Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Fix Mech before nerfing always !!


Yellow Rainbow.6142

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Doggie.3184 said:

The change is going to require some better pet control such as a "Short-Leash" toggle to keep it next to me. I don't feel like following a braindead AI everywhere, it should follow ME.

That change doesn't make you follow the mech, the mech is supposed to follow you, but you'll have to actively care about it by pressing buttons.

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

That change doesn't make you follow the mech, the mech is supposed to follow you, but you'll have to actively care about it by pressing buttons.

You just missed the entire point. That works on paper. 

The AI isn't designed well enough for it to work out in practice. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

That works on paper. 

No, from what I currently see (ingame), it can work.

18 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

The AI isn't designed well enough for it to work out in practice. 

There's not even much of "AI" here in play, it's supposed to be controlled by the player. I understand the issue with the mech sometimes zooming through the position it was supposed to stop at, but from what I currently see by playing it, it's extremely rare. Overally it seems hard to intentionally trigger and I do like having the mech close (unless there's a mechanic that's supposed to keep players at bay while the mech can ignore it while still safely dealing its damage, which is probably at least partially the point of that change), so yes, it does work in practice, you probably just don't want to keep using follow/attack command buttons.

 

Be confused all you want, but you still know it's true 🤷‍♂️

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 2
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, from what I currently see (ingame), it can work.

There's not even much of "AI" here in play, it's supposed to be controlled by the player. I understand the issue with the mech sometimes zooming through the position it was supposed to stop at, but from what I currently see by playing it, it's extremely rare. Overally it seems hard to intentionally trigger and I do like having the mech close (unless there's a mechanic that's supposed to keep players at bay while the mech can ignore it while still safely dealing its damage, which is probably at least partially the point of that change), so yes, it does work in practice, you probably just don't want to keep using follow/attack command buttons.

 

Be confused all you want, but you still know it's true 🤷‍♂️

Lets clarify a few things. 

First is that this change is a step in the right direction. I think you're interpreting my words in a negative lighting because of the negative stigma associated with the spec and the people who play it. "Coddled mech players just want the entire game handed to them on a silver platter, boohoo". 

This general sentiment really poisons discourse and it distracts from what is actually being said. 

This isn't about resistance to change. This isn't about an unwillingness to adapt or use the tools provided to us.  This isn't a complaint that the game can't be played on auto pilot. This is a look into how those tools function and how they can be improved to give the player greater control. 

 

Mech in its current state is functional, but the AI is held together by duct tape, or more specifically... shift signet. In an ideal world, shift signet would be used for quick repositioning or doing mechanics. For example, Quickly grabbing a ball and then teleporting back to your pylon on Qadim. 

In practice, shift signet often ends up being used to get your mech to stand where you want it to when it refuses to do what you want. This can be improved by allowing the player to target the specific position they want their mech to stand at. I suggested a way this could happen in another post, but it here is how it could be implemented without adding another keybind

  • Tap return to me - Button works as it does now
  • Hold return to me - Player can target a location. The mech will move to that location and stand there. If an enemy is in range of it, it will attack. 

This will fix those moments where the mech stops at the edge of a large hitbox, or stands on the opposite side of the boss, away from everyone else.

It would also let you position your mech intelligently to hit a player who is standing just a little bit away from the group because people don't always stack together in a neat little ball. Other classes can just plop themselves between that player and the rest of the group and "cleave" both with their boons. Mechanist needs to use shift signet to accomplish that... and sometimes the mech bolts it somewhere else before you get your boons off. 

With this, players won't feel like they're actively fighting against a stubborn mule of an AI to get it to stand where they want just to avoid a stat penalty. They'll have the tools to position the bot how they wish, and if they still end up penalized it will only be their fault for not using the tools available. 

Edited by Kuma.1503
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Lets clarify a few things. 

First is that this change is a step in the right direction. I think you're interpreting my words in a negative lighting because of the negative stigma associated with the spec and the people who play it. "Coddled mech players just want the entire game handed to them on a silver platter, boohoo". 

