579 replies to this topic

[Baulven]

Kubernetes, on 11 November 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

Okay, please explain to me what makes the Summoner "lackluster." Don't just tell me "Everyone knows the suckoner sux!", give me reasons.

Hard point restrictions, the inability to make a good engagement range package due to lot space limitations and locked equipment.

As stated earlier in this thread it is common for 2 ppcs and a large TC which eats up 17 tons of you use the suggested out of 21-23. Two extra Hard points the not did it's anemic nature, even with ppc speed bonuses.

[Sjorpha]

The thing is, a mech only needs ONE very strong build to be a very strong mech. And the fact is that the summoner now does have a tier 1 competitive build with the 2ERPPC poptart, plus one decent SRM build, and it is therefore a very strong mech now.

The fact that it may be boring to have only one or two strong build or that every attempt to drive it with "fun" builds makes it weak isn't relevant, there are many mechs that share this fate. For example the Arctic Cheetah is considered a top tier mech, but it's really just the small pulse build that is truly strong, The Griffin is only a good SRM brawler and nothing else, the Mauler MX90 is good with AC5s or UAC5s and that's it. And so on.

There is often one best build or only one good build, but that is still the build you have to look at when measuring the strength of that mech.

[Zibmo]

Sjorpha, on 11 November 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

The thing is, a mech only needs ONE very strong build to be a very strong mech. And the fact is that the summoner now does have a tier 1 competitive build with the 2ERPPC poptart, plus one decent SRM build, and it is therefore a very strong mech now.

The fact that it may be boring to have only one or two strong build or that every attempt to drive it with "fun" builds makes it weak isn't relevant, there are many mechs that share this fate. For example the Arctic Cheetah is considered a top tier mech, but it's really just the small pulse build that is truly strong, The Griffin is only a good SRM brawler and nothing else, the Mauler MX90 is good with AC5s or UAC5s and that's it. And so on.

There is often one best build or only one good build, but that is still the build you have to look at when measuring the strength of that mech.

How can I get one?

[Kubernetes]

Baulven, on 11 November 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

Hard point restrictions, the inability to make a good engagement range package due to lot space limitations and locked equipment.

As stated earlier in this thread it is common for 2 ppcs and a large TC which eats up 17 tons of you use the suggested out of 21-23. Two extra Hard points the not did it's anemic nature, even with ppc speed bonuses.

And yet two ERPPCs are more than enough in this game, especially when you match them with excellent cooldown and heat gen quirks (not to mention 55-tonner mobility, 70-tonner armor, and 85-tonner structure). I don't even have the loyalty variants, I run my peeps in my arms, and yet it's still one of my highest performing mechs.

[Mcgral18]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 November 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

AS7-S probably just got its rightful place back in brawl teams now, but the other Kodiaks that never had a place to begin with didn't need the torso twist nerf.

While the blanket nerfs are unfortunate, I'll take it
Shame all the 100 tonners perform so poorly, as that's apparently the reason the other Bears are getting nerfed.

[1453 R]

Mcgral18, on 11 November 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

While the blanket nerfs are unfortunate, I'll take it
Shame all the 100 tonners perform so poorly, as that's apparently the reason the other Bears are getting nerfed.

"Unfortunate."

Yeah. That's it.

God, why do you even pretend to care, man?

[FupDup]

1453 R, on 11 November 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

"Unfortunate."

Yeah. That's it.

God, why do you even pretend to care, man?

This game has a tendency of draining people of their will to care about things.

[Andi Nagasia]

after this Patch all KDKs will have 60* turn angle, (the KDK-3 also loses its Structure Quirks)
i think this will very much help balance the KDK, im just sad the DWF isnt getting any Structure Love,
the C-UAC and C-LPL changes will hit the Clan Assault Class hard, the DWF especially,

[C E Dwyer]

Stefka Kerensky, on 08 November 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

yep.


it's the kdk-5. 4erLL...trying to snipe at distance.

I assume it's the definition of potatoness.

Btw, I had fun searching for datas in leaderboard: it's very fun to see the results of those ones stating KDK is not OP.
LOL
Yea, it's hopeless

Thank god it wasn't me !

[Zergling]

The Summoner dual ER PPC build did get a slight nerf; the -D arm lost its 5% energy cooldown quirk.

That brings it down from 15% total CD quirks to 10%.

Edited by Zergling, 11 November 2016 - 02:47 PM.

