Rad Hanzo, on 15 February 2016 - 05:48 AM, said:
I, for instance, have absolutely no qualms with carefully cherrypicked mechs, that get quirked with a tender hand to make them viable in MW:O WHILE retaining their lore-flavour -> Awesome + PPC´s, Jaeger/Cataphract + AC´s, Warhawk Prime + ERPPC, Summoner Prime+Gauss/ERPPC/LRM/JJ and so on, you get the drift hopeflly .
What I really don´t like are those over-the-top blanket quirks, looks really sloppy and tells me the DEV doesn´t care .
An to add : I´ve played approximate 15k games in public and CW combined, on both sides of the fence, and what I really like now is the diversity on the battlefield . Yes, performance/range outliers need to get reined in (eh, BJ, BLR,BNC^^) but besides those little things balance ain´t too bad .
I´m saying "not too bad" with the full knowledge that we aren´t even close to a good "imperfect" balance, but we definitely turned towards it and maybe even took one step towards it, let´s see and wait what le futuré brings .
The only thing that stilly massively pisses me off in this game is it´s wonky, finnicky and plain randomly working hit-registration .
Iraqi, as usual, thanks for the lecture, it was a treat to read
Amen
Bud Crue, on 15 February 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:
Spot on.
Mods = Viability and Character.
This is, I think, the core of how modifiers should work.
(My personal preference is that lore ought to be the source for that character, and thus the appropriate buffs and nerfs, but I will take ANYTHING that helps make low performers playable and gives all mechs a bit of distinction).
QFT
Vanguard319, on 15 February 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:
so what you are saying is that CW would be balanced if the ratio of clan and IS players were about equal on both sides. The reality that the clans are unable to hold worlds implies that the player ratio is heavily geared towards IS, because of the belief that IS mechs are better. You don't have a mass exodus of top-tier players switching sides when factions are balanced.
No. Because the WHM was introduced, most Clan mercs (i.e. a lot of clan players that actually get planets) switched back to IS to level the WHM, and a few other IS mechs they had on the backburner. If IS mechs were better, they wouldn't need the quirks.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
thats a very strange statement you say there are 132 bilds that are competeive?
i really doubt this, the deadquirking does not support that
I'm thinking there's a miscommunication thing here. More than half of the builds would be viable for CW. All 235 are viable for every other game mode. I'd put all of them in CW, but brawler builds for example do suffer a bit on CW, so I wouldn't recommend them.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
I asked you about variety in the game not a imaginate number possible funbuilds there are not 235 different builds played in the game esp not in CW and you know that very good yourself
In CW over 130 builds are present. In competitive matches, over 36 builds are present. In MWO over 235 viable builds are present. That's variety. Otherwise, look up the definition of the word.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
you seriously say of all players in MWO just 200 want to win rhe rest plays for the purpose of losing ??
as i did ask you as well if you play to lose i doubted that and still dount that now
No, I'm saying only 200 or so play purely competitively. While the overwhelming majority don't play competitively. This is also supported by the fact that quickplay queues (the majority of matches in MWO are played there), are dominated by non-competitive builds.
You seem to misinterpret "non-competitive" with "not-wanting to win". The two are not the same.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
more and more i get the impression youre not interested in a serious debate
I'm still here, aren't I?
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
OFC i do point out one example to illustrate the destructive effect of the quirk desaster and of course a significant one
using a not significant example would be rather stupid and meaningless no?
You seem to misunderstand how examples work.
An example is supposed to be representative of the sample group. So when you pick a fringe case, you're misrepresenting the entire data sample. You're making it seem like the common occurrence is BJ-1 level quirks. Which is very far from the truth.
So let me put it this way: When someone says clan mech are crap, because the Ice Ferret is crap. Are they representing clan mechs correctly, or appropriately? No, they're not. The Ice Ferret sucks, but virtually every other clan mech is somewhere between good to excellent. This is what you're doing.
Here's a system that benefited every mech in the game (nearly 300), and you point at literally ONE mech that got too much from it, and say "the system is broken, it's all wrong".
Either you're being over-dramatic, or you're intentionally misrepresenting the data for your own agenda, beyond reason.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
trolling me there again IraquiWalker?
