130 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

pwnface, on 23 February 2016 - 12:37 AM, said:

Gyrok have you heard of confirmation bias?

Everyone knows you have an agenda and you are willing to lie or delude yourself to prove your points.

Your logical fallacy is genetic.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lupis Volk, on 23 February 2016 - 01:15 AM, said:

question what is his Agenda? I see he's Clan Wolf is he on a crusade to prove that Clans are forever underpowered?

Some folk, when they have performance issue... They work to improve. Some folk.... Take a little pill. And still others look for any excuse to explain away their performance issue.

Suffice it to say... Some folk got used to crutch mode Clan mechs, and assist unable to adapt and perform without them being egregiously OP.

Since he's been complaining that It S is OP and Clans garbage tier since the first TBR nerf was discussed.

[Bishop Steiner]

Aresye, on 23 February 2016 - 01:53 AM, said:

Everybody ended up being caught by surprise. You can't really fault people for bringing the agility quirks up in balance discussions when you yourselves believed you had agility quirks the whole time.

I could easily laugh the same way from an opposing standpoint, in which many of you probably based your arguments on balance with the belief that these agility quirks were working, but weren't doing enough.

Nobody from either side can really laugh at anybody on the other, because everybody on both sides thought these were working.

No, got to disagree.

One can almost always laugh at some folk based purely on their post history. Spend two years claiming the sky is falling, and people are going to point and snigger.'

And he ain't even a bad guy, overall, at least based on my drop experience. He just has a crazy blind spot/bias on this area. Then you got JohnnyZ who is exactly the same way, but it's always that the IS is getting screwed.

Heck, some may point out my utter loathing of Armlock and meta lemmings in a similar way.

*shrugs*

Biggest issue these forums have is too many people willing to laugh at others, but unable to laugh at themselves. More folk should try it sometime. It's pretty dang liberating.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 February 2016 - 07:16 AM.

[Boulangerie]

Just curious here. It sounds like they merged the acceleration quirks from 3 values to one value for each mech in the Excel sheet, but forgot to include that change in the release build. Is that correct?

So this means that we did have working turn rate quirks and yaw speed quirks right?

Because some of my mechs did seem to handle differently. Is the placebo that stronk?

[Gas Guzzler]

Aresye, on 23 February 2016 - 01:53 AM, said:

Everybody ended up being caught by surprise. You can't really fault people for bringing the agility quirks up in balance discussions when you yourselves believed you had agility quirks the whole time.

I could easily laugh the same way from an opposing standpoint, in which many of you probably based your arguments on balance with the belief that these agility quirks were working, but weren't doing enough.

Nobody from either side can really laugh at anybody on the other, because everybody on both sides thought these were working.

To be honest, I was pretty underwhelmed by the Accel/Decel quirks, so I just thought they weren't very valuable quirks. I mean, Highlander has 55% Accel/Decel, and you couldn't even notice.

But, we can laugh at people who said "My IS mechs feel so much more agile than my Clan mechs because of their Accel/Decel quirks" because it shows their "feelings" are derived from their pre-conceived opinions based on the green text in the Mechlab.

I will concede however that I think the twist speed quirks were working, so there is that.

[Mawai]

Pjwned, on 23 February 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

Recent developments don't really disprove huge agility quirks being OP, regardless of IS or clan.

If anything, it's the opposite actually.

Recent developments PROVE that any comments in the past two months regarding how OP agility quirks are ... presumably based on experience in game ... were actually entirely bogus since there weren't any agility quirks.

As for whether or not agility quirks are OP ... we will likely soon find out. I suspect that any "quirk" that gives a 50% or more advantage over an unquirked mech might be too big. Someone at PGI seems to like big numbers.