This general sentiment really poisons discourse and it distracts from what is actually being said.

No, I was commenting literally on what was written, not sure why you think I'm somehow biased here to go "against the players playing mechs". If you've actually read my response, it should be clear that's not it.

25 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

This isn't about resistance to change. This isn't about an unwillingness to adapt or use the tools provided to us.  This isn't a complaint that the game can't be played on auto pilot. This is a look into how those tools function and how they can be improved to give the player greater control. 

Suure... Except the post at the top of this page, which is what I responded to as well talks about "implementing a short leash" which just points rigth at keeping that "self-play" aspect, isn't it? Or are you just skipping right over that too, just to pretend I'm somehow hard set against mech players? Am I misinterpreting that post somehow? Pretty sure I'm not.

25 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Mech in its current state is functional, but the AI is held together by duct tape, or more specifically... shift signet. In an ideal world, shift signet would be used for quick repositioning or doing mechanics. For example, Quickly grabbing a ball and then teleporting back to your pylon on Qadim. 

Shift signet is just one option and it obviously is the most convenient one because it's instant, pretty overloaded and fairly low cd for what it does. But I wasn't even talking about that in the first place, what I was saying is:

"I understand the issue with the mech sometimes zooming through the position it was supposed to stop at, but from what I currently see by playing it, it's extremely rare. Overally it seems hard to intentionally trigger and I do like having the mech close (...), so yes, it does work in practice(...)"

 

 

25 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

It would also let you position your mech intelligently to hit a player who is standing just a little bit away from the group because people don't always stack together in a neat little ball. Other classes can just plop themselves between that player and the rest of the group and "cleave" both with their boons. Mechanist needs to use shift signet to accomplish that... and sometimes the mech bolts it somewhere else before you get your boons off. 

When you use follow button, the moment you use attack, it stops where it is and attempts attacking the target though. And if I understand the situation you're talking about correctly, you can already do that by targetting further target and then retargetting closer one -> attack commend, which makes the mech attack from between the two targets.

Here's the fun thing about your response though:

None of that has anything to do with the post I've commented on -and you subsequently tried claiming "I've missed the post entirely" of- which was literally saying "add short leash to keep the mech next to me anyways". So maybe I'm not the one that missed something from the post I quoted there, but you're just trying to dress up that "Doggie's" post as something it clearly wasn't? 🙄 It's right at the top of this page. Go re-read it and let me know what EXACTLY I misinterpreted there. Or stop pretending I did.

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, I was commenting literally on what was written, not sure why you think I'm somehow biased here to go "against the players playing mechs". If you've actually read my response, it should be clear that's not it.

Suure... Except the post at the top of this page, which is what I responded to as well talks about "implementing a short leash" which just points rigth at keeping that "self-play" aspect, isn't it? Or are you just skipping right over that too, just to pretend I'm somehow hard set against mech players? Am I misinterpreting that post somehow? Pretty sure I'm not.

Shift signet is just one option and it obviously is the most convenient one because it's instant, pretty overloaded and fairly low cd for what it does. But I wasn't even talking about that in the first place, what I was saying is:

"I understand the issue with the mech sometimes zooming through the position it was supposed to stop at, but from what I currently see by playing it, it's extremely rare. Overally it seems hard to intentionally trigger and I do like having the mech close (...), so yes, it does work in practice(...)"

 

 

When you use follow button, the moment you use attack, it stops where it is and attempts attacking the target though. And if I understand the situation you're talking about correctly, you can already do that by targetting further target and then retargetting closer one -> attack commend, which makes the mech attack from between the two targets.

Here's the fun thing about your response though:

None of that has anything to do with the post I've commented on -and you subsequently tried claiming "I've missed the post entirely" of- which was literally saying "add short leash to keep the mech next to me anyways". So maybe I'm not the one that missed something from the post I quoted there, but you're just trying to dress up that "Doggie's" post as something it clearly wasn't? 🙄 It's right at the top of this page. Go re-read it and let me know what EXACTLY I misinterpreted there. Or stop pretending I did.