No, not trolling you, just highlighting a fallacy people fall into, on purpose or by accident. You took an edge case, and made it seem like that's the norm. There is no form of logical discourse where that's acceptable.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
exactly it was viable and usable through its good designed high Hardpoints the relatively small sprite and as the result of that good hitboxes its good maneuverability and broad hardpoints variety
and quirks.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
So tell me WHY did that Robot need THAT quirks???
Can you answer THAT question?
I'm personally not sure. We all said they were on the overdone side. Maybe because even though it was a viable medium for the IS, it was still very much inferior to the competition, and couldn't handle being hit at all?
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
It got boostet to almost god mode and took over matter of factly the usage nieches of many assault mechs
it destroyed more than 5 assaults ( Atkas, Banshee, Awesome, Highlander, Victor for example )
i just took that number to visualize that the quirks didnt bring variety but destroy variety in making one chassis here the BJ to the"flying egg laying Woolmilksow" providing all abilitys of a number of mechs in one
making those mechs obsolete in doing so
Victors? Has anyone seen victors sine after their JJ and mobility nerf? Highlanders? Awesomes? Atlas? Those 4 didn't exist in competitive play for almost a year, BEFORE the quirks on the BJ were implemented. The Banshee didn't get overturned, because it was still holding the DPS of a competitive assault mech, which is why it's still there even now.
Those mechs were obsoleted a long time ago, the BJ quirks didn't change that.
I can bring up the numbers of what we had before, and after the quirks, and we can look at how we got more variety, again. We've done that already. No one is saying the quirks system is perfect, but it's by far significantly better than no quirks.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
You say they will balance the quirks on the BJ
well i will believe that when i do see it - they may reduce the quiks minimalisticly but in the end the BJ will remain out of balance. I havent seen one single time a considerated dealing with quirks on IS side yet, maybe iam wrong but the past told me that - we will see.
You've been here since December, you haven't seen the quirks the IS had before. Anyone here remembers the PPC machine gun Thunderbolts?
Oh, and here're the
Patch Notes. When discussing balance, it helps to look up patch notes, and announcements. Especially when they are mentioned repeatedly.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
I count that as a very heavy point against the quirk madness
I am with you in saying chassis specific balancing quirks would have its benefits
But that has not been happening one singe time in all the time iam playing this game - welcome to reality!
I don't think you're in reality, at all. I can be lame and list only ONE time when it has happened, but the reality is that they've made promises and delivered those promises consistently, and repeatedly over the past 1.5 years. Even before then, but I'm only counting after they separated from IGP.
So it's happened multiple times, consistently.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
I DO bother what other peole are writing even when it is blind white knighting, or what PGI is announcing
BUT what PGI is announcing and what we did get then in the end are two different stories true or not?
So you may forgive me some reasonable doubts there - it isnt so that we havnt been fooled at all in the past havnt we?
While you can have your doubts, PGI has had a near spotless record since mid 2014. Yes, you can be skeptical, but at least be reasonable.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Mechs like the Atlas were loosing more and more of theyr purpose by quirking and the resulting increased damage output over ridiculous distances caused by quirkmonsters, so they needed quirks to stand a chance against former quirks thats the spiral i was talking about just in case you didnt read it
Not true. Before quirks showed up, the Atlas was losing presence compared to other assaults because they all could deliver damage better than the Atlas, and were more survivable. The DWF was the kiss of death for the Atlas. It introduced a level of firepower the Atlas had almost no chance of matching, unless the Atlas was within 200 meters of the DWF.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
You asked why one would take a Commando over a Firestarter
Answer. SPEED!
LOL, what? They both move at very similar speeds, and the firestart has JJs, and packs 5 times the firepower (this is coming from a Commando specialist, btw). The difference in speed between 150, and 170 is almost negligible when the Firestarter can out-maneuver the Commando, by circumventing terrain obstacles, and out-gunning it by carrying at least 5 times the firepower.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
A Hunchback over a IIC? or the Jenny over a IIC
Answer: ARMOR and Survivability as *** IIC s have paper armor
That's another BS statement. Both carry the same tonnage, and can pack the same amount of armor. The IICs also have XL engines that don't die to ST loss, lighter weapons, euqal or superior hardpoint count, and pack more firepower, and in the case of the HBK-IIC: JJs.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
you do see youre leading your own words about just 200 players want to be ompetetive in whole MWO ad absurdum yes?
