91 replies to this topic

[Moldur]

It seems to be a lot of people's logic that the Archer is, in-fact, supposed to be good. It is by some flaw of the universe that PGI released unto us a poorly performing, new mech.

On the other hand, some people seem to lament "p2w" and "power creep" when the new arrivals are good.

It's almost like... PGI can't please everyone. Breathtaking, shocking. I know.


The Archer is not as good as a lot of people thought it was going to be. Yeah. Why? Because they thought wrong. That's it. It wasn't some big bait and switch by PGI, it is that some people had hopes that were misaligned with reality.

Is PGI not allowed to release bad mechs? We already have bad mechs, why should the Archer not be another bad mech? What makes it special? Is it because people paid for it and it's new? Is that it? Please enlighten me, I am an idiot and a fool, an imbecile that requires things to be spelled out in the most simplistic of terms.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

or maybe is bad because.... its an LRM mech which has worse LRM quirks than a quickdraw?

maybe its bad because its hitboxes are screwed up?

maybe its bad because the entire LRM weapon system is barely half functional and has the most counters in the game, and the bad quirks simply dont even help mitigate it to the degree of other LRM mechs?

wake up and smell the roses - MWO has The Quirkening going on because PGI chose it as the way to balance everything, its bad and we all know its bad, but its the reality right now....
a mech seemingly built for a role that is not reflected by its characteristics will be bad at the role - its a very simple concept to grasp

[DovisKhan]

To put in simplistic terms:

Expecting a balanced and viable product is not expecting too much

So far it's objectively bad, PGI is being shamed because since it's a new product it should have gone through the test phase or have been delayed, not released half-assed.

The fact that some older products to this day remain bad is not an excuse to make a new product bad, it's just a shame that to this day those bad products are not yet fixed.

[Tarogato]

I can't wait for all the people crying for refunds when the PXH drops. 'Cause lemme tell ya... it's gonna drop.

[-Vompo-]

If they release bad mechs on purpose they might want to sell them for cheaper or something. People feel cheated when they waste their money on something they are not likely to play.

I do kinda like the archer so I don't have much to complain. A bit stronger st armor wouldn't hurt.

[ExplicitContent]

Moldur, on 17 March 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

It seems to be a lot of people's logic that the Archer is, in-fact, supposed to be good. It is by some flaw of the universe that PGI released unto us a poorly performing, new mech.

On the other hand, some people seem to lament "p2w" and "power creep" when the new arrivals are good.

It's almost like... PGI can't please everyone. Breathtaking, shocking. I know.


The Archer is not as good as a lot of people thought it was going to be. Yeah. Why? Because they thought wrong. That's it. It wasn't some big bait and switch by PGI, it is that some people had hopes that were misaligned with reality.

Is PGI not allowed to release bad mechs? We already have bad mechs, why should the Archer not be another bad mech? What makes it special? Is it because people paid for it and it's new? Is that it? Please enlighten me, I am an idiot and a fool, an imbecile that requires things to be spelled out in the most simplistic of terms.

For what its worth, I wish they would do something about all the bad mechs to make them viable. Yeah there is always going to be some that are better than others. But this gap should be a slight angle vs a steep curve in my opinion.

I did buy the archer and I am pretty salty about it. It didn't look overwhelming from the base specs and I was counting on some quirk help, which hasn't happened. The biggest issue I have with it is the hitboxes, something I could not see ahead of time or predict. The thing is all STs and it means losing half your mech (or entire mech if you are silly enough to run an XL) within the first couple salvos of an engagement by the enemy.

I am not an LRM player and if I do play them, they are more as a backup or something so I can start contributing before I get up into the main combat. I have been running mostly SRM builds. So part of the reason I haven't enjoyed them thus far is rooted in my choice to try to make them something, that in their current condition, they are not.

I think its extra irritating because the Marauder and Warhammer were so good that the gap feels huge. Had I not already purchased all of the other 'unseen' mechs, I would not have purchased the Archer because I didn't predict it would favor my play style. I did though, and here we are. The fact that I am legitimately trying with it and consistently dying before I can crack 300 dmg is frustrating. I don't have a mech heavier than a light where I don't have at least a 300 dmg average.

Is PGI not allowed to release bad mechs? Well, I guess I can understand if they do, especially if they go backwards in the timeline. Its just a hard pill to swallow, from a non-nostalgia driven player, to have a new mech that is crap.

Edited by ExplicitContent, 17 March 2016 - 03:48 AM.

[Oberost]

DovisKhan, on 17 March 2016 - 03:45 AM, said:

To put in simplistic terms:

Expecting a balanced and viable product is not expecting too much

So far it's objectively bad, PGI is being shamed because since it's a new product it should have gone through the test phase or have been delayed, not released half-assed.

The fact that some older products to this day remain bad is not an excuse to make a new product bad, it's just a shame that to this day those bad products are not yet fixed.

And wait until they rescale to make it... 8% BIGGER, because according to Russ it's undersized by this %.

[Felbombling]

Take a close look at the quirk situation. There is a Warhammer that makes a better LRM boat than an actual Archer. Same hard-point count... same tonnage... but the quirks make the difference. That should have been addressed from the outset.

