210 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 30 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

3rdworld if you want to start a thread about a capacitance system or nerfing the PPC then start a thread. This suggestion/poll thread is about sized hardpoints. There are plenty of other threads you could be posting in instead of derailing this one.

The hardpoint system fixes problems that are not related to heat, or any particular weapon. A hardpoint size system is a tool that the devs can use to easily balance the game, add variety to mech builds, and prevent a host of future issues that will crop up.

I disagree that it will solve any of those issues. Thus my being here.

I can leave if you prefer to have a members only discussion.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 April 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Disagree.

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example, with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

If you believe this, you should just check out of the conversation. You are not qualified to have it.

3rdworld, on 30 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

I disagree that it will solve any of those issues. Thus my being here.

I can leave if you prefer to have a members only discussion.

Your first post in this thread is the very definition of a strawman. You create an idea that did not even exist at this point and attack it.

You follow that up by telling another poster that they are not qualified to be in the thread, after you bring up PPCs (which are decidedly not hardpoints as far as I know)

This is a forum, and you are free to disagree. However, if you cannot respond directly and maturely when challenged to defend your stances, and you cannot stay on topic (which again, is hardpoints) then you need to leave the thread, as you have been asked to do before.

You have displayed repeated failure to follow these most basic rules of discussion; displaying at best ignorance of how to stay on topic and at worst an intentional derailing of an otherwise productive thread.

Get out.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 30 April 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Your first post in this thread is the very definition of a strawman. You create an idea that did not even exist at this point and attack it.

You follow that up by telling another poster that they are not qualified to be in the thread, after you bring up PPCs (which are decidedly not hardpoints as far as I know)

This is a forum, and you are free to disagree. However, if you cannot respond directly and maturely when challenged to defend your stances, and you cannot stay on topic (which again, is hardpoints) then you need to leave the thread, as you have been asked to do before.

You have displayed repeated failure to follow these most basic rules of discussion; displaying at best ignorance of how to stay on topic and at worst an intentional derailing of an otherwise productive thread.

Get out.

[redacted]
Actually my last few posts have been on topic. You see I unlike yourself or most of your ilk will explain how I would fix the situation when asked.

"at this point", I must have been a freaking psychic to know an argument that would get posted before it even happened.

[redacted]

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 11:40 AM.
Unconstructive

[Shumabot]

And now that I provide the example he asks for TWICE he ignores it and starts trolling someone else.

It's getting pretty gold in here

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Considering how, in real terms, little this actually does, no. It doesn't "butcher" anything outside of the dude ridgehumping with 5 PPCs. The head spread isn't much of an answer to the alpha meta when it only reasonably nerfs one good build (4ppc stalker) and leaves the majority of highlanders and 3Ds alone while only materially redistributing the stalkers damage, not really even reducing its DPS.

Don't need to reduce its dps. Just remove its ability to spam alphas. the highlander in question overheats from shooting its ppcs on CD around 3 times in a row. Assuming the mech is actually fighting, it will be like a 6 PPC stalker is today, unless it splits its shots, and thus spreads its damage.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

So we're only materially considering the impact of the system on a single light mech now (the D) in order to push a system that only materially partially nerfs one single popular build and we're saying its ok across everything? Also, this doesn't do anything to boating (still).

How did I only consider the D? The F will be fine. Lights don't set there and spam over and over. Ballistic rewind has removed that ability.

Don't need to do anything about boating. In a situations were it is not that great, it will take care of itself.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How..? You lose a small measure of capacitance but the moment your heat cooling becomes equivalent to one round of alpha your damage actually increases. Losing a single ppc shot to avoid overheat once and then having your damage spread increase past 10 seconds isn't really going to hurt them very much.