All right let me back up for a moment then. 

What you're saying is that adding a shorter leash to the bot is a bad idea because, for the purposes of getting the bot to follow you, the return to me command is sufficient. 

The only purpose of adding one would be to allow the player to get away with not using attack and return to me commands. 

 

Expanding on that, This would dumb down the spec more since it removes the need to micromanage the bot altogether, meaning in this instance could be argued as a player wanting the spec to be made easier... or at the very least more convenient.

Mech does not need to be made easier or more convenient, and the problem this attempts to solve wasn't one that needs solving in the first place. 

Do I have this correct or am I still off base?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

All right let me back up for a moment then. 

What you're saying is that adding a shorter leash to the bot is a bad idea because, for the purposes of getting the bot to follow you, the return to me command is sufficient. 

The only purpose of adding one would be to allow the player to get away with not using attack and return to me commands. 

 

Expanding on that, This would dumb down the spec more since it removes the need to micromanage the bot altogether, meaning in this instance could be argued as a player wanting the spec to be made easier...

Pretty much. So care to explain what "entire point" I've missed by responding to that "The change is going to require some better pet control such as a "Short-Leash" toggle to keep it next to me. I don't feel like following a braindead AI everywhere, it should follow ME."? Anything I wrote is false? Because it sure wasn't talking about anything you brought up in your last post nor it had similar/same goals.

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 2
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Pretty much. So care to explain what "entire point" I've missed by responding to that "The change is going to require some better pet control such as a "Short-Leash" toggle to keep it next to me. I don't feel like following a braindead AI everywhere, it should follow ME."? Anything I wrote is false?

I could double down on my argument to save face, but I believe I am the one in the wrong here. 

I'm actually going to have to agree with you on this one. Making mech easier by making the bot follow you on a short leash isn't the way to go. I interpreted the conversation as:

"Mech needs better pet control" <- hanging on this first point

"No it doesn't git gud"

instead of

"Mech should follow me on a short leash"

"No, that's a bad solution"

As you can probably tell, I'm a little bit irked by the way the community talks about mech players lately, and that caused me to do the exact thing I tried to criticize you for. Apologies for that. 

Edited by Kuma.1503
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Lets clarify a few things. 

First is that this change is a step in the right direction

No it's not, reactionary changes which are mainly done to do "something" with the goal to respond to outrage are never a good direction to take.

This is also not a change that aims to extend the gameplay in a natural way (in fact it's quite the opposite as it punishes players for doing so and in some situations even punishes them regardless of what they are doing) nor is it even a good solution for what some people are complaining about. If they want to focus on giving more meaning to pet commands or even extend on them: great... if they actually manage to make it meaningful and not just "do it for the sheer sake of doing so" that is. But if they want to put more emphasis on "active gameplay" then there are other, more effective, ways to go about it.

Edited by Tails.9372
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tails.9372 said:

No it's not, reactionary changes which are mainly done to do "something" with the goal to respond to outrage are never a good direction to take.

Mostly agree with you here. I've been very outspoken about the way the community reacts to mechanist. Some of it is valid feedback, and I believe that is worth listening to. If the outrage comes from a constructive place, there is merit to hearing it out. 

But there's no denying the vast swaths of people who want mechanist nerfed into the dirt. They're transparently not asking for balance, but rather the removal of something they don't like, and I don't think Anet should balance around that... because what these players are asking for isn't balance. Making something underpowered is another form of imbalance... albiet one that is easier for non-mech players to ignore because it doesn't affect them. 

1 hour ago, Tails.9372 said:

This is also not a change that aims to extend the gameplay in a natural way (in fact it's quite the opposite as it punishes players for doing so and in some situations even punishes them regardless of what they are doing) nor is it even a good solution for what some people are complaining about. If they want to focus on giving more meaning to pet commands or even extend on them: great... if they actually manage to make it meaningful and not just "do it for the sheer sake of doing so" that is. But if they want to put more emphasis on "active gameplay" then there are other, more effective, ways to go about it.

