283 replies to this topic

[Davers]

If I have to give a Yes or No answer it would be this:

All mechs that can one shot or two shot any mech in the game is not balanced, since not all mechs have that option. That leads to only a handful of competitive mechs. If the game comes down to only mechs that can carry 2 AC/20s or mechs that can carry 6SRM6, then it is a serious issue. Unfortunately, it is an issue that cannot be easily addressed since we are having more and more mechs that can boat powerful ballistics. Medium mechs will only become competitive when the Hunchback II becomes available. And that makes me sad.

[DrSecretStache]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Okay I will go ahead of you- No. I do not think 1.8 damage for LRMs or 2.5 for SRMs is too much and if you want I can give you the reason.

See, I was able to answer a basic yes or no question. Now can you give a basic yes or no answer to that simple question? I'm not asking you to solve a quadratic equation or defy the law of gravity here. A person with the amazing intellect of yourself who "works on computers" should be able to pull this off.
.

I thought you were asking for data, not objectivity.

And how the hell does that matter? What if I thought 2.6 damage was better? or 2.4? How could you say that I'm wrong?
Is there a point to this?

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

If I have to give a Yes or No answer it would be this:

All mechs that can one shot or two shot any mech in the game is not balanced, since not all mechs have that option. That leads to only a handful of competitive mechs. If the game comes down to only mechs that can carry 2 AC/20s or mechs that can carry 6SRM6, then it is a serious issue. Unfortunately, it is an issue that cannot be easily addressed since we are having more and more mechs that can boat powerful ballistics. Medium mechs will only become competitive when the Hunchback II becomes available. And that makes me sad.

Which basically means you have not given a yes or no answer.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Could you give a simple yes or no just so we simple peons can understand you? Do you think the 1.8/2.5 with no extra damage, no splash damage, no extra damage at all is too much? Yes or no, thank you.

YES it is too much. PGI explained why it's too much in the nerf. Something to do with dmg being CT centric.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

You know I'm honestly starting to wonder if you are physically incapable of answering a very simple yes or no question.

The problem is, the question you asked does not provide enough info to produce a yes or no answer.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Which basically means you have not given a yes or no answer.

I thought I did answer. Do you think it is fair that a Catapult can have a 90 point alpha and a Dragon cannot?

[PaintedWolf]

Zoughtbaj, on 24 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

I thought you were asking for data, not objectivity.

And how the hell does that matter? What if I thought 2.6 damage was better? or 2.4? How could you say that I'm wrong?
Is there a point to this?

Geez man. I don't know, I guess I would think you can't answer a basic yes or no question.

[DrSecretStache]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

Geez man. I don't know, I guess I would think you can't answer a basic yes or no question.

How is this relevant? At all? Why do you get to ask the question? Can I ask a question? Are the taxes too damn high?

I'd be more serious, but this doesn't seem serious at all. Because it's not a basic question. Just like mine. Because it would depend on where you are and what taxes that place charges.

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Whoa, everyone step back and bow down.



Okay I will go ahead of you- No. I do not think 1.8 damage for LRMs or 2.5 for SRMs is too much and if you want I can give you the reason.

See, I was able to answer a basic yes or no question. Now can you give a basic yes or no answer to that simple question? I'm not asking you to solve a quadratic equation or defy the law of gravity here. A person with the amazing intellect of yourself who "works on computers" should be able to pull this off.

You're cute when you're upset, kid. Keep it up and I might have to adopt you

Let's have a look at that question again:
"was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?"

Answer: The LRM missile never did just 1.8 damage and nothing extra.
Answer: The SRM missile never did just 2.5 damage and nothing extra.

Your question is meaningless as it is phrased.

[PaintedWolf]

Zoughtbaj, on 24 March 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

How is this relevant? At all? Why do you get to ask the question? Can I ask a question? Are the taxes too damn high?

I'd be more serious, but this doesn't seem serious at all. Because it's not a basic question. Just like mine. Because it would depend on where you are and what taxes that place charges.

Okay, can you see now why I think people on your side are a little biased?