They aren't chilling around at 0 heat. They will generate around 10 is heat per shot, and with an instant 25 ish heat per shot. Lowering their damage to targets en route + fewer alphas till overheat

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Lets go over all the ways you're being an *****. Firstly, how about that 10 ML awesome you pulled out of thin air. If we assume a conversion rate of 7MGs to 1 ac10 that's a conversion rate of ~.5/2 tons. Ergo a "large laser slot" could hold ~1.25 medium lasers, this allows an awesome at its maximal capacity to hold ~8.75 mediums. But what if it had an ac20? Can that slot then hold ~9 machine guns? How is that even a conversion rate then, that pre supposes a final state to build the basis of its own equation.

And yet you're running with that nonsense like a little kid running with scissors poolside and making stuff up all along the way.

7 is the number of crits in an AC/10. The 10 MLs awesome takes this system ie, # of crits per type adds up 3 ppcs + 1 sls to reach 10 energy crit slots.

you cannot see the obvious, right in front of your face.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Your ability to read nonsense between the lines of a two line explanation of a system that doesn't even make coherent sense in the first place and wasn't represented as a system but rather an individual example inside of an unexplained system is amazing. This is what creationism looks like.

And your posts are what republican vs liberal debates look like. You don't understand my position so feel making personal attacks strengthens yours.

It seems I am the only one better than that.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I'll just restate the most common proposal.

There are two kinds of hardpoints, large and small and two kinds of weapons, large and small.

Large laser, PPC, ERPPC, Pulse/erLL = large
The rest of the energy weapons = small

A stalker has 2 large energy hardpoints on its flippers and the rest are small, ergo it can have two PPCs and numerous smaller backups weapons. An awsome has 3 large, ergo it can have 3 PPCs and numerous small weapons. This is the change that makes the "big arm gun" not a terrible detriment to a mech because it materially matters.

LRM 15/20, SRM6 = Large
Lrm5/10, streaks, srm2-4 are = Small

A cat A1 would have 6 small missile hardpoints allowing for numerous LRM5/10's or up to 6 SRM4's. Effective loss of two SRM6's from its previous 36 srm cap. This prevents LRM60 entirely.

Large scale ballistic hardpoints meaningfully prevent dual goose or ac40 catapaults with empty ears.

Makes the stock A1 impossible. Makes stock stalkers impossible.

Are you adding additional hardpoints or keeping it with stock weapons determining location and size? Ie the awesome has 3 ppcs. Are you just modifying some of the current hardpoint #s?

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

It's cute that you've clearly never run into the idea of hardpoint sizes before and are pretending you know what you're talking about.

Keep projecting. This has been talked about before. It was a bad idea in CB and it is still a bad idea now.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Then why are you here? The entire point of hardpoint sizes is to prevent homogeneity in builds through boating.

And it won't do that.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Stop conflating boating and "firing their weapons". It makes you sound stupid. Anything firing a lot of guns overheats quicky, boating mechs will STILL BE BETTER during that interim period before overheat because their maximizing their dps, hitting in the most intended and precision areas, and have the best engine and heat tolerances for their specific conflict range.

So sticking 4 ppcs on a mech and firing them every once in a while is just as much of a problem as sticking 4 ppcs on my mech and spamming them in hill popping alphas?

and boating will STILL BE BETTER with hardpoint sizes. correct heat adjustments & weapon balancing will make it a non issue. Doing both would be silly, as it would only lower customization.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Many proposals have been listed in this thread and you chose the most nonsensical to strawman repeatedly. You're a troll, but i posted the most common suggestion for you.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

I still need more information to accurately assess your suggestion.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 April 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[Accursed Richards]

This should tell you what you need to know about 3rdworld:

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Hey hopefully you will leave this thread and let it die, like every other hardpoint crit limit thread since CB

He doesn't like the idea, so he's trying to drag it off topic and cloud the issue. You can keep enabling him, or you can allow someone to be WRONG on the INTERNET and go back to constructive discussion.

[3rdworld]

Accursed Richards, on 30 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

This should tell you what you need to know about 3rdworld:



He doesn't like the idea, so he's trying to drag it off topic and cloud the issue. You can keep enabling him, or you can allow someone to be WRONG on the INTERNET and go back to constructive discussion.

