STUPID IS, WHAT STUPID DOES

[Kuma.1503]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

This is not a strawman, this is what you said in your post. Again. (unless you're specifically talking about the "swimming" example, at which point maybe just avoid that single sentence and don't use it as a pretence to not respond to the rest of the post 🙄)

I wonder about the specific wording and construction of the first sentence in this quote.

I've highlighted this section because this is where the strawman lies. 

It is most evident in your last sentence. 

"The fact that you still try to draw this narrative where anyone not pretending it's somehow unplayable is some "mech hater that finally got what they maliciously wanted to spite the mech players!" is just ridiculous and false."

What you do is you take what someone is saying, reframe it using different wording, and make it appear that they are arguing something ever so slightly different. It's close enough to what they're saying that someone not paying attention might assume they're the same argument, but they are not. 

I do not believe Mech is unplayable. If we're specifically talking PvP/WvW, then I will argue Rifle mech is no longer a good build. Arguably overnerfed. If there are people here claiming it's unplayable in PvE, those people are incorrect. I have never once argued in favor of that. 

You make the concious choice to make it seem as if I'm saying that because it cleverly obscures what I'm actually saying. The AI needs improvements. This Mechanical Genius change is not bad in principle. I like the thought behind it. I think there's wrinkles to be worked out and improved on. Nothing more. I think this change would work better if it was paired with better bot control. 

Yes, Mech AI is perfectly functional as it is now. You can work around its flaws. I'm not arguing that it isn't functional. I'm arguing it can, and SHOULD be better. 

I also acknowledge people who do not want Mech to be brought back to where it was pre-nerf, and cite that as a reason why someone might be resistant to this suggestion. 

That is very different feedback from "Mech unplayable. The haters got their wish". 

 

Unless you're able to understand that very important distinction, any further conversation between us will be as fruitful as two people arguing at a brick wall. 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sobx.1758]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:57 AM, Kuma.1503 said:

I've highlighted this section because this is where the strawman lies. 

It is most evident in your last sentence. 

"The fact that you still try to draw this narrative where anyone not pretending it's somehow unplayable is some "mech hater that finally got what they maliciously wanted to spite the mech players!" is just ridiculous and false."

What you do is you take what someone is saying, reframe it using different wording, and make it appear that they are arguing something ever so slightly different. It's close enough to what they're saying that someone not paying attention might assume they're the same argument, but they are not. 

I do not believe Mech is unplayable. If we're specifically talking PvP/WvW, then I will argue Rifle mech is no longer a good build. Arguably overnerfed. If there are people here claiming it's unplayable in PvE, those people are incorrect. I have never once argued in favor of that. 

You make the concious choice to make it seem as if I'm saying that because it cleverly obscures what I'm actually saying. The AI needs improvements. This Mechanical Genius change is not bad in principle. I like the thought behind it. I think there's wrinkles to be worked out and improved on. Nothing more. I think this change would work better if it was paired with better bot control. 

Yes, Mech AI is perfectly functional as it is now. You can work around its flaws. I'm not arguing that it isn't functional. I'm arguing it can, and SHOULD be better. 

I also acknowledge people who do not want Mech to be brought back to where it was pre-nerf, and cite that as a reason why someone might be resistant to this suggestion. 

 

Did you forget what I was responding to with it? While, sure, it might have been a bit too broad brush to say that, I don't think it was far off the post. Here's the reminder what I responded to:

On 12/9/2022 at 9:29 PM, Kuma.1503 said:

To put it simply, "because Mechanist."

This class has been subject to a circlejerk of hatred that even put firebrand to shame. Compounded with this, at it's prime, (Power) mech was the easiest build in the game's history to achieve top DPS with on top of its other luxuries. There's a sense of retribution that players feel now that Mech has been brought closer to the rest of the cast, and I don't blame people for feeling that. This change, while flawed, makes power mechanist a little harder to play. 

If what I said is not how you intended this to be received then it's rather confusing why you'd try to use wording specifically aimed at being victimized/targeted by some people.