Since we already addressed the definition of "competitive" and "not wanting to win" as being two different things, we don't need to repeat it here.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
how do you come to that conclusion from what i d write?
Because even if that's not what you intend for, that's what will happen. We go back to mechs relying only on their harpdpoints, and geometry, clan mechs will go back to dominating, since they have omni pods, better engines, superior weapons, and customizability. Which was the case before quirks showed up.
The other prong your argument could go for was sized hardpoints, because you said "their ability to fit certain weapons". Sized hardpoints are bad, and don't solve the boating problem, as has been proven, and discussed over at least 8 sized hardpoint threads I've witnessed. Sized hardpoints don't even achieve the "certain weapons" aspect, because if they let you mount a big gun, then any weapon can fit.
Not to mention that there was no such thing in BT. You could fit any weapon, on any mech, as long as you had the tonnage and slots.
So even if you didn't intend it, or didn't think it through. I (and many others), have. We've seen it back when clans first came out, and we've seen it even before then. We've even seen it in the competitive scene in both Battletech TT, and other Mechwarrior games (most notoriously MW4).
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
I dont want op on neither side i want a considered specific nieche creating usable concept in the game where mechs like the hollander have its purpose,.. <you say it would fit in - maybe but will it be used ? NO because it isnt needed.
The Urbie isn't needed either, and look at how popular it is. It's barely a viable mech, and it's still a loved mech that people not only wanted, but campaigned for since the days when MWO was still an announcement.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
do you realize you are delivering the answer yourself? without additional quirks no Chassis will be used
Thats how far thequirks have brought MWO, applause applause
The quirks would allow it to be competitive. Without quirks it's still viable, because the Gauss Rifle is a good weapon. It's just a bad way to play a light mech. The quirks would make the Hollander above average, because believe me, without quirks in MWO at all, the Hollander would be a Tier 5 light mech, that no one would use. With quirks, it can jump up to above average, and be usable.
Go ahead, and build one using a Firestarter, and let me know how that turns out. It's fun, but it's not a good mech at all.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Its purpose, its nieche is destroyed; or more taken by quirk mechs that provide ALL abilitys in ONE or very FEW chassis
And that is the absolute opposite of diversity
Once again, you are wrong. It's purpose is destroyed simply by the fact that it's not a good mech. It was only good back when most light mechs moved at very slow speeds, and even then, if your enemy had a single locust on the board, you can bet it's gonna run behind it, and kill it in one turn, without being hit by the Hollander.
That mech was simply a cheap way to get a Gauss Rifle on the board, because GRs are really good. The weapon is good, the mech is terrible.
Quirks would at least give it flavor, and help it get a niche that isn't useless.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Maybe the AC 20 Raven isnt against the lore but against physics. A Robot with more than half its overall weight mountet in one cannon on one side can not walk it will tilt to the weighted side because there is gravity
Ignoring how physics shouldn't be in this discussion, according to BT lore, and physics, it doesn't violate anything.
The mech's skeleton is built to handle 35 tons of equipment. You mounted 35 tons of equipment on it. Now maybe it would be off balance, but it has the ability to fix that, thanks to it's myomers, and the fact that the neurohelmet allows the pilots to balance the mech properly.
So no, it doesn't even violate BT physics. If the AC 20 raven violates physics, btw, then so does your beloved Hollander. Especially since it's carrying an even heavier weapon.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Quirks do not create good hardpoint diversity they do create BOATING
Now that's the first valid point you've had since we've started this discussion.
Yes, quirks can lead to boating. However, they are not the cause for boating, nor did they create boating. Not only did boating exist in tabletop (there's an entire category of mechs, dedicated specifically to boats), but it existed in MWO since closed Alpha.
Now here's a little exercise: take a scroll through the list of mechs in MWO. Then look at how many of them have an equal spread of hardpoints, and then try and make viable builds with them, while ignoring quirks.
This has nothing to do with quirks, we've always boated one or two systems, because it's simpler, and more efficient. Builds with a diverse weapon spread are NOT good. Jack of all trade, generalist builds are mediocre at every range, and always inferior to their opponent's build at that mech's preferred range.