This post is very on topic and relevant. Thank you.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Don't need to reduce its dps. Just remove its ability to spam alphas. the highlander in question overheats from shooting its ppcs on CD around 3 times in a row. Assuming the mech is actually fighting, it will be like a 6 PPC stalker is today, unless it splits its shots, and thus spreads its damage.

It can't spam ultra high alphas quite as well? Congrats, it still did considerable damage as you were moving in and killed you before you mattered. You didn't fix anything in the metagame. But you sure showed you only have one idea.

Quote

How did I only consider the D? The F will be fine. Lights don't set there and spam over and over. Ballistic rewind has removed that ability.

Don't need to do anything about boating. In a situations were it is not that great, it will take care of itself.

Which is a nonsense childish non answer showing you're clearly unwilling to engage in any form of debate.

"weapon balance fixes boating because reasons I won't state"

Is a terrible argument and it's all you have.

Quote

7 is the number of crits in an AC/10. The 10 MLs awesome takes this system ie, # of crits per type adds up 3 ppcs + 1 sls to reach 10 energy crit slots.

you cannot see the obvious, right in front of your face.

I didn't see it because you arbitrarily made it up, like most of your arguments.

Quote

And your posts are what republican vs liberal debates look like. You don't understand my position so feel making personal attacks strengthens yours.

It seems I am the only one better than that.

Says the guy using a laundry list of logical fallacies, and whose posts are like one paragraph long without them.

Quote

Keep projecting. This has been talked about before. It was a bad idea in CB and it is still a bad idea now.

Oh please. You begged me to illustrate a system other than the random one you made up in your head and now suddenly you're a master of them all, been here done that? Puke. What are you? 10?

Quote

And it won't do that.

Yes. It will. It can't NOT do that. It is literally impossible for it to not do that. Are you high?

Quote

So sticking 4 ppcs on a mech and firing them every once in a while is just as much of a problem as sticking 4 ppcs on my mech and spamming them in hill popping alphas?

Please respond to what I actually posted, not what your fevered brain made up.

Quote

and boating will STILL BE BETTER with hardpoint sizes. correct heat adjustments & weapon balancing will make it a non issue. Doing both would be silly, as it would only lower customization.

Correct, boating will never not be the best possible way to play this game. The entire point is to reduce it and encourage diversified builds on multiple mech variants rather than always taking the most boat capable mech with the smallest frame, like I have said five ******** times. Like everyone keeps telling you. What is wrong with you? Do you even read these posts at all?

Quote

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

I still need more information to accurately assess your suggestion.

No, what you need to do is drop the act and stop acting like a brain dead child. Everyone is just insulting you now because you've turned into a black hole of trollish ignorant stupidity. You don't engage anyone on their ideas and you're straw man to normal post ratio is almost 1:1 now. You're a chore to communicate with and you seemingly have nothing to offer the discussion besides trollish whining.

Edited by Shumabot, 30 April 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[MasterErrant]

Homeless Bill, on 25 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's becoming clearer and clearer how much this is needed to prevent ridiculous boating. The Stalker was never meant to mount PPCs, the K2 was never meant to boat ballistics, etc., and the result is that a lot of 'mechs are becoming redundant. It's not bad. Not yet. But with as few 'mechs as we have now and as many will eventually be released, it's going to get worse quickly.

Why can a Raven mount the same AC/20 that a Hunchback can, but it doesn't have a huge hardpoint that everyone shoots for first? It's blatantly unfair to allow 'mechs to have all the advantages of large hardpoints with none of the drawbacks. The larger gun models are not enough - and even if they were, PGI plans to ramp up 'mech releases (plus, the Clans are coming eventually); how are they going to keep selling 'mechs if much of a chassis' uniqueness is diluted by redundancy?

