN bring some of your mentioned 235builds to a drop deck but in how many do you think you do your team a favour?

Quote

For competitive play, you'd bring about 4 of the 18 different chassis

exactly so your 235 builds are nonsense in that context, Ofc everybody wants to be ceompetetive,the ability to pull some weight in a game is important if you want to win, Do you play to loose? - i seriously doubt that.

Quote

All of this still illustrates one very simple, and indisputable point: Quirks added more variety by several orders of magnitude, and thus have had a very positive effect on the game.

Yes it brought false benifits to mechs like the Blackjack what ex nihilo had the survivability of an assaultmech
so let us take a closer look at that benifits you were speaking of it made a mech almost using god mode
so that ONE mech was dominating from that point on

Everybody used the Mini Atlas you do see these robots in the dozen - great variety - i really have to applaude
in the consequence Assault mechs were obsolete why using an Atlas when the BJ can tank as much but is faster has a better mobility and a better Hardpoint solution?
so one mech bolstered and about 5 chassis types destroyed
The spiral turned and so the IS Assaults were buffed with similar structure/survivability/movement quirks just to keep up with the Blackjack-Quirkchimera,. what will be to see in the future a further spinning spiral of quirks and requirks?
I d say that galloping Quirk-idiotism has to come to an end

Mechs have to be viable through theyr specific advantages the ability to fit in certain weapon types

light mechs get light and medium weapons in rare exceptions heavy like the Hollander that could fit in a heavy weapon, the Gauss cannon that was the main purpose of sucha design would a mech like the Hollander make sense now in this wonderful world of MWO where even a raven can equip a AC 20?
NO its purpose is destroyed - like many other mechs nieche
And thats why so many mechs duffer a dust catcher existence building quirkbucket - Frankenstein Mechs will not help just destroy more of the mechwarrior feeling in MWO where very little is left of that anyway

When a Thunderbolt can deliver every need of the battlefield because its quirked over the top
why using any other mech ? when a BJ can tank like an Atlas but is faster more maneuverable and provides the better gardpoint ratio, whilst using less tonnage in the dropdeck why using an atlas then?
that list could be continued as you know

Yes, i would like to have the atlas when it uses FFB AR to have 900 AR points why not? An Atlas is a Assault mech and no flea or firestarter or no Arctic cheetah should be able to kiill one with two or three salvos but that s the case atm. Assaults losing theyr niche because light mechs are buffed and quirked that was so speed is more worth than ammo
Ofc The Direwolf should have an adequate AR as well but i would give the Arlas or the Stone Rhino an advantage of 100 AR at the least

Quirks were in the pastand are in the future the worst and most destructive way to play PGI s try and mostly error with the players

Edited by Russhuster, 13 February 2016 - 05:13 AM.