STUPID IS, WHAT STUPID DOES

[HeIIica.2945]

Penalizing the engineer for something that is, under most circumstances, outside of its control, is really, as stupid does.  First, the bot, generally speaking, is super freaking slow. Second, clicking return to me key is even slower, due to needing an act of God, most of the time, to get it to work.  Thirdly, penalizes the use of some teleport skills, because the bot doesn’t keep up.  Why should we be penalized for actions that are outside of our control?  We can’t control our bot, at times, when it is being cc’d, or being engaged in battle.  This means I can’t leave an area now? I can’t escape, because it will kill my bot?  Will I become my bot’s defender? Anyone got super glue? A leash?

I heard this change is due to some people complaining, because the engineer would fight a distance from the bot, but um….all of these same things happen with the ranger…..is the ranger next?  Will the ranger be subject to being penalized for something outside of its control?  The same conditions exist for the ranger, except, the ranger can merge with its pet, making it stronger, and if you kill a ranger’s pet, it doesn’t render the ranger useless, unlike most mech engineers, who are useless without its mech.  Quack, quack, sitting ducks.

I suppose that brings me to the complaint I’ve seen, and read over and over again….the mech engineer is too strong for doing nothing, but yet there are tons and tons of posts stating the mech engineer’s damage is NOTHING, compared to other professions/builds, and we all know this is true.

Well look, fact of life, not everyone has the ability to play like the Tasmanian devil on speed, we all can’t be rocket scientists.  Pin a medal on your nose for being so wonderfully gifted, but I have two words for you, and I will spell it out for you…..C-A-R-P-A-L  T-U-N-N-E-L. I hope your parents have enough money to hire someone to wipe your butts….oh wait, if we are all rocket scientists……

It is wrong to penalize the engineer for an AI’s actions that are outside of the player’s control. Therefore, I’m not going to rage quit playing…..…I’m going to rage quit spending.

Ps….why, why, why are you breaking the balls to the staff Mesmer?

[Ashen.2907]

The Mechanist's Mech companion is simultaneously affected by shift signet. There is no need for it to "keep up."

The Mech is immune to CC.

Mechanist builds will still be very effective after tomorrow's patch. Even more so if you choose to stand near your companion.

[Kodama.6453]

12 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

The Mech is immune to CC.

The mech is immune to CC in PvE.

The change with the leash might be the final nail in the coffin of the spec in competitive game modes. This short leash for it will likely hinder the spec dramatically in PvP and WvW.

[Alcatraznc.3869]

3 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

The Mechanist's Mech companion is simultaneously affected by shift signet. There is no need for it to "keep up."

Ah yes so I should use the signet to bandaid the poor and cluncky AI. If you're unable to see how dumb this argument is I dont know what to tell 

3 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

The Mech is immune to CC.

So is ranger pet in PvE as well.

3 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Mechanist builds will still be very effective after tomorrow's patch. Even more so if you choose to stand near your companion.

In what ? In PvE played by Ranger or Engineer player ? Yeah because they will pay attention to the mech positioning. But for the rest of the player who play Mechanist because everyone says its easy, they're going to get punished for not paying attention to where their mech stands.

 

In SPvP and WvW mech was already super trash this patch just dig the hole deeper so the coffin will slam harder on the ground. 

[Hashberry.4510]

Rage quit spending lol. Just means you are part of the product.

[Sagedurk.7358]

9 hours ago, HeIIica.2945 said:

 

 

It is wrong to penalize the engineer for an AI’s actions that are outside of the player’s control.

It's also wrong to reward the engineer for an AI's actions that are outside of the player's control.

 

If you think Mech will go lower than Willbender in terms of PvE viability due to today's patch, oh boy...

 

As a Willbender main, I have been penalized by the banner changes for almost half a year, something that's outside my control. Willbender was good for 4 months, then June happened and I have now been griefing my raid squads for 5 months straight. But I can play a 3 button condi mech rotation on Twin Largos and be in the top of the dps bracket, if not in the lead. I do not pay attention to my mech at all.

 

If mech shouldn't be penalized, then I should be able to outclass my own mech results with power guardian, by a long shot. I have almost 3k hours logged on my main character. And I picked up mech for a single fight. Not to mention that Guardian needs resolution to crit cap

 

I doubt this patch will bring that to light, even with mech being hit

[Sobx.1758]

10 hours ago, HeIIica.2945 said:

It is wrong to penalize the engineer for an AI’s actions that are outside of the player’s control.