I love all the Awesomes, and I run them whenever I'm not grinding. But they have a couple very niche roles they can shine in, whereas the Stalker is largely superior in most other respects. And it largely comes down to the lack of hardpoint sizes.

At first, the lack of limitations was good for diversity. Now, the more 'mechs they release, the worse things are going to get.

what he said

[Yokaiko]

No drawback for stacking Ballistics on a K2 or an AC20 on a Raven?


Your trolling, you absolutely HAVE to be trolling, the list is LONG.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

It can't spam ultra high alphas quite as well? Congrats, it still did considerable damage as you were moving in and killed you before you mattered. You didn't fix anything in the metagame. But you sure showed you only have one idea.

high alpha spamming is the problem, which leads to massive boating. But you don't understand anything that is not your position, just like the political observation made earlier.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Which is a nonsense childish non answer showing you're clearly unwilling to engage in any form of debate.

"weapon balance fixes boating because reasons I won't state"

Is a terrible argument and it's all you have.

There is no debate. Only you making personal attacks.

Have stated it many times. You either choose to ignore it, or don't care to hear it.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

I didn't see it because you arbitrarily made it up, like most of your arguments.

I made it up? you mean like thinking I am talking about some idiotic system that uses stock weapon weights?

Please. You missed and are to pretentious to notice the blatantly obvious.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Says the guy using a laundry list of logical fallacies, and whose posts are like one paragraph long without them.

Yet, the statement is still true.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Oh please. You begged me to illustrate a system other than the random one you made up in your head and now suddenly you're a master of them all, been here done that? Puke. What are you? 10?

And I asked you a few questions about it and pointed out that your 2 examples broke stock mechs. But like anything that disagrees with you, it is easier to insult.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Yes. It will. It can't NOT do that. It is literally impossible for it to not do that. Are you high?

No I understand the game.

Boating = good
hardpoint still leaves mechs in that can boat
Those mechs = good
Other mechs = not as good.

Your system would need something else to stop boating, and then it a waste of time.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Please respond to what I actually posted, not what your fevered brain made up.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Correct, boating will never not be the best possible way to play this game. The entire point is to reduce it and encourage diversified builds on multiple mech variants rather than always taking the most boat capable mech with the smallest frame, like I have said five ******** times. Like everyone keeps telling you. What is wrong with you? Do you even read these posts at all?

And it wont do that as I have explained numerous times. Stock mechs must be possible per PGI.

Even your A1 example would just use 4SRM 4s and 2 SRM 6s, You accomplish nothing.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

No, what you need to do is drop the act and stop acting like a brain dead child. Everyone is just insulting you now because you've turned into a black hole of trollish ignorant stupidity. You don't engage anyone on their ideas and you're straw man to normal post ratio is almost 1:1 now. You're a chore to communicate with and you seemingly have nothing to offer the discussion besides trollish whining.

If I am trolling, I am doing a pretty good job. You and your followers in this thread are getting pretty mad.

[Shumabot]

Quote

high alpha spamming is the problem, which leads to massive boating. But you don't understand anything that is not your position, just like the political observation made earlier.

That sure does explain why every single high end build in the last six months is boating something and focus' on one range band or one range band+srms back when they were bugged. Because it's all 'high alpha'.

Quote

There is no debate. Only you making personal attacks.

Because your posts are devoid of content or substance. I agreed with you that rescaling of heat was a good idea and you said that you didn't think boating was a problem at all. As far as I can tell nothing else you have posted is remotely relevant or new to the discussion.

Quote

Have stated it many times. You either choose to ignore it, or don't care to hear it.

No you haven't. You've just said "balance fixes it". You haven't explained the methodology and the few times you've fumbled into it you've listed incomparable other games like CoD or made arguments from authority. You've never addressed causal relationships.

Quote

I made it up? you mean like thinking I am talking about some idiotic system that uses stock weapon weights?

Please. You missed and are to pretentious to notice the blatantly obvious.