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Okay, can you see now why I think people on your side are a little biased?

Umm... everyone who has an opinion is biased, you included. Or am I being too biased?

[Thuzel]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 March 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I think the whole missile thing is probably just a conspiracy like the claim that engine double heat sinks are true double heat sinks.

When has testing by anyone ever actually shown anything?

Incidentally, the dhs fiasco is why I chuckle every time I hear PGI say that something they've changed are only initial values.

Don't worry, this is temporary... It'll get tuned. Lol.

[Mazzyplz]

you guys want to laugh a little???

http://mwomercs.com/...roken-like-lrm/

Vassago Rain, on 20 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

[implied - yes they're broken...]
Because you're not aiming for heads, like I am.

Let me tell you about headshotting atlases one by one...

even though i was aiming for heads all the time and atlases included, and i still couldn't head shot them even once.

now that we have what he asked for, only 4 days later:

Vassago Rain, on 24 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Please Restore Srm Damage.


I don't want to snipe, but get in your face Kinda hard to when my rockets cause minimal damage at best, or do nothing at all, at worst.

I liked it better before they started tampering with the system..

and this is why you can't trust feedback on original posts, everyone will tell you to L2P - and ignore any substance to the post even if it's in their best interest, you happy with yourself?

Edited by Mazzyplz, 24 March 2013 - 05:24 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

SRM damage is fine now, those crying over the damage adjustment because a bug was causing too much splash are bad.

[Deathlike]

Let's post a hypothetical. Let's say if missiles didn't have splash damage, and that each individual missile when it actually hits the part of the body, it does exactly the listed value in the game (1.8 for LRMs, 2.5 for SRMs).

If that was the proposed question, then the answer is YES for LRMs, and NO for SRMs. With the current version of the LRM tracking code, they seem to want to hit the CT more than usual, regardless of the spread. So, even if you removed splash, the current nature of the LRM would annihilate their target pretty quickly, like a direct fire weapon. SRMs are less likely to hit the CT, depending on whether Artemis is installed. Closing the distance would increase the chances of taking direct damage to the CT anyways.

However, if we changed how damage worked based on how much of the missile was on an area, the answer to BOTH would be NO. I still would reserve the right to change my mind though... because I don't know how much damage that would actually become.

Without actual information, you cannot make an informed decision on a topic. It's that simple. Asking questions that you don't have enough info for is a waste of time to get a response for. It's like the initial coolant discussion that eventually changed course a little bit after being provided with MORE INFORMATION.

You don't realize you are guilty of this type of questioning.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 March 2013 - 05:20 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

Jack Gallows, on 24 March 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

SRM damage is fine now, those crying over the damage adjustment because a bug was causing too much splash are bad.

your comment is bad and you should feel bad

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

If the game comes down to only mechs that can carry 2 AC/20s or mechs that can carry 6SRM6, then it is a serious issue.

It's not the case that mechs that can boat the most AC/20s or SRMs get to automatically win. The current best sniper build is a 2ppc, 1 gauss cataphract. The only gimped weapons right now are LRMs (because of the asinine minimum range, not their damage) and lasers (which sorely need a reduction in DoT duration across the board). Machineguns and flamers are not included because they are comedy weapons.

[Mazzyplz]

Narcisoldier, on 24 March 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

It's not the case that mechs that can boat the most AC/20s or SRMs get to automatically win. The current best sniper build is a 2ppc, 1 gauss cataphract. The only gimped weapons right now are LRMs (because of the asinine minimum range, not their damage) and lasers (which sorely need a reduction in DoT duration across the board). Machineguns and flamers are not included because they are comedy weapons.

twin ac20 is DOMINATING.

what game are you playing??? certainly not this one

Edited by Mazzyplz, 24 March 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Umm... everyone who has an opinion is biased, you included. Or am I being too biased?

I dunno, should I apologize for killing Galileo?

[Jack Gallows]

Mazzyplz, on 24 March 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

your comment is bad and you should feel bad

Or, you're just a horrible player.