"to put simple, because mechanist"? -again, how else is this supposed to be taken if not how I understood it?

"This class has been subject to a circlejerk of hatred that even put firebrand to shame" -what about this? Isn't this simply trying to reduce any "opposition" to what you're saying into "haters" (or, probably more accurately, "circlejerk of haters"?)

You sure don't say it's unplayable, my bad on that part-but plenty of people around pretend exactly that, but that's not exactly the key part of what I was saying.

On 12/10/2022 at 1:57 AM, Kuma.1503 said:

That is very different feedback from "Mech unplayable.

Ok, sure.

On 12/10/2022 at 1:57 AM, Kuma.1503 said:

The haters got their wish".

But this.. not so much, that's the narrative you, amongst some of the other people, try to almost constantly bring up.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Sobx.1758
reminded > reminder

[Kuma.1503]

I'd like to expand by saying, while this change is good on the surface, there were better ways to make Mechanist check more of the players skill. Ways that would have felt better to play with. 

Two suggestions that I think would have been better include 

• Take power out of the rifle auto attack and put it into Blunderbuss. 
• Disable Autocast

Both suggestions address the main issue with Rifle Mech. It's too passive, even for an LI build. The first suggestion also addresses how powerful it is when standing at 1200 range. Putting more power into blunderbuss encourages players to stand closer to the boss to deal damage. This would be more in line with their stated goal which was "rewarding the player for proper positioning". 

Doing more DPS with bludnerbuss is the reward. Proper positioning is standing as close to the boss as possible to maximize DPS. The punishment for not doing so is that you will deal less auto attack DPS than before. 

This also preserves the skillful parts of Mechanist, such as the ability to be in two places at once. This is a powerful strength to have, but it also gives players a way to express their mastery of the spec by doing two roles simultanously. 

 

The second suggestion, Disable autocast, is simple. It takes away more passive power. Autocast is a large contributor to Mechanist's high damage while AFK. 

 

I think both changes would have been superior to this Mechanical Genius change, but if operating under the assumption that the Mechanical Genius change is here to stay, then I think better control of the bot will ease player frustrations while maintaining the skill check. I can't think of any harm that would be caused by giving pet AI a tune-up. 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sobx.1758]

29 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Two suggestions that I think would have been better include 

• Take power out of the rifle auto attack and put it into Blunderbuss. 
• Disable Autocast

Both suggestions address the main issue with Rifle Mech.

Maybe, but then again doing that would make/keep mech into just another projectile effect (or a flat dps increase trait when talking about its aa) with a pinch of bodyblock, while the current change makes it more unique and actually promotes paying attention to the mech while rewarding interacting with it more often.

29 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Doing more DPS with bludnerbuss is the reward. Proper positioning is standing as close to the boss as possible to maximize DPS. The punishment for not doing so is that you will deal less auto attack DPS than before. 

Using blunderbuss off cd is already a dps increase over just AAing. Spamming all rifle skills off cd is also a dps increase over just aaing and spamming 2 off cd. So what you're writing here is already a thing, the added mech interaction just adds another level over it again. Basically feel free to pick your level of interaction.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[HeIIica.2945]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:22 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

 

Not even remotely true, no need to play a victim.

You are being eristic, and you are meticulously ripping apart the posts of others, and twisting the words,  to needlessly be eristic.  You make post after post trying to invalidate other people's experiences, and/or opinions.  You state your experiences, and opinions, and those are valid for you, but doesn't make them true for everyone else.  If other people's experiences, and opinions are different then yours, that doesn't make them incorrect, or a lie.  The biggest issue....you are being eristic, argumentative, just for the sake of arguing, and in my opinion,  at times, you detract from the thread (s). 

Editing, such as you have, I was referring to a wide variety of your posts, specifically, threads that pertain to the recent changes to the mech engineer.  Not only your responses to me, but to other posters, as well, but I am not going to quote every single one of them. 