What is hilarious is the absolute lack of quality control and that it took 2 1/2 months to discover that agility quirks were not functional on the live servers and that this was driven by a comment or bug report from players. Don't they actually have in game METRICS to measure damage, mobility and other factors in a NUMERICAL and QUANTITATIVE way? They should have a test client that MEASURES how long it takes a mech to cover a certain distance in game. A client that MEASURES damage done using fixed static and dynamic scenarios that can be repeated. They need regression test cases and an automated method of running them ... using live server code as well as test builds. Anyway, unfortunately, it just tends to show how incompetent PGI can be in certain areas. (Setting all the IS energy range quirks to 10% is another example ... all that requires is editing an XML file correctly ... but they still got it wrong for the last patch).

[Lugh]

Mawai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

Recent developments PROVE that any comments in the past two months regarding how OP agility quirks are ... presumably based on experience in game ... were actually entirely bogus since there weren't any agility quirks.

As for whether or not agility quirks are OP ... we will likely soon find out. I suspect that any "quirk" that gives a 50% or more advantage over an unquirked mech might be too big. Someone at PGI seems to like big numbers.

What is hilarious is the absolute lack of quality control and that it took 2 1/2 months to discover that agility quirks were not functional on the live servers and that this was driven by a comment or bug report from players. Don't they actually have in game METRICS to measure damage, mobility and other factors in a NUMERICAL and QUANTITATIVE way? They should have a test client that MEASURES how long it takes a mech to cover a certain distance in game. A client that MEASURES damage done using fixed static and dynamic scenarios that can be repeated. They need regression test cases and an automated method of running them ... using live server code as well as test builds. Anyway, unfortunately, it just tends to show how incompetent PGI can be in certain areas. (Setting all the IS energy range quirks to 10% is another example ... all that requires is editing an XML file correctly ... but they still got it wrong for the last patch).

They don't PROVE. They CAST DOUBT. As Russ said that the Tiering system for the quirks wasn't recognized a la the new system that should have been in place, it COULD be that a single low tier quirk was indeed applied when the mech was meant to get more generous higher compensation.

As to the other question. Metrics mean little to people that have little experience in qualitative statistical analysis.

And to a group as mathematically challenged as PGI has shown itself to be over and over, would you really be surprised that 5% looks the same as 50% to some of their people ?

I mean 2.9% means 15-30% jam chance per their conversion from TT so...

Edited by Lugh, 23 February 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Sandpit]

Gas Guzzler, on 22 February 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

It is interesting how you cited all of the agility quirks before they were actually doing anything though. So it doesn't really prove your point, it just shows that your previous point was a based off of green text in the mechlab and not actual performance. Spreadsheet warrior... with the wrong spreadsheet essentially.

^^
He's got you there. You were complaining about the quirks and they weren't even active so that means you weren't basing your feedback on math and actual performance, you were basing it on a number on a spreadsheet that wasn't even active at the time...


This is why you don't accept anecdotal evidence as "proof" of things. Lessons learned I hope

[Sandpit]

Mawai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:29 AM, said:

What is hilarious is the absolute lack of quality control and that it took 2 1/2 months to discover that agility quirks were not functional on the live servers and that this was driven by a comment or bug report from players..

This is what everyone should actually be concerned about.

This just lends more credence to PGI's lack of QA and testing processes. I can see something like that maybe slipping past, but then taking nearly 3 months to even notice it?

They either don't have the tools to collect this data
or
They pay no real attention to it in the first place.


Either way this is a major issue when it comes to PGI's credibility on being able to actually run an online game like this. That's what I'm concerned about.

[Gas Guzzler]

To cast doubt:

Provide a mildy plausible alternative situation to make someone else unsure of what actually happened.

Example:

Lugh, on 23 February 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

They don't PROVE. They CAST DOUBT. As Russ said that the Tiering system for the quirks wasn't recognized a la the new system that should have been in place, it COULD be that a single low tier quirk was indeed applied when the mech was meant to get more generous higher compensation.

[MerryIguana]

Sigilum Sanctum, on 22 February 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

Pulse Berzerker
Can be just as angry as any Wubshee.

"The Gladbag"
This was the first build I attempted, and its very solid. I know it probably doesn't look it, but it tears **** apart.

Just curious, but why not use one of the missile left arms for a lower acutator on these builds?