You made it up because you made it up. This isn't a game of charades where the answer is written on the card. You made it up.

Quote

Yet, the statement is still true.

I guess in that way that the concept of the void is self affirming.

Quote

No I understand the game.

Boating = good
hardpoint still leaves mechs in that can boat
Those mechs = good
Other mechs = not as good.

Your system would need something else to stop boating, and then it a waste of time.

So unless boating can be stopped ENTIRELY nothing is worth doing? Even if is massively reduces it and greatly increases build and mech variety? Ok darth.

Quote

And it wont do that as I have explained numerous times.

You should post those explanations in THIS THREAD then. Because you have yet too and it's clear that no one thinks you have.

Quote

Stock mechs must be possible per PGI.

Sure, and nothing about hardpoint sizes really prevents that. Hell, leaving the A1 with 2 large slots and 4 small still drops it by 8 missiles worth of boated SRM alpha and leaves it fully able to fit in its stock loadout. This is just you making up stuff again to suit your nonsense arguments. Hardpoint sizes are, by definition, up to the developers to implement and theres nothing making them incompatible with stock loadouts. NOTHING.

Quote

Even your A1 example would just use 4SRM 4s and 2 SRM 6s, You accomplish nothing.

Except I lowered its damage output by ~20% without materially damaging the viability of other mechs that want to use SRMs.

Quote

If I am trolling, I am doing a pretty good job. You and your followers in this thread are getting pretty mad.

You're a good troll, I admit it. Your ability to weave ad hominim, logical fallacies, and nonsense makes a pretty rage inducing rug.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

That sure does explain why every single high end build in the last six months is boating something and focus' on one range band or one range band+srms back when they were bugged. Because it's all 'high alpha'.

can't tell if sarcasm.

But ya, it pretty much explains the current meta, and gameplay.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

You made it up because you made it up. This isn't a game of charades where the answer is written on the card. You made it up.

I don't see how you can still be saying that. I don't make up how many crits an AC/10 is, nor the quote.

But I have lost most of my faith in you.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

So unless boating can be stopped ENTIRELY nothing is worth doing? Even if is massively reduces it and greatly increases build and mech variety? Ok darth.

If boating is the best option. There are mechs that can boat, you really think people will not just use the boats.

And it basically massacres customization. So ya, pretty much every contention I have ever stated to the harpoint cap size applies to yours. You just ignore it.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

You should post those explanations in THIS THREAD then. Because you have yet too and it's clear that no one thinks you have.

People aren't going to run terrible variation mechs when boats exists and are better per you. Your system doesn't address that. For the thousandth time.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Sure, and nothing about hardpoint sizes really prevents that. Hell, leaving the A1 with 2 large slots and 4 small still drops it by 8 missiles worth of boated SRM alpha and leaves it fully able to fit in its stock loadout. This is just you making up stuff again to suit your nonsense arguments. Hardpoint sizes are, by definition, up to the developers to implement and theres nothing making them incompatible with stock loadouts. NOTHING.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

A cat A1 would have 6 small missile hardpoints

LRM 15s are large. It would not be possible. But hey, if you can't understand my position, I guess it would be too much to ask for you to understand your own.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Except I lowered its damage output by ~20% without materially damaging the viability of other mechs that want to use SRMs.

but now they can add artemis and are more heat efficient. Your system did a fine job.

Shumabot, on 30 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

You're a good troll, I admit it. Your ability to weave ad hominim, logical fallacies, and nonsense makes a pretty rage inducing rug.

Ad hominem. Pertty much explains all of your posts for the last couple of days.

[Shumabot]

Quote

can't tell if sarcasm.

But ya, it pretty much explains the current meta, and gameplay.

Current and only current and it ignores the fact that this has been a problem from the moment players could touch the mechs. Hell, it was WORSE before they started introducing more serious restrictions.

Quote

I don't see how you can still be saying that. I don't make up how many crits an AC/10 is, nor the quote.