Edited December 10, 2022 by HeIIica.2945

[Kuma.1503]

28 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Maybe, but then again doing that would make/keep mech into just another projectile effect (or a flat dps increase trait when talking about its aa) with a pinch of bodyblock, while the current change makes it more unique and actually promotes paying attention to the mech while rewarding interacting with it more often.

I'll agree that this change makes mechanist more unique. I do not think it's a superior change to either of the above. 

No other class has something like Mechanical Genius, but not all unique changes are positive. 

If ArenaNet had decided to nerf Firebrand by making them inflict self-burns on their axe auto attack, that would be a very unique effect. No other auto attack behaves that way, but it would also be ridiculous. 

I'd like to clarify. I am not saying Mechanical Genius is anywhere near as bad as self burning on auto attacks. It is simply an example to illustrate the point that uniqueness is not always good. 

 

Encouraging the player to interact with the bot more often, can also be accomplished by removing auto cast. Auto cast gives players the ability to let the bot use its skills at its own discression. It turns the bot into a fully passive source of DPS. Removing auto cast will encourage players to engage with their bot skills again, which encourages more interaction. 

I've also suggested in other posts, the ability to ground target where the bot stands. This gives players more control over the exact positioning of their bot which can be adjusted throughout an encounter. This would also give players more ways to interact with their bot while simultaneously improving the AI issues. 

28 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Using blunderbuss off cd is already a dps increase over just AAing. Spamming all rifle skills off cd is also a dps increase over just aaing and spamming 2 off cd. So what you're writing here is already a thing, the added mech interaction just adds another level over it again. Basically feel free to pick your level of interaction.

It is a DPS increase, but arguably not enough of a DPS increase. I'm suggesting tweaking the numbers to put more emphasis on standing close to the boss to achieve good numbers. This would have also been preferable for PvP/WvW as it would have given some compensation back to rifle engineer, but also addressed its ability bully inexperienced players with auto attacks.

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sobx.1758]

14 hours ago, HeIIica.2945 said:

You are being eristic, and you are meticulously ripping apart the posts of others, and twisting the words,  to needlessly be eristic.  You make post after post trying to invalidate other people's experiences, and/or opinions.  You state your experiences, and opinions, and those are valid for you, but doesn't make them true for everyone else.  If other people's experiences, and opinions are different then yours, that doesn't make them incorrect, or a lie.  The biggest issue....you are being eristic, argumentative, just for the sake of arguing, and in my opinion,  at times, you detract from the thread (s). 

Nope. I gave my feedback in the exact same way you did. Notice how you don't simply state "you dislike animation" to pose it as your opinion, instead you say "the animation is crap". But it isn't. You're free to dislike it all you want, I don't have an issue with you having an opinion. On the other hand you're free to repeat your opinion, so... Why should I not be free to repeat mine?

Where did I say if the opinion doesn't match mine then it's a lie? In fact what I did is enforce your opinion and remind you that you're still free to play the way you want to play the mech and be fine ("If you don't like interacting with it then don't, you'll still be perfectly fine playing it, even if it'll lose that 2k dps or w/e."), didn't I?

What I said "is not true" though is this: "If the game isn't playable for a variety of different people" and that's because it's simply not true. If you avoid making use of the passive, you can still play the game, have a small dps decrease and play the content you were playing with mech the way it was played. Do you think anything I said here is somehow false? Or maybe you're intentionally overdramatizing this change to claim the game suddenly won't be playable by a variety of different people? 😐

 

Conveniently enough, you've addressed nothing from my post, but instead went after me, while claiming I did or said something I didn't. Second chance here to clear what you think was incorrect from what I said, I guess.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Sobx.1758
added ""

[Kuma.1503]

16 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Nope. I gave my feedback in the exact same way you did. Notice how you don't simply state "you dislike animation" to pose it as your opinion, instead you say "the animation is crap". But it isn't. You're free to dislike it all you want, I don't have an issue with you having an opinion. On the other hand you're free to repeat your opinion, so... Why should I not be free to repeat mine?