[Widowmaker1981]

MerryIguana, on 23 February 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Just curious, but why not use one of the missile left arms for a lower acutator on these builds?

Most likely for convergence reasons when they have armlock off. Different strokes for different folks, personally id have a lower arm actuator and spend most time locked, unlocking when i need to track something fast.

[Gyrok]

Lupis Volk, on 23 February 2016 - 01:53 AM, said:

Okay can someone explain to me what's Gyrok's beef with IS mechs are?

I want to know if it's the inbred hatred that Clan Wolfers have or if it's something deeper?

I have nothing against IS mechs, in fact, I enjoy playing them as much, or in some cases, more than clan mechs.

My issue, lies with the people who sit back here, and try to tell me that Clan mechs are a crutch, when I can play IS mechs and stomp face EASIER than I can in any of the supposedly "King of OP clan mechs".

Then, those same people try to say the IS is underpowered at the same time.

That, frankly, pisses me off.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 23 February 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

IS is underpowered at the same time.

To be fair, on a whole, the IS has many more ****** mechs than the Clans, even accounting for how many variants the IS has comparatively. That said, on the high end it is pretty close.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 February 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

To cast doubt:

Provide a mildy plausible alternative situation to make someone else unsure of what actually happened.

Example:

Casting doubt, the primary methodology the "I hate PGI" cried had relied on, along with self made rumors, lies and innuendo. (PGI doesn't read the forums, for example)

Which is pathetic and self defeating, since PGI has screwed up enough things legit that one doesn't need to misrepresent things.

Of course to those with agendas, sticking to the facts is NEVER enough... Especially since they actually require effort to check and verify. And honesty seldom soothes butthurt feelings.

One would likely see much more head way in addressing the actual issues if they weren't buried under propaganda and vitriol.

[Kodyn]

Gyrok, on 23 February 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

I have nothing against IS mechs, in fact, I enjoy playing them as much, or in some cases, more than clan mechs.

My issue, lies with the people who sit back here, and try to tell me that Clan mechs are a crutch, when I can play IS mechs and stomp face EASIER than I can in any of the supposedly "King of OP clan mechs".

Then, those same people try to say the IS is underpowered at the same time.

That, frankly, pisses me off.

Huh, funny, guess we are all very different, because Clan mechs ARE my crutch. I start to backslide in Tier when I level an IS mech, but I can hop in an Adder with only basics, climb Tier. Timber in any of my 4-5 favorite loadouts, climb Tier. I was leveling Dires, got a single one through basic, climbed a whole lotta Tier. I leveled 2 HBRs, through basic, climbed a whole lotta Tier.

Funny how it works differently for everyone. I could play drunk, stoned, half-asleep, whatever, but if I'm in clan, I do well. If I want a challenge, I play IS, which I can get almost as good performance out of, but with a lot more work and focus.

Is it balance, or is it the fact that all of us really do have different wants, likes, needs, and abilities? Maybe we're all f-ing up this game with our balance discussions, since we all seem to experience a different game from each other.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 23 February 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

I have nothing against IS mechs, in fact, I enjoy playing them as much, or in some cases, more than clan mechs.

My issue, lies with the people who sit back here, and try to tell me that Clan mechs are a crutch, when I can play IS mechs and stomp face EASIER than I can in any of the supposedly "King of OP clan mechs".

Then, those same people try to say the IS is underpowered at the same time.

That, frankly, pisses me off.

Until VERY recently, the ACH, SCR, EBJ, HBR and TBR were demonstrably, without any doubt the absolute best mechs in the game. And all had been since their introduction. For quite some of that time the DWF was, also.

Now during that time, once quirks got rolling, we did indeed see instances of over quirked IS mechs, the most infamous being the TDR-9S PPC God, and most recently, the BJ structure fiasco. And while certain grognards defended them (and certain users simply acted like obtuse grognards reasoning that general Clan OP was a good enough reason to justify PPC God), most reasonable players were quick to protest them.