But I have lost most of my faith in you.

No, but you made up the awesome, the ppc to medium conversion rate, and interpreted the quote and ran with it in an illogical, non sensical, and trollish way. You made it up because it's not what he said. It's your interpretation it's dumb, and it's all you have to talk about.

Quote

If boating is the best option. There are mechs that can boat, you really think people will not just use the boats.

Sure they will, but when boats are much more rare, rarified, and when they have their efficacy diminished as compared to the whole it invites vastly more variety. Just accept it. It's true.

Quote

And it basically massacres customization. So ya, pretty much every contention I have ever stated to the harpoint cap size applies to yours. You just ignore it.

What customization? The theoretical customization that new players do for 5 minutes before they realize boating is always inherently superior? Oh noes, that indescribably miniscule fraction of players that get massacred and quit the game because they didn't understand the game punishes varied builds. OH NO.

Quote

People aren't going to run terrible variation mechs when boats exists and are better per you. Your system doesn't address that. For the thousandth time.

Ok, you're worse than bishop steiner. Hell, you're worse than roadbeer. We're done. There is literally no possible way my system doesn't address that. Your ONLY EXAMPLE of a common boat build is still forced to become more varied and suffer reduced DPS by your own admission.

AND IT'S YOUR ONLY EXAMPLE, YOU GOT NUTHIN ELSE BRO

Quote

LRM 15s are large. It would not be possible. But hey, if you can't understand my position, I guess it would be too much to ask for you to understand your own.

Please read my last post where I stated that the developers could just give it 2 large and 4 small. In fact YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT EXACT THING IN YOUR LAST POST YOU TROLL. Stop suddenly suffering amnesia and forgetting what even you, yourself posted.

Quote

but now they can add artemis and are more heat efficient. Your system did a fine job.

Oh, the thing they were already doing with 6 SRM6's? Goody. More heat efficient? Clearly you didn't A1, that's not much of a concern, especially not in a post coolant world. They have lower DPS, that is all there is to this. You can not argue otherwise because you are fundamentally wrong and grasping at straws with your ONLY EXAMPLE.

Quote

Ad hominem. Pertty much explains all of your posts for the last couple of days.

Because you deserve to be mocked. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm going to mock you for it when it's nonsensical whiny crap.

[Sybreed]

stop replying quote by quote, this is insanely annoying

[Kivin]

Some of you know that I recently decided to represent this issue in another thread. I would do so here as well, but I honestly can't even get a read on where the hell this discussion is, and who is on who's side. You've all lost your way. This thread needs to be buried, re-made, and retain some decorum on constructive debate.

[Sybreed]

Kivin, on 30 April 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Some of you know that I recently decided to represent this issue in another thread. I would do so here as well, but I honestly can't even get a read on where the hell this discussion is, and who is on who's side. You've all lost your way. This thread needs to be buried, re-made, and retain some decorum on constructive debate.

Word. We need a new thread with 1 or 2 posters banned from it, they are seriously not helping the discussion in any way.

[tenderloving]

Kivin, on 30 April 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Some of you know that I recently decided to represent this issue in another thread. I would do so here as well, but I honestly can't even get a read on where the hell this discussion is, and who is on who's side. You've all lost your way. This thread needs to be buried, re-made, and retain some decorum on constructive debate.

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Word. We need a new thread with 1 or 2 posters banned from it, they are seriously not helping the discussion in any way.

I started a new thread/poll that uses the information gathered from this thread and the others.

[Metafox]

I like how straightforward this poll is. So far it's clear that hardpoint sizes aren't a polarizing issue, whatever that means.

[Destoroyah]

Niko Snow, on 01 May 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Thi8s post was so trolled PGI couldn't resist a trolling!

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Word. We need a new thread with 1 or 2 posters banned from it, they are seriously not helping the discussion in any way.

I feel ye we got a troll:anti-troll war going on or is it a troll:troll war? I'm confused!