Where did I say if the opinion doesn't match mine then it's a lie? In fact what I did is enforce your opinion and remind you that you're still free to play the way you want to play the mech and be fine ("If you don't like interacting with it then don't, you'll still be perfectly fine playing it, even if it'll lose that 2k dps or w/e."), didn't I?

What I said is not true though is this: "If the game isn't playable for a variety of different people" and that's because it's simply not true. If you avoid making use of the passive, you can still play the game, have a small dps decrease and play the content you were playing with mech the way it was played. Do you think anything I said here is somehow false? Or maybe you're intentionally overdramatizing this change to claim the game suddenly won't be able to be playable by a variety of different people? 😐

 

Conveniently enough, you've addressed nothing from my post, but instead went after me, while claiming I did or said something I didn't. Second chance here to clear what you think was incorrect from what I said, I guess.

First of all, I've just learned what eristic means. props to @HeIIica.2945 for teaching me something new. 

Second, I believe this the third time (that I've counted) that someone has told you that you've repeatedly misrepresented what they've said. While simultaneously acknowledging the validity of your position. Now either all three people, myself includes are lying and/or out to get you, or perhaps this should be a moment to self reflect? 

 

[Sobx.1758]

43 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I'll agree that this change makes mechanist more unique. I do not think it's a superior change to either of the above. 

No other class has something like Mechanical Genius, but not all unique changes are positive. 

Yeah, I was expecting something along the lines of "it sure is unique...ly bad!" and while that's not exactly what you said, it's... close enough. Of course not all unique changes are positive, but I think this one is. It provides more unique gameplay, more interaction with "pet" in a "pet build" and simply works ingame, even if it could be improved even if only by things like having the passive refresh ping more frequently or having a better way to mark your own mech (personal mark works if you don't need it for anything else, although I just opted for renaming my mech into something more specific and it seems to work fine for me 🤷‍♂️).

43 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

If ArenaNet had decided to nerf Firebrand by making them inflict self-burns on their axe auto attack, that would be a very unique effect. No other auto attack behaves that way, but it would also be ridiculous. 

What was that about going for a strawman? 🙄 Of course this one isn't good. But the mech change was and presenting a ridiculous example of an obviously bad change doesn't do anything to address it.

43 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Encouraging the player to interact with the bot more often, can also be accomplished by removing auto cast. Auto cast gives players the ability to let the bot use its skills at its own discression. It turns the bot into a fully passive source of DPS. Removing auto cast will encourage players to engage with their bot skills again, which encourages more interaction. 

Sure, but I already addressed that in the very post (even more, in the exact part you've just quoted) you're responding to:

Maybe, but then again doing that would make/keep mech into just another projectile effect (or a flat dps increase trait when talking about its aa) with a pinch of bodyblock, while the current change makes it more unique and actually promotes paying attention to the mech while rewarding interacting with it more often.

43 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

It is a DPS increase, but arguably not enough of a DPS increase. I'm suggesting tweaking the numbers to put more emphasis on standing close to the boss to achieve good numbers. This would have also been preferable for PvP/WvW as it would have given some compensation back to rifle engineer, but also addressed its ability bully inexperienced players with auto attacks.

If that's not enough of a dps increase then you sure as hell should be perfectly fine with not utilizing the mech passive while instead spamming rifle skills and you'll be perfectly fine while keeping the exact kind of "active gameplay" you are apparently striving for here. Again, did you actually go check the numbers or are you aiming at going for more of this kind of "here's my blind guess" feedback: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/124812-stupid-is-what-stupid-does/page/3/#comment-1815644 ?

That's an honest question, not hypothetical, not sarcastical. Did you check the numbers? (because I know that previous person didn't)

Also what you've just proposed is nothing more but the isolated rifle buff.

 

11 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

First of all, I've just learned what eristic means. props to @HeIIica.2945 for teaching me something new. 

Second, I believe this the third time (that I've counted) that someone has told you that you've repeatedly misrepresented what they've said. While simultaneously acknowledging the validity of your position. Now either all three people, myself includes are lying and/or out to get you, or perhaps this should be a moment to self reflect?