[Cog777]

I am not so happy with the nerf of KDK. The KDK actually provides performance which belongs to the real assault category. All other 100t assault should have similar performance comparing with other categories. A 50tons medium mech can have 96 alpha (8xASrm6) without overheating which is ridiculous. Following this logic, KDK should have 192 alpha without overheating, right?

So why the assault category is nerfed against others. The other category should have another benefit. E.g. JJ, ECM, shorter detection range and so on.

I know the answer. PGI wants other category to be more attractive. But I think the direction is not right. From perspective of fire power, the assaults should carry the highest alpha meanwhile other category should compensate it with other things.

KDK-SB has a very good advantage: maneuverability. It is very good at brawling. But because we have more and more bigger and opened maps, it is not easy to get closer to the enemy. That is the challenge. So cut the maneuverability and you can see KDK-SB as LRM boat. :/ and people cry that assaults should be front. For a big target and live cover? Nope.

[Y E O N N E]

Baulven, on 11 November 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Awesome. Screwing all the solid but not overpowered kodiaks because reasons. Going to be a glorious day, especially when the need complaining doesn't change at all, because this won't solve the issues it has.

Battlemasters 1G, 3M, and the Direwolf are here to support the Kodiaks.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 November 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

Battlemasters 1G, 3M, and the Direwolf are here to support the Kodiaks.

You forgot about the Stalkers (some of them anyways)... but barely anyone uses them (the quirks are pretty weaksauce compared to the Battlemasters).

Edited by Deathlike, 12 November 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 12 November 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

You forgot about the Stalkers (some of them anyways)... but barely anyone uses them (the quirks are pretty weaksauce compared to the Battlemasters).

True. I also forgot the Blackjacks (1X, 1DC, Arrow). Probably others I've yet to play.

[Charronn]

I'm glad the KD3 is getting pegged back,In the right hands it's op as f.Not so sure the others needed the blanket nerf tho.
Just had a game in my Misery and ran into a lance of 3's,the Misery was considered quite tanky well against the K3 it ain't.
We eventually won but that's besides the point.

[Chi Guy 1]

Because they know MWO is run by socialists who will ensure that all mechs perform poorly regardless of cost or if you invest time and money to master the line. Proof? They nutered my Kodiaks AFTER I invested time, effort, and money into the line. I even purchased the "Bundle'. and mastered them. Then the MWO Socialist Patch Manifesto decided it was time to turn my mechs into target practice.

Socialists hate achievers. They prefer to water down achievers so that others don't feel bad because of their lack of ability. Rather than have players seek to improve themselves, MWO prefers to handcuff good players and water down their mechs to the weakest player's level.

MWO would make the USSR proud with their socialist gaming agenda.

[The Lobsters]

Chi Guy 1, on 17 December 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

Because they know MWO is run by socialists who will ensure that all mechs perform poorly regardless of cost or if you invest time and money to master the line. Proof? They nutered my Kodiaks AFTER I invested time, effort, and money into the line. I even purchased the "Bundle'. and mastered them. Then the MWO Socialist Patch Manifesto decided it was time to turn my mechs into target practice.

Socialists hate achievers. They prefer to water down achievers so that others don't feel bad because of their lack of ability. Rather than have players seek to improve themselves, MWO prefers to handcuff good players and water down their mechs to the weakest player's level.

MWO would make the USSR proud with their socialist gaming agenda.

You're an American, aren't you. I'm not sure socialism means what you think it means.

Also, bro to bro, complaining about the Kodiak nerfs is another way of saying 'I suck at MWO'.

Don't be that guy dude.

[Chi Guy 1]

The Lobsters, on 17 December 2016 - 02:19 AM, said:

You're an American, aren't you. I'm not sure socialism means what you think it means.

Also, bro to bro, complaining about the Kodiak nerfs is another way of saying 'I suck at MWO'.

Don't be that guy dude.

Actually, I score high damage more often than not, only because of ingenuity. Mouth pieces of the world fail to comprehend the true nature of an issue because they tend to suffer IQ Deficiency Syndrome.

Three valid complaints in a nutshell:

1) Players invested resources i.e. time, money (c-bills and real USD), and effort into a specific line of mechs just to have their investment ruined at the whim of MWO. If you tell people six months ahead of time you will be degrading the performance of a certain mech, they can now choose if they want to invest their resources into that line. Instead you load the game one day just to find a patch that destroys your investment.

2) I have yet to see ANY real-world scenario where all weapons and platforms are designed to perform equally. The USA did not build the F-22 Raptor and then say; "Our plane is performing better than the Russian's stealth fighter. Therefor we must lower the performance of the F-22".