[DovisKhan]

Oberost, on 17 March 2016 - 03:47 AM, said:

And wait until they rescale to make it... 8% BIGGER, because according to Russ it's undersized by this %.

It will look better, I would like it bigger, it will be closer to concept art, however this should be at least followed by standard structure quirks, that are equal to 50% inner structure 22 CT 15 ST 11 Arms and 15 Legs

Edited by DovisKhan, 17 March 2016 - 03:54 AM.

[Oberost]

DovisKhan, on 17 March 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

It will look better, I would like it bigger, it will be closer to concept art, however this should be at least followed by standard structure quirks, that are equal to 50% inner structure 22 CT 15 ST 11 Arms and 15 Legs

Are you sure? Really sure? We are talking about PGI balancing skills, you know...

[DovisKhan]

Oberost, on 17 March 2016 - 03:55 AM, said:

Are you sure? Really sure? We are talking about PGI balancing skills, you know...

That's what makes reluctant

[Bud Crue]

OP,

Others above have already done an excellent job of pointing out that it isn't a question of whether or not the Arther is/was supposed to be "good", but rather is the Archer adequate for the role to which is is assigned.

Now I know there are some players of this game who denounce all BT lore or anything that makes this game other than a FPS with robot skins. The rest of us however believed that the Archer would be at least a muted reflection, but a reflection nonetheless of its BT origins. That is: an incredibly tough LRM mech.

The funny thing is, is that given how weak LRMs are in this game I don't think anyone expected the Archer to be great or even "good" relative to the meta or even most other mechs. But I think I speak for many when I assert that we at least thought it would be a good mech for LRMs. But it isn't. It is not even mediocre. Any LRM build you can do on an archer can be done as well or better on another chassis. Often on chassis that have no particular history or emphasis with LRMs (warhammer for example). Yes, the 5W has more missile hardpoint than any other mech (I think) but nearly any build you put on it (that doesn't shut down immediately) can be done better on a Cat A1.

Even If one accepts that the mech "aint all that" when it comes to LRMs and tries to do other things with it -be it SRMs and lasers or what have you- it becomes even more apparent that anything you can do with the Archer can and has been done with something else.

So the complaint isn't so much that people are disappointed that the Archer isn't "good" but rather they are disappointed because the Archer is irrelevant.

[NextGame]

Moldur, on 17 March 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

It seems to be a lot of people's logic that the Archer is, in-fact, supposed to be good. It is by some flaw of the universe that PGI released unto us a poorly performing, new mech.

On the other hand, some people seem to lament "p2w" and "power creep" when the new arrivals are good.

It's almost like... PGI can't please everyone. Breathtaking, shocking. I know.


The Archer is not as good as a lot of people thought it was going to be. Yeah. Why? Because they thought wrong. That's it. It wasn't some big bait and switch by PGI, it is that some people had hopes that were misaligned with reality.

Is PGI not allowed to release bad mechs? We already have bad mechs, why should the Archer not be another bad mech? What makes it special? Is it because people paid for it and it's new? Is that it? Please enlighten me, I am an idiot and a fool, an imbecile that requires things to be spelled out in the most simplistic of terms.

It's a lore mech, for lore nerds, not a performance mech.

Sometimes I think they should just have started with the Mackie and released each mech in timeline order so that the "power creep" was more or less inherent. Especially as we still dont have older mechs like the Mackie

Edited by NextGame, 17 March 2016 - 04:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Tarogato, on 17 March 2016 - 03:45 AM, said:

I can't wait for all the people crying for refunds when the PXH drops. 'Cause lemme tell ya... it's gonna drop.

I think you are exactly correct here. There are two ways the PXH can go:

If the PXH is what people hope it to be (some sort of jack of all trades super mech with the speed and agility of a Spider with the toughness of a Blackjack; but with ECM or Masc to boot! Ah! I feel faint with excitement!, etc.) it would obviate most lights, the Cicada, the Vindicator(ok, no loss here) and perhaps others that I am not thinking of.

OR

PGI will make it essentially a Vindicator with an ECM variant and a Masc variant but with even worse hit boxes so as to not make it in anyway unique. Think the loyalty version of the Wolverine (the one with Masc); or A Cicada 3M (ecm). Not great mechs, but they have these specialties and If the Archer is a guide, then that is what the PHX will be: at best similar in capability to these already lackluster (bad?) mechs; but in no way better.

[Otto Cannon]

The whole point is that PGI are trying to balance mechs because this is a game. If any mech is so good that only that one gets used then they've failed, and if a mech is bad enough that there's no reason to use it compared to the others then it's also a failure by PGI. They can never make everything the same but they can make them balanced enough that all mechs are used. PGI have chosen quirks as the way to balance different mechs, so when one is too good or too bad you'll see people asking for it to be balanced with quirks. It really is that simple.

The Archer needs to be as good a choice as other support mechs, with some differences. At the moment it's just flat-out worse and there's no reason to use it until it's balanced.

[CygnusX7]

STD engine builds are favorable.

...for survival.