Or perhaps you should stop repeatedly dodging what you're quoting while going for cheap personal attacks instead, because with this post this is exactly what you did, again. But sure, who knows. And before you conviniently continue driving further from it, first consider responding to what I said there.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kuma.1503]

5 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Yeah, I was expecting something along the lines of "it sure is unique...ly bad!" and while that's not exactly what you said, it's... close enough. 

Therein lies your core problem. You read people's posts expecting the worst, and even when it doesn't quite live up (live down?)  to your lowest expectations, you will nontheless reduce it down to a strawman argument that is "Close enough" to what the other person is saying. 

5 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What was that about going for a strawman? 🙄 Of course this one isn't good. But the mech change was and presenting a ridiculous example of an obviously bad change doesn't do anything to address it.

And here is the proof. 

You're like a surgeon meticulously looking for any rhetorical flaw to exploit that you miss the forest for the trees. I had figured you would immediately jump on this point and use it as a meaningless point of contention so I added the very next sentence. And I made sure to be very clear with my statement. 

" I am not saying Mechanical Genius is anywhere near as bad as self burning on auto attacks. It is simply an example to illustrate the point that uniqueness is not always good."

 

 

[Sobx.1758]

7 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Therein lies your core problem. You read people's posts expecting the worst, and even when it doesn't quite live up (live down?)  to your lowest expectations, you will nontheless reduce it down to a strawman argument that is "Close enough" to what the other person is saying. 

No, not really. Also I was mostly saying it jokingly and yet... you did respond in that exact manner, including the intentionally ridiculous example of "uniqueness". It doesn't matter what I expected, it matters you still wrote just that.

7 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

And here is the proof. 

You're like a surgeon meticulously looking for any rhetorical flaw to exploit that you miss the forest for the trees. I had figured you would immediately jump on this point and use it as a meaningless point of contention so I added the very next sentence. And I made sure to be very clear with my statement. 

" I am not saying Mechanical Genius is anywhere near as bad as self burning on auto attacks. It is simply an example to illustrate the point that uniqueness is not always good."

You've missed, like, the whole post there (again) and went for some personal remarks instead (also again). Have another go to actually address what is being said about the mech and it's mechanics/numbers, any time now.

Yes, I know you've included that sentence, I did see and understand what it said. You understanding you're making a ridiculous strawman to ridicule "uniqueness" doesn't change the reason you brought it up in the first place.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kuma.1503]

Edit: I've decided to remove this section since it was unnecessarily aggressive. Frustration is not an excuse to sling insults so I apologize for that. 

 

Rather than argue further, I'll just leave you with a simple question in an attempt to get this conversation somewhat back on track. Lets put all previous conversations aside for this. 

What do you think the cons would be of improving the bot AI?

Lets say Anet keeps Mechanical Genius as is, but does the following:

• You can ground target the precice location where the bot will stand
• Return to me functionality cleaned up so it always works regardless of the bot's proximity

What would be the cons of this and do you think they outweigh the potential upsides?

Edited December 10, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Tails.9372]

3 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

This Mechanical Genius change is not bad in principle.

But it is, just because you like one or two aspects of the outcome of these changes doesn't mean that the way they went about it isn't completely horrendous.

First of, what constitutes "positioning well" completely depends on the context of the situation however this change inherently aims to push the player to behave in a completely unnatural way just for the sake of it. It can also lead to lose / lose situations where you can choose between a DPS loss from a reduced uptime or a DPS loss from a stat decrease (and guess which option, when in doubt, most people are going to default to) which makes them having the gall to call that "rewarding players" even more ironic.

There are more issues here that make the whole thing work against their stated goals but if they want to make a slight shift of the spec performance towards more active gameplay for the LI build then there are better ways to do that and if they want to add more meaningful ways to interact with the mech then there are also better ways to do that but trying to "improve upon" this charge is nothing but wasted time as most of the issues caused by it are inherent to the approach itself and there are objectively superior solutions (based on what they said their goal here was) which only require a fraction of the effort "correctly applying" these band-aids would take.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Tails.9372

[Kuma.1503]

19 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

But it is, just because you like one or two aspects of the outcome of these changes doesn't mean that the way they went about it isn't completely horrendous.