You make a good point about this not feeling natural in the slightest. The stat drop just sort of happens arbitrarily, and there's nothing that would clue the player in that it is happening unless they go out of their way to read the tooltip. This isn't the same as heat management on Holo where the player has a very clear resource to manage, it's a tacked on mini-game that isn't particularly fun to engage in. 

It's a flawed approach, but the thought behind it is good. Making mechanist check more of the player's skill instead of just reducing it's performance further was the right call. I also would have liked for it to be done better, but it is a small step forward since it gives rifle mech players something to manage. 

What I would have liked to see, aside from better mech control, is a mechanic added that makes it obvious to the player that they want to bring their mech back to them on occasion. Perhaps adding a mechanic where the bot loses change and it has to return to you periodically to recharge?

This can be be displayed visually by the mech's colors becoming dimmer, more greyed out over time. This would add a form of resource management to the spec and achieve a similar goal, but in a way that is much easier for players to understand at a glance. New trait interactions can also be added that center around this recharge mechanic, giving players a burst of power on a fresh charge. 

The only problem is that something like this is likely too much to expect from a balance patch, so they're aiming for simpler solutions. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I could double down on my argument to save face, but I believe I am the one in the wrong here. 

Sure you could, but what would be the point of it when there would be no valid explanation behind it? 😉

15 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I'm actually going to have to agree with you on this one. Making mech easier by making the bot follow you on a short leash isn't the way to go. I interpreted the conversation as:

"Mech needs better pet control" <- hanging on this first point

"No it doesn't git gud"

instead of

"Mech should follow me on a short leash"

"No, that's a bad solution"

As you can probably tell, I'm a little bit irked by the way the community talks about mech players lately, and that caused me to do the exact thing I tried to criticize you for. Apologies for that. 

Yeah, seems like it was a bit of a misunderstanding. I think it wouldn't make sense to attempt and add more active gameplay to the espec while at the same time nulifying the change by -yet again- making it as passive as it was. I find it funny how some people still spam me with confused emotes here, but then again: big parts of class specific subforum users will just blindly defend their class by default. (I'm not talking about you here though, you seem to be rather open minded and understanding about the point of the implemented changes, even if they're not ideal)

 

14 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

No it's not, reactionary changes which are mainly done to do "something" with the goal to respond to outrage are never a good direction to take.

"reactionary changes" after almost a year of having a rather significant dataset about it? You might want to try and call this a "reactionary change", but that's rather clearly not what it is.

14 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

But if they want to put more emphasis on "active gameplay" then there are other, more effective, ways to go about it.

Ok, so... anything more specific you have in mind?

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 3
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Ok, so... anything more specific you have in mind?

I mean you could do simple things like starting by removing auto-cast skills from pets.

Then you could actually shift the power away from passive stat gain entirely by adding it back to each skill and having those actually have impact. I.E instead of the mech just passively gaining 50% of your power/ferocity all of the time it gets a momentary spike while channeling it's abilities increasing the mechs own stats by a %.  Thus decoupling stats from the player and actually letting the devs use the mech's own stats as a balance lever.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TexZero.7910 said:

Then you could actually shift the power away from passive stat gain entirely by adding it back to each skill and having those actually have impact. I.E instead of the mech just passively gaining 50% of your power/ferocity all of the time it gets a momentary spike while channeling it's abilities increasing the mechs own stats by a %.  Thus decoupling stats from the player and actually letting the devs use the mech's own stats as a balance lever.

That just opens the players to build tankier and the mech dealing dmg for them anyways, so wouldn't say it's such a great idea. The stat relation to the player build is there for a reason.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 7:08 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

That just opens the players to build tankier and the mech dealing dmg for them anyways, so wouldn't say it's such a great idea. The stat relation to the player build is there for a reason.

Doing more damage ?

