I don't think MQL and MT4 were designed for robust trading systems. I had an email exchange with the people from Molanis, developers of Strategy Builder and Indicator Builder for MQL. They intimated that 100 Indicators in a trading system was a "problem." Basically, saying that if I had 100 Indicators, then there was something wrong with my design. I basically, laughed to myself and thought: He really has no idea, does he!
There is this basic theory out there that says, if you have more than a few Indicators in your trading system, that all you are doing is fractional copying of a handful of Indicators. I even read one author on the subject who said that the Trader with a large number of Indicators in their system, simply does not know what he/she is doing. Again, I smiled.
Most of these authors have never developed a Language the describes market behavior. Most of them make their comments based on the current set of Traditional Technical Indicators that everyone uses. RSI this, or CCI that... So, when they talk about having "too many indicators," they are typically referring to traditional average based indicators. More than 95% of the Indicators in my system are non-traditional. Custom designed indicators that have nothing to do with tradition or in most cases, not even conventional thinking.
So, when you have a trading system where "100" indicators is required
to produce a trade signal - then "100" can never be "too many." Thus, these authors completely miss the point entirely, because the nature and structure of the system is what dictates the measure of "too much." Not the absolute value of the number of indicators used in any one particular system.
MT4 was never designed with Delta based trading in mind. And, to its credit, it never could have been designed that way. Among other things, this system employs a layering of indicators, all designed to measure and quantify different aspects of the market at its core. At a higher level, the system then uses the output from those layers to construct a decision support layer of signals. And, from that layer, the system then produces the final trade signal after having hashed out the "best candidate signal" suitable for the market conditions in existence at the time of execution.
This is not a simple cross over system. It is an intelligent system that learns as it ages without becoming overly restrictive, or over reactive. After learning more about MQL, it becomes clear that it is not capable of handling such a system.
However, there are still things that I'd like to do in MQL that do incorporate some of the Indicators within the system, so I hope to be able to find an MQL coder to assist with those aspects. Newschool has demonstrated some interest, so I'll move in that direction.
A system does not have to be massively complex, to be profitable. The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 is not "necessary," but it is the most outstanding example of what supercar automotive engineering can accomplish to date. Not to mention, one of the fastest production supercars on the planet.
I like the Veyron, not just because of its speed and performance (that's a given). What I appreciate the most about the Veyron, is the detailed engineering that went into its design and creation. There is simply no supercar like it on the road today, from a purely engineering standpoint - and that's why I appreciate it so much. The Koenigsegg, probably the second highest performing production (street legal) supercar in the world, is my second most favorite. It does not have anywhere near the same level of elegant engineering and systems complexity as the Veyron, but I still appreciate it, because from a pure performance standpoint, it gets the job done better than anything else - other than the Veyron itself.
Veyron - complex, massively sophisticated, elegant: High Performance.
Koenigsegg - smart, straight forward design characteristics: High Performance.
I'll take one of each (thank you very much) for completely different reasons and I won't feel cheated with either of the two. They are both outstanding examples of what "performance" means - yet two entire different paths were taken to achieve that performance.
Good trading systems, are no different. Some will be like the Veyron. Some will be like the Koenigsegg. Neither will fail to make you very wealthy in the long run.
I simply prefer the Veyron.