Luckily they're not outside of the player's control. They're only outside of player's control if the player refuses to press additional buttons to actually have control over the mech in the first place.

[Ashen.2907]

12 hours ago, Alcatraznc.3869 said:

Ah yes so I should use the signet to bandaid the poor and cluncky AI. If you're unable to see how dumb this argument is I dont know what to tell 

So is ranger pet in PvE as well.

In what ? In PvE played by Ranger or Engineer player ? Yeah because they will pay attention to the mech positioning. But for the rest of the player who play Mechanist because everyone says its easy, they're going to get punished for not paying attention to where their mech stands.

 

In SPvP and WvW mech was already super trash this patch just dig the hole deeper so the coffin will slam harder on the ground. 

I am not the one who argued that the mech cannot use the teleport. If you think that accuracy and truth are dumb I don't know what to tell you.

I never said that the ranger pet is not immune to CC. The OP complained about his mech being CC'd and I pointed out that it was immune. Again, taking exception to accuracy and truth is a bit odd.

It will still be effective even without paying attention to the mech positioning (as stated in the line you quoted). That said, anyone whose playstyle revolves around, "not paying attention," is going to get less performance out of any build in the game than someone who does pay attention. That does not change the fact that mechanist will still perform well.

[Kuma.1503]

I am currently standing still in Lion's Arch. My mech has nothing to distract it, which is essentially a best case scenario for it. I've already lost the buff because the bot went AFK outside of my range. 

"Just press return to me. You're just mad that you have to press an extra button like a real cla--"

Yes hypothetical person. That is precicely what I am doing. I am MASHING return to me to bring the mech back in range, and the bot refuses to move. 

And this is when I'm AFK with nothing to distract the bot or cause it to run off into narnia. 

 

This change needs to be reverted immediately. It will not work until the Mech is given significant AI improvements. At the very least two things should happen:

 

• The buff comes back immediately when the mech is brought back in range. Sometimes I recall the mech and the buff doesn't refresh because it missed the interval. 
• Return to me should cause the bot to stack right next to the player. This will fix the issue where the bot is too far away to get the buff but too close for "Return to me" to work. A very common issue. 

[Sobx.1758]

20 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I am currently standing still in Lion's Arch. My mech has nothing to distract it, which is essentially a best case scenario for it. I've already lost the buff because the bot went AFK outside of my range. 

Meanwhile I'm running around olc cm and keep my mech close majority of the time by using 2 commands interchangably. If it moves toward me but still a little far, I take half a step to the side and mech corrects itself, I must be pure magic.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kuma.1503]

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Meanwhile I'm running around olc cm and keep my mech close majority of the time by using 2 commands interchangably. If it moves toward me but still a little far, I take half a step to the side and mech corrects itself, I must be pure magic.

Cool, that does not detract from what I said. 

There are instances where a player can play correctly and be punished for it. 

A player can:

1. Stack in the proper spot 

2. Identify that the bot is not in the proper spot

3. Hit return to me to move the bot closer

 

And the bot will not move.

There should not be a range threshold that players have to shimmy around for "Return to me" to work. If the bot is just outside of your range and you wish to correct it, Return to me should solve that issue without the player needing to make the counter-intuitive decision to move further away from their bot so "Return to me" works. 

The buff should also refresh immediately when the bot is brought back in range to make it less frustrating to work around during movement-heavy encounters. This can be fixed by lowering the interval that checks for the mech's positioning to 1/4 seconds or lower. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sobx.1758]

5 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Cool, that does not detract from what I said. 

There are instances where a player can play correctly and be punished for it. 

A player can:

1. Stack in the proper spot 

2. Identify that the bot is not in the proper spot

3. Hit return to me to move the bot closer

 

And the bot will not move.

There should not be a range threshold that players have to shimmy around for "Return to me" to work. If the bot is just outside of your range and you wish to correct it, Return to me should solve that issue without the player needing to make the counter-intuitive decision to move further away from their bot so "Return to me" works. 

"you can control mech by using appropriate buttons"

-sure I am standing in LA and mech ran somewhere!!11

"I'm actually doing content requiring quite a lot of movement and keep the mech nearby almost at all time, it clearly can work in practice"

-cool that doesn't detract from what I said!