First of, what constitutes "positioning well" completely depends on the context of the situation however this change inherently aims to push the player to behave in a completely unnatural way just for the sake of it. It can also lead to lose / lose situations where you can choose between a DPS loss from a reduced uptime or a DPS loss from a stat decrease (and guess which option, when in doubt, most people are going to default to) which makes them having the gall to call that "rewarding players" even more ironic.

There are more issues here that make the whole thing work against their stated goals but if they want to make a slight shift of the spec performance towards more active gameplay then there are better ways to do that and if they want to add more meaningful ways to interact with the mech then there are also better ways to do that but trying to "improve upon" this charge is nothing but wasted time as most of the issues caused by it are inherent to the approach itself and there are objectively superior solutions (based on what they said their goal here was) which only require a fraction of the effort "correctly applying" these band-aids would take.

I think you and I more or less agree on this. 

I should have been more specific about what I meant. The principle I'm on board with is making rifle mechanist less passive. This accomplishes that goal, but I agree with you that there were better ways to go about accomplishing that goal. I also agree that it would be better to try a different approach than to apply band-aids to this one. 

I decided to offer some suggestions under the assumption that this change is here to stay, but ideally they take in the feedback and decide to choose a different approach. 

As for everything else... well you've said it better than I have. 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sobx.1758]

I'm not sure why you repeatedly avoid majority -or straight up all- of the things I write on topic (or as a direct response to what you write) above. At the very least it feels like answering this would be in place so we can have better context for your proposed changes:

14 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

It is a DPS increase, but arguably not enough of a DPS increase. I'm suggesting tweaking the numbers to put more emphasis on standing close to the boss to achieve good numbers. This would have also been preferable for PvP/WvW as it would have given some compensation back to rifle engineer, but also addressed its ability bully inexperienced players with auto attacks.

If that's not enough of a dps increase then you sure as hell should be perfectly fine with not utilizing the mech passive while instead spamming rifle skills and you'll be perfectly fine while keeping the exact kind of "active gameplay" you are apparently striving for here. Again, did you actually go check the numbers or are you aiming at going for more of this kind of "here's my blind guess" feedback: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/124812-stupid-is-what-stupid-does/page/3/#comment-1815644 ?

That's an honest question, not hypothetical, not sarcastical. Did you check the numbers? (because I know that previous person didn't)

 

______

Would I be against "improving ai"? Why would I be? Honestly, I'm not sure where that question even came from, was I somehow firmly against "improving it" or something? Do I want a pretty much rts-like point and click control over it? Not sure, mostly I don't think it's remotely needed here, but also if they added it then... 🤷‍♂️

Edited December 10, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[ThunderX.6591]

Mechanical Genius change isn't good, cause a 360 range and 5 secs time is too little, 70% of the time, the robot or the player are out of reach for some millimeter on screen, or for a random dodge done, expecially if Robot is range and mecha use rifle.

Became around 40% of the time when Robot is meele and mecha is rifle, cause you can check better distance to a robot meele, but even in that case, a dodge, change of target or something else get the out of range malus, and all that is really problematic and annoying, BUT, considering people have no idea how much damage Robot do in reality, i end up not bothering too much about it, cause Robot damage is really low............ and testing it is so simple that is ridiculous how low is, but seeing what people posted around the forum gave me many doubt about it.

Well, i will post my experience.

Test is simple, Robot hit target without skill (i use meele robot, so no 100% crit or near it), mecha use rifle skill 1.

Full boons on me, and full malus on the golem.

First test i use Rifle and Robot, second test i use ONLY rifle, robot get offline (use F4)

In the first test, i reach near 21k, not the damage i like to see on an OP Mecha as people describe it. (other classes can do even better using only an extra skill, tested them)

In the second test, i reach near 17k, so, the Robot do around 4k, dps + dps -, Ranger pet do around 3k-4k dps too, not so different considering, in the end, ranger have Untamed doing around 38k-39k dps and Mecha is around 32k as dps.