This is an argument that comes from the stock mech mindset. Stock mechs were bad. They were awful. They were canonically, the refuse, and what's left from half-good technology. Look at the mechs built before 3065, and after 3065. Do they still build them like they did tech 1 mechs? Of course not.
While TT mechs are all general purpose, because they're meant to have a semblance to reality, that's not the case in MWO, where every mech is custom built to fit the pilot's intended purpose.
If you look at competitive TT matches where they don't use stock tech 1 mechs. They all tend to boat one, maybe two weapon types.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
Quirks do not support variety in builds they do artificially boost ONE certain (quirked) build that one build you will see played in the dozen no matter how far of reality your white knighting may be
This is not white knighting. I have my gripes with PGI, lord knows I do. I'm disagreeing with you on this one, because your arguments are flimsy, and your suggestion would ruin the game, especially considering we know exactly what would happen, since we were there, when what you suggested, was the norm. Also, don't try to dismiss an argument by calling it "white knighting" when I'm presenting viable, testable, and confirmed points.
While quirks can maximize one particular build, they actually come in two varieties on every mech, general weapon quirks, and then specific weapon quirks. So any build you run can benefit from the bonuses. One particular build can end up being more efficient than it's non-quirked version, but quirks help ALL builds. The HBK-4SP has SRM quirks, and missile quirks. I can run any missile weapon I want on it, and it will perform better than standard. I can run SRMs on it, and they will perform better than standard.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
I d choose the atlas because i do play it mayself and can say something about its abilities
because i tend to speak of facts i did test myself bevore typing instead of white knighting
The Atlas was bevore Quirks and even bevore clans a very useful mech, as were the Highlanders
Clans as Wave I came did bring to many advantages andwere nerfed
but another player did give a very good statemet to that so i ll answer you with the words of Lily from animove
There are actually a lot of holes in Lily's comment, but she certainly presented a more realistic, and factual argument than you have.
Especially considering that whenever you run into an argument you can't deal with, you just call it "white knighting". Even though you're absolutely wrong.
Let's look at how often the Atlas was used competitively before quirks: Almost zero, until you go back as far as mid 2013, when ECM spam was all the rage. Then, and earlier, yes, it was viable. Of course, only the DDC was viable, and the other reason it was used so often, was because we only had 3 assault mechs by then (stalker, Atlas, and Awesome), and stalkers were still more common.
The minute the Victors came out, the Atlas was on the endangered species list. Highlanders practically ended the Atlas, and the age of poptarting made sure it was good and dead. When Wave 1 showed up, it just confirmed that the Atlas is done for.
So no, before quirks only the DDC was usable (1 variant), more because we didn't have other assault mechs, than because it was good. We simply didn't have other choices. Which is why the more assault mechs were added, the fewer Atlases were on the field.
Look, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The highlanders dominated as the number one assault mech for a long time, and it wasn't until the JJ nerf that their dominance was curbed. Before the JJ nerf you either brought a Highlander or you didn't get to drop in comp play, because the poptart highlander was that good. They got nerfed, and Vitcors took over, until they were nerfed too.
Then there's the simple fact that I've played this game for far longer than you have. I have tested more mechs than you have, on both sides. Clan, and IS.
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
the player numbers tell us the sad truth Quirk and Nerf idiotism drove many away some left the game completely others just left sides
and we also got more players after the quirks. Balancing IS mechs with clan mechs also turned a lot of players away, because they wanted their OP clan mechs, and 'I WIN" buttons. So should we accommodate such manchildren? That tells us we had a lot of immature people who couldn't handle the game being played anyway other than theirs
Russhuster, on 15 February 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:
you may white knight all you want and i am the opinion you should get a reward by PGI for doing so
maybe some reality glasses
Look, I've been courteous during this whole discussion, despite the fact that you're both uninformed on the subject matter, and refuse to look into any real information.
You can keep dismiss my legitimate arguments as "white knighting", but the truth is that you have no leg to stand on, with your arguments, and no counter arguments to mine. So the best you can do is call white knighting, and hide.
That's fine, but let me assure you that you are very much wrong. We have the data from all the years prior to quirks and it proves that you're wrong.
You can also call me a white knight all you want, but people who've been around for far longer than you have, know that I'm not one. Nor am I a PGI fanboy. I have my gripes with them. I'm just rational about what's good for the game, not what appeases your own ego of how the game should be.
5