 

Yes, yes it does -even moreso after you've attempted to call me some "hypothetical person", except that's not hypothetical.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kuma.1503]

12 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

"you can control mech by using appropriate buttons"

-sure I am standing in LA and mech ran somewhere!!11

"I'm actually doing content requiring quite a lot of movement and keep the mech nearby almost at all time, it clearly can work in practice"

-cool that doesn't detract from what I said!

If  "Im standing in LA and mech ran somewhere" is what you got out of my feedback, then it's clear you're only here to obstruct constructive feedback.

The core of what I am saying is that there is a flaw in the coding for "Return to me" that needs to be fixed. 

The fact that you found a counter-intutive solution to work around the flaw does not mean that there is not a flaw. There is no realistic downside to making the "Return to me" function more responsive. 

12 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Yes, yes it does -even moreso after you've attempted to call me some "hypothetical person".

That wasn't directed at any one person. I imagined what a hypothetical person who either hates mech or looks down on mechanist players would say in response to the feedback, and typed that out pre-emptively to avoid having to go through an non-constructive conversation. 

You responded to the post after the fact and assumed it was directed towards yourself. 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Ashen.2907]

Ive done a bit of testing and rifle mech, non min-maxed, without a rotation, minimal button presses, does more than enough damage to clear pretty much any content in the game.

[Sobx.1758]

39 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

If  "Im standing in LA and mech ran somewhere" is what you got out of my feedback, then it's clear you're only here to obstruct constructive feedback.

I focused on it along with your "it needs to be reverted!", yes. What else was I supposed to focus on? Imrpove the interval to re-apply the passive faster? Duh, but that doesn't mean it's somehow broken now in the way you're trying to make it look like (along with some of the other people I've had pleasure talking with on the eng subforum)

39 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

The core of what I am saying is that there is a flaw in the coding for "Return to me" that needs to be fixed.

Great.

39 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

The fact that you found a counter-intutive solution to work around the flaw does not mean that there is not a flaw.

Nothing about "make half a step in any direction" is counter intuitive. And "found" is a rather unfitting word here since I just did it right away, not much searching was involved in the first place.

39 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

There is no realistic downside to making the "Return to me" function more responsive. 

Never said there is. Which still doesn't make "it needs to be reverted now!" take true or reasonable.

39 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

That wasn't directed at any one person.

(...)

You responded to the post after the fact and assumed it was directed towards yourself.

Misunderstood it due to it  being a comment about a rather convenient/coincidental obvious reiteration of what I wrote literally 2 posts above yours.Thanks for clearing up, I guess.

 

My post: "Luckily they're not outside of t?he player's control. They're only outside of player's control if the player refuses to press additional buttons to actually have control over the mech in the first place."

Your response 2 posts below it, 7h later: ""Just press return to me. You're just mad that you have to press an extra button like a real cla--"

Yes hypothetical person.(...)"

You shouldn't really be surprised I thought it's directed at me, since even after your explanation it still doesn't really look coincidental. 🤷‍♂️ It sure might have been though.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kuma.1503]

23 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I focused on it along with your "it needs to be reverted!", yes. What else was I supposed to focus on? Imrpove the interval to re-apply the passive faster? Duh, but that doesn't mean it's somehow broken now in the way you're trying to make it look like (along with some of the other people I've had pleasure talking with on the eng subforum)

Great.

Nothing about "make half a step in any direction" is counter intuitive. And "found" is a rather unfitting word here since I just did it right away, not much searching was involved in the first place.

Never said there is. Which still doesn't make "it needs to be reverted now!" take true or reasonable.

The key disagreement we're having is this. 

You believe that this is a non-issue because you can work around the buggy return to me command by moving to the side. In testing I found that you need to move roughly 120 units to the side to make it work when this happens.

I believe that there should not be instances at all when the button does not work if it is pressed. The fact that you also encountered this issue of the bot's non-responsiveness so quickly after this patch dropped, along with other engineer mains shows that there is improvements to be made with the AI. 

No matter whether you think Mech deserved to be nerfed or not. Whether you believe this is game breaking or not. There is no excuse for this to happen. Period. 