You all can do the same test, i am curious to see the various result. (maybee even a full dps test to see how much difference all the pet skill have on the final dps reached)

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

8 hours ago, ThunderX.6591 said:

Mechanical Genius change isn't good, cause a 360 range and 5 secs time is too little, 70% of the time, the robot or the player are out of reach for some millimeter on screen, or for a random dodge done, expecially if Robot is range and mecha use rifle.

"Return to me"
"Attack my target"
Done.

[The Boz.2038]

21 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

"Return to me"
"Attack my target"
Done.

Any mechanic that is best dealt with a flippin' macro left on "always on" is not a good mechanic. Worse than animation-cancel.

Additionally, for the 17th time, return to me often causes the bot to just run past you and straight into out-of-range again.

Thirdly, keeping track of the mech is currently made painful by not implementing a useful "THIS IS YOUR MECH; IT IS HERE" feature.

Finally, this does translate into "Mechanist needs two more keys than any other build in order to barely function". No (literally no) other profession needs to deal with these two buttons ever. Yes, not even ranger, lol.

[Sobx.1758]

10 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Any mechanic that is best dealt with a flippin' macro left on "always on" is not a good mechanic. Worse than animation-cancel.

Skills have their optimal way of being used, by that logic, they're "better off using macro left on" (not that I agree with this in the first place, but... your words). As such, I guess we should remove most/all skills that make it possible for those optimalized roations to exist and leave the autoattack to not overcomplicate stuff that theoretically maybe could be macroed? 🤔

10 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Additionally, for the 17th time, return to me often causes the bot to just run past you and straight into out-of-range again.

Not really, the moment you tell it to attack the target, it stops at its tracks and starts attacking. Use the commend buttons actively and there's next to no issues, as proven ingame by many players currently utilizing it.

10 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Thirdly, keeping track of the mech is currently made painful by not implementing a useful "THIS IS YOUR MECH; IT IS HERE" feature.

You can use personal target for that. Or rename your mech into something you'll instantly recognize. That said, I have nothing against having some "🔽" marker over the player's own mech. By all means, it can/should be added, seems like a simple enough thing to implement.

10 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Finally, this does translate into "Mechanist needs two more keys than any other build in order to barely function". No (literally no) other profession needs to deal with these two buttons ever. Yes, not even ranger, lol.

No, this translates into "here's a pet build that's supposed to have it distinguish way of playing. Here are additional controls for the mech, which aboslutely make sense to allow you to control your mech/pet". Don't want to bother with it? Cool, ignore it and you just get a small dps reduction that still doesn't make it anywhere near unplayable or "not enough" for anything. If you think ranger's pet gameplay is better then good news: you can just play it instead.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[The Boz.2038]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

As such, I guess we should remove most/all skills that make it blah blah blah...

All other skills are on your character.
There is absolutely no cost to constantly spamming "To me!", 0.7s delay, "Attack!" on a 4.99s CD, and having that macro live for as long as you are holding any movement key, lol. Rofl to even try and pretend that this NOT BEING ON THE MECHANIST ITSELF wasn't a point.

[Sobx.1758]

2 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

All other skills are on your character.

So are the mech controls, both are just buttons at the bottom of your screen that allow you controling your build. If you want a mech-build to play like a non-mech-build, play any other non-mech-build.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[The Boz.2038]

...just what exactly do you think "there is no cost to" means? What does it imply? What is the context of that part of the sentence?

 

[Sobx.1758]

3 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

...just what exactly do you think "there is no cost to" means? What does it imply? What is the context of that part of the sentence?

In no way that changes anything about what I said, but once again keep making sure you don't respond to anything, good talk. o/

Edited December 12, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Ashen.2907]

2 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

The mech controls are "on your bar", but they do not affect your character. 

This is incorrect.

[The Boz.2038]

29 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

This is incorrect.

My character does not stop moving or using skills or pays a cost in other character-side skill-affecting resources when ordering the mech around.
How is this concept so difficult to grasp?