The reason I drive a BMW is because it performs better than most other cars, and it is safer than most cars. That said, it cost more and the maintenance can be pricey. For me it is worth the investment. If it were up to MWO, they would complain about my BMW's performance, replace my high performance engine with a Honda Civic engine, replace my ultra-high performance tires with Firestones, and replace my sport-package suspension with Nissan Altima parts just to make my car perform like all of the rest despite how much I invested in it. People like you seem fine with that concept.

3) After ruining a specific mech, MWO still charges premium prices for said mech despite the newly degraded performance. Yet this seems acceptable to you.

Currently, only one of my five Kodiaks can still be built to a decent competitive level. Unfortunately, this limits my options regarding style of play. MWO dumb downed the weapons. Why did they also dumb down the Kodiak's torso twist?

Rather than spewing nonsensical responses that are ill conceived and poorly thought out, try to consider the merit of the complaint(s).

Regarding socialism, it appears you may not be aware of the multitude of nuances associated with socialism versus the two-line definition likely found in Google.

Edited by Chi Guy 1, 17 December 2016 - 02:49 PM.

[Chi Guy 1]

Chi Guy 1, on 17 December 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Actually, I score high damage more often than not, only because of ingenuity. Mouth pieces of the world fail to comprehend the true nature of an issue because they tend to suffer IQ Deficiency Syndrome.

Three valid complaints in a nutshell:

1) Players invested resources i.e. time, money (c-bills and real USD), and effort into a specific line of mechs just to have their investment ruined at the whim of MWO. If you tell people six months ahead of time you will be degrading the performance of a certain mech, they can now choose if they want to invest their resources into that line. Instead you load the game one day just to find a patch that destroys your investment.

2) I have yet to see ANY real-world scenario where all weapons and platforms are designed to perform equally. The USA did not build the F-22 Raptor and then say; "Our plane is performing better than the Russian's stealth fighter. Therefor we must lower the performance of the F-22".

The reason I drive a BMW is because it performs better than most cars, and it is safer than most cars. That said, it cost more and the maintenance can be pricey. For me it is worth the investment. If it were up to MWO, they would complain about my BMW's performance, replace my high performance engine with a Honda Civic engine, replace my ultra-high performance tires with Firestones, and replace my sport-package suspension with Nissan Altima parts just to make my car perform like all of the rest despite how much I invested in it. People like you seem fine with that concept.

3) After ruining a specific mech, MWO still charges premium prices for said mech despite the newly degraded performance. Yet this seems acceptable to you.

Currently, only one of my five Kodiaks can still be built to a decent competitive level. Unfortunately, this limits my options regarding style of play. MWO dumb downed the weapons. Why did they also dumb down the Kodiak's torso twist?

Rather than spewing nonsensical responses that are ill conceived and poorly thought out, try to consider the merit of the complaint(s).

Regarding socialism, it appears you may not be aware of the multitude of nuances associated with socialism versus the two-line definition likely found in Google.

[Mcgral18]

Chi Guy 1, on 17 December 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Actually, I score high damage more often than not, only because of ingenuity. Mouth pieces of the world fail to comprehend the true nature of an issue because they tend to suffer IQ Deficiency Syndrome.

Three valid complaints in a nutshell:

1) Players invested resources i.e. time, money (c-bills and real USD), and effort into a specific line of mechs just to have their investment ruined at the whim of MWO. If you tell people six months ahead of time you will be degrading the performance of a certain mech, they can now choose if they want to invest their resources into that line. Instead you load the game one day just to find a patch that destroys your investment.


Currently, only one of my five Kodiaks can still be built to a decent competitive level. Unfortunately, this limits my options regarding style of play. MWO dumb downed the weapons. Why did they also dumb down the Kodiak's torso twist?

Quote

Actually, I score high damage more often than not, only because of ingenuity

All Kodiaks are better than most 100 tonners
The Atlas D, even Uberquirked, cannot hope to withstand the firepower a KDK-1 can put out before dying (because it has bad hardpoints).

Only one Kodiak does not have what you could call enough hardpoints, and the HoverJets™ don't really make up for it, but even it can carry adequate loadouts.


What you're doing is trying to sound intellectual, while all you really are is a Terribad.
I'm sorry you no longer have a robot who is overperforming. Try to play better.
I'm sure your IQ is high enough to shoot robots effectively

Edited by Mcgral18, 17 December 2016 - 03:47 PM.