Pointing this out so that the devs know this problem exists, and they can fix it so this unnecessary clunk is dealt with properly. 

My statement isn't only "revert this now pl0x". It is "This should not be implimented until the bot AI fixed. Revert it until AI improvements are made".

23 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Misunderstood it due to it  being a comment about a rather convenient/coincidental obvious reiteration of what I wrote literally 2 posts above yours.Thanks for clearing up, I guess.

 

My post: "Luckily they're not outside of t?he player's control. They're only outside of player's control if the player refuses to press additional buttons to actually have control over the mech in the first place."

Your response 2 posts below it, 7h later: ""Just press return to me. You're just mad that you have to press an extra button like a real cla--"

Yes hypothetical person.(...)"

You shouldn't really be surprised I thoght it's directed at me, since even after your explanation it still doesn't really look coincidental. 🤷‍♂️ It sure might have been though.

If I disagree with someone I will quote them directly. 

Mech is the most hated spec in the game. Comments like the hypothetical are made all the time by people looking to get a quick jab in on mechanist players. 

Other common responses include "111111 top dps". "Not playing a real class". "Not using their brain", "Want the game to be played for them", ect. Rather than engage with those (which gets exhausting), I just make the argument for them, refute it, and move on with the rest of the post. 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Alcatraznc.3869]

11 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I am not the one who argued that the mech cannot use the teleport. If you think that accuracy and truth are dumb I don't know what to tell you.

The mech doesnt just teleport to the player because it is asked to do so. OP has been talking about how clunky and non responsive Mechanist is and your answer to that is "hurr just use Shift signet".

What you're saying is not "truth and accuracy" it is just complete denial of the actual issue that pet AI .

 

11 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I never said that the ranger pet is not immune to CC. The OP complained about his mech being CC'd and I pointed out that it was immune. Again, taking exception to accuracy and truth is a bit odd.

Immune in PvE only, which is why I also mentioned PvE in my statement. OP isnt entirely wrong when he says we cannot control the mech when its CC in PvP or WvW. But at this point playing Mechanist in any form of PvP content is just griefing your team.

11 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

It will still be effective even without paying attention to the mech positioning (as stated in the line you quoted). That said, anyone whose playstyle revolves around, "not paying attention," is going to get less performance out of any build in the game than someone who does pay attention. That does not change the fact that mechanist will still perform well.

 

If by effective you means dealing garbage damage then yes it will sure be effective. Having to play around a mechanic that is out of your control is not a great game design and if you think it's good then I sure want to see you play Mesmer but your phantasm deal no damage if you dont hug them at a range of 360. 

 

Right now no other class in the game has to pay attention to its pet positioning while keeping an eye on its own positioning and dodge or do mechanic just to do DPS or support. And before some funny guy mention Ranger, you can play Ranger without the pet with minimal damage penalty. You do not play Mechanist without the mech unless you're griefing your team. 

[Telgum.6071]

This post reminds me of people defending Celestial stats and the torment rune before the nerf.

[Sobx.1758]

5 hours ago, Alcatraznc.3869 said:

Right now no other class in the game has to pay attention to its pet positioning (...)

Ranger, you can play Ranger without the pet with minimal damage penalty.

It's almost as if these two things are related 🤔

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

"Return to me"
Mech runs to you, resumes doing whatever it was doing.

[ThunderX.6591]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:08 PM, Ashen.2907 said:

Ive done a bit of testing and rifle mech, non min-maxed, without a rotation, minimal button presses, does more than enough damage to clear pretty much any content in the game.

Every class with literally every weapons can do something like this if 10+ years of game expansion didn't stop it randomly, even the pistol engi build...... (the literally unusable engi pistol build that people talk about) can do it, so i don't understand the purpose of the post in itself.

[Alcatraznc.3869]

20 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It's almost as if these two things are related 🤔

 

As far as I know ranger pet does not represent more than 50% of the Ranger damage. 

[Val.7826]

On 11/29/2022 at 2:06 AM, HeIIica.2945 said:

Ps….why, why, why are you breaking the balls to the staff Mesmer?

 

 I think you are italian, are you?

[Sobx.1758]

3 hours ago, Alcatraznc.3869 said:

As far as I know ranger pet does not represent more than 50% of the Ranger damage. 

That's... the point. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Hashberry.4510]

These pets, always they are breaking my balls.