[SplashDown]

Moldur, on 17 March 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

It seems to be a lot of people's logic that the Archer is, in-fact, supposed to be good. It is by some flaw of the universe that PGI released unto us a poorly performing, new mech.

On the other hand, some people seem to lament "p2w" and "power creep" when the new arrivals are good.

It's almost like... PGI can't please everyone. Breathtaking, shocking. I know.


The Archer is not as good as a lot of people thought it was going to be. Yeah. Why? Because they thought wrong. That's it. It wasn't some big bait and switch by PGI, it is that some people had hopes that were misaligned with reality.

Is PGI not allowed to release bad mechs? We already have bad mechs, why should the Archer not be another bad mech? What makes it special? Is it because people paid for it and it's new? Is that it? Please enlighten me, I am an idiot and a fool, an imbecile that requires things to be spelled out in the most simplistic of terms.

Totaly agree with you on this...players complain becuz they new mech isnt the flavor of the patch.
These same players scream for balance BUT when it comes to they new toy ohhh noooo must be OP..at least a month 1st before balanc.
The funny part is alot of the players complaining are players that rode an assault to tier 3,2,1 and have no imagination on how to play something becuz they fall into the meta deadhead tryhard group..so that they could be called a good player and mostly arent.
Personaly i dont understand all the whining is about..i have np at all owning with my archer..so whats all the whiners excuse?

[Mechteric]

It is possible to have fun in this game by driving the mech you think is cool looking or is your favorite classic mech. Everyone doesn't always have to drive laser vomit Timberwolves, the game would be so boring if that's all anyone did.

[ExplicitContent]

SplashDown, on 17 March 2016 - 05:23 AM, said:

The funny part is alot of the players complaining are players that rode an assault to tier 3,2,1 and have no imagination on how to play something becuz they fall into the meta deadhead tryhard group..so that they could be called a good player and mostly arent.

You have data to support this? You've studied their tendencies? Looked at the mechs they play? Some kind of internal knowledge?
All rhetorical questions because I know the answer is no and you are throwing out statements you can't support.

Heavies are what you ride up tier in by the way. Assaults in their present state are feast or famine which is not ideal for fast climbing. Interesting though that you get toxic when people are being critical of what is by far and large an under performer. There are a handful of people saying it is "OK" and everyone else giving a whole lot of reasons why its terrible.

[Johny Rocket]

Bud Crue, on 17 March 2016 - 04:23 AM, said:

OP,

Others above have already done an excellent job of pointing out that it isn't a question of whether or not the Arther is/was supposed to be "good", but rather is the Archer adequate for the role to which is is assigned.

Now I know there are some players of this game who denounce all BT lore or anything that makes this game other than a FPS with robot skins. The rest of us however believed that the Archer would be at least a muted reflection, but a reflection nonetheless of its BT origins. That is: an incredibly tough LRM mech.

The funny thing is, is that given how weak LRMs are in this game I don't think anyone expected the Archer to be great or even "good" relative to the meta or even most other mechs. But I think I speak for many when I assert that we at least thought it would be a good mech for LRMs. But it isn't. It is not even mediocre. Any LRM build you can do on an archer can be done as well or better on another chassis. Often on chassis that have no particular history or emphasis with LRMs (warhammer for example). Yes, the 5W has more missile hardpoint than any other mech (I think) but nearly any build you put on it (that doesn't shut down immediately) can be done better on a Cat A1.

Even If one accepts that the mech "aint all that" when it comes to LRMs and tries to do other things with it -be it SRMs and lasers or what have you- it becomes even more apparent that anything you can do with the Archer can and has been done with something else.

So the complaint isn't so much that people are disappointed that the Archer isn't "good" but rather they are disappointed because the Archer is irrelevant.

Sorry bud that is wrong. No other IS mech even comes close to the 5W for missiles. 5 lrm5 and 4 srm6s. I've had matches tip 1000 dmg already.
The A1? So its a Splatcat the 5W powns it at range and if it does manage to get inside 297m its already been hit and the Archer is fresh, 180-297 the Archer gets to use all of its weapons and inside 180m the now wrecked cat only out guns the Archer by 2 srm6 launchers.
The classic A1 lrm5 spammer, 6 lrm5s on chainfire do 0 more output than 5 so it is equally gunned at range and if the 5W gets inside 297-180m the Cat's toast.

Chainfiring the lrm5s there is no ghost heat from this build and the chainfire spam is the point of lrm5s.

Archer 5S does the same thing with either 4 mpl or 4 ml.

2R Ive had great luck with 2 LPL and 4 ml or 3 ERLL and 2 srm4s, the top mounted ERLL lets you use the 3rd person drone like a periscope exposing less than 10% of the mech for some long range work where you aren't even targetable yet.

Hitboxes, I have had good luck running the xl, I play it like an oversized Kintaro 18, use adv. target decay and hump the cover using the 3.5 sec target decay to maintain lock while staying out of direct fire. The quirks it has are beautiful for this, 50-60% accel and decel. with a big xl means very litlle face time to keep it raining.

Remember the Black Knight and its sorry release? Some structure tweaking and now its a must have CW mech.

Edited by Tractor Joe, 17 March 2016 - 05:41 AM.