You're kidding right... If the mech is actually balanced then a player running tankier stats will deal significantly less damage than a player with damage stats as no matter what build you run your mech will always deal a set damage and the rest will come from the player directly. Thus encouraging active gameplay.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I'm kidding? Or are you trying to claim I said something I didn't? Where did you get that "doing more damage" from?

Did you no, i miss read.

 

Still begs the question what you have about the suggestion if active gameplay and damage scaling aint it though. You complained about mech players using the mech a damage source. Got news for you, that's it's thing. It's not like the specced into mechanist to not have the Mech be a part of the kit.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TexZero.7910 said:

Did you no, i miss read.

Yup.

5 minutes ago, TexZero.7910 said:

Still begs the question what you have about the suggestion

Exactly what I wrote in my post. Basically "free dps/burst on a tankier build". The question is: why does it need to be constant?

5 minutes ago, TexZero.7910 said:

It's not like the specced into mechanist to not have the Mech be a part of the kit.

And once again I never said anything like that, did you misread something again or are you just bent on throwing weird strawmen at me over and over again?

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 2
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Yup.

Exactly what I wrote in my post.

Which is what

Tanky stats or the Mech in general ?

 

Because you seem to be cowering behind dismissing ideas instead of actually saying anything of value.

From here it certainly looks like generic mech hatered as the ability for people to hid behind the mech already exist and nothing from the suggestion improves upon that. As stated it actively makes said gameplay worse.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TexZero.7910 said:

Which is what

Tanky stats or the Mech in general ?

Which part of what I wrote is somehow unclear for you:

On 11/27/2022 at 2:08 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

That just opens the players to build tankier and the mech dealing dmg for them anyways, so wouldn't say it's such a great idea. The stat relation to the player build is there for a reason.

?

 

Just now, TexZero.7910 said:

Because you seem to be cowering behind dismissing ideas instead of actually saying anything of value.

Nope, I already wrote what I think about it above, you're the one that see pressing keys to keep mech closer as problematic and subsequentially propose stable mech dmg no matter what, as if that somehow addresses anything here.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Which part of what I wrote is somehow unclear for you:

?

 

Nope, I already wrote what I think about it above, you're the one that see pressing keys to keep mech closer as problematic and subsequentially propose stable mech dmg no matter what, as if that somehow addresses anything here.

Again you seem to be under the notion that removing stats based on bad AI is a good thing.

 

If AI wasn't a joke maybe we'd agree. Since we can't we've come to different solutions to the existing problems. No one in this thread has a complaint about more active gameplay, we just want a solution that isn't uttely janky. Or do we have to showcase to you the time when on stream CMC showcased how bad the mech AI was by saying how it sometimes even runs off but that's okay cause you can just use Shift Signet. When even Anet knows their AI is held together by a single skill as duct tape there's an issue.

 

No system should ever be so bad as to punish people for things outside their control, the mech deciding when and where it wants to be on it's own is an issue.  So either fix the controls or come up with a much more elegant solution.  Of which there's plenty of routes Anet can go down. But hey you seem to be pretty dismissive of any change. So i'll ask you what do you propose ?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TexZero.7910 said:

Again you seem to be under the notion that removing stats based on bad AI is a good thing.

It's not really about AI, it's about the player controlling the mech and being aware of its position. That's what's being rewarded with this change. As I already wrote in the prevuous post/s, I am talking from my experience and keeping mech close isn't somehow a huge issue, opposed to what you're saying here.

Meanwhile, your idea of "just give the mech its dps no matter what" still doesn't change anything about the gameaplay being more active, it only opens door to what I said it does. Why are you consistently avoiding acknowledging this?

Edited by Sobx.1758
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 9:55 AM, Yellow Rainbow.6142 said:

Hate to be like this but I am not liking this balance team. Mech don't have underwater bot. Also, they don't get toolbar and NO WEAPON SWAP either.  Now, you gotta hug the green guy when bot AI is really bad.

I thought their game philosophy was making game fun to play. This is exact opposite of what they said.

Please fix the Mech!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...