And had even during this time, with a few e exceptions (Clan lights pre ACH) even most of the Bad Clan Mechs were better than the bag IS ones (Mad Dog was vastly better than Dragon or QuickDraw, Summoner better than most IS heavies, though that's because at the time, post poptarting, most IS heavies were underwhelming, too. And the Nova fire ask it's issues was better than VND, Trebuchets, etc).

But the point was, until basically a month or two ago, the top Clan Mechs were , in general and on the whole, vastly superior to the top IS Mechs (with attempts to nerf then generally in all the wrong places).

So yes, up until very recently, that qualifies as "crutch" not "clutch ".

And the issue I have always locked horns with you on is even before the first set of Clan needs were implemented, when I suggested the TBR needed it's agility toned down a bit, you were crusading that it did not, and with any change since, that the IS was better. Not that one or two chassis were better, but the IS as a whole, which simply was not true. That the Clans getting penalties for losing a ST was worse than the IS doing from the same... Because IS can use STD engines ( which was silly even before the Origins mechs showed, even on glass cannons C-XL is still preferable to IS STD).

It's not that you protest, it's that from the beginning thou hast protest too much.

[pwnface]

It's Gyrok's willingness to exaggerate and outright lie to fit his narrative that IS are stronger than clans that irks people. Rational discussion on balance is always welcome on these forums but when you start linking mech builds that have unrealistic armor values and weapons to prove IS mechs are stronger than clans you lose credibility pretty fast.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 February 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Until VERY recently, the ACH, SCR, EBJ, HBR and TBR were demonstrably, without any doubt the absolute best mechs in the game. And all had been since their introduction. For quite some of that time the DWF was, also.

Now during that time, once quirks got rolling, we did indeed see instances of over quirked IS mechs, the most infamous being the TDR-9S PPC God, and most recently, the BJ structure fiasco. And while certain grognards defended them (and certain users simply acted like obtuse grognards reasoning that general Clan OP was a good enough reason to justify PPC God), most reasonable players were quick to protest them.

And had even during this time, with a few e exceptions (Clan lights pre ACH) even most of the Bad Clan Mechs were better than the bag IS ones (Mad Dog was vastly better than Dragon or QuickDraw, Summoner better than most IS heavies, though that's because at the time, post poptarting, most IS heavies were underwhelming, too. And the Nova fire ask it's issues was better than VND, Trebuchets, etc).

But the point was, until basically a month or two ago, the top Clan Mechs were , in general and on the whole, vastly superior to the top IS Mechs (with attempts to nerf then generally in all the wrong places).

So yes, up until very recently, that qualifies as "crutch" not "clutch ".

And the issue I have always locked horns with you on is even before the first set of Clan needs were implemented, when I suggested the TBR needed it's agility toned down a bit, you were crusading that it did not, and with any change since, that the IS was better. Not that one or two chassis were better, but the IS as a whole, which simply was not true. That the Clans getting penalties for losing a ST was worse than the IS doing from the same... Because IS can use STD engines ( which was silly even before the Origins mechs showed, even on glass cannons C-XL is still preferable to IS STD).

It's not that you protest, it's that from the beginning thou hast protest too much.

For possibly the first and only time ever I actually agree with what this rose tinted glasses fool has just posted.

Except you need to take the EBJ out, that things hit boxes are so bad it's super squishy and TOO TALL (more squat please)

[Bishop Steiner]

DV McKenna, on 23 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

For possibly the first and only time ever I actually agree with what this rose tinted glasses fool has just posted.

Except you need to take the EBJ out, that things hit boxes are so bad it's super squishy and TOO TALL (more squat please)

And yet, due to its preponderance of support high hard points, it's still a top choice, especially for CW.

It's certainly not add all purpose good as the TBR, or even the HBR, but in the Super overspecialized world of meta builds, it very much had it's place on top.

The million dollar question is with the ability quirks in effect.... Are there any IS Heavies legit in the top tier again?

Oh, and I love you too man. Fortunately I've always been more focused on trying to set the have improved than worried about catering to public opinion.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 February 2016 - 10:23 AM.