30 replies to this topic

[Skyfaller]

It is just silly to have the anti-missile system not be required to be equipped in order for a mech to receive a missile warning message.

Since it was introduced, the missile warning message has effectively removed the 'long range' portion of the LRM.

That missile warning is the single best defense a mech has against missiles. Why then is it not part of the AMS?

Please make the missile warning only function if the player has an AMS system installed. Single AMS warning range: 600m. Dual AMS warning range: 1km.

[JingleHell]

Skyfaller, on 29 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

It is just silly to have the anti-missile system not be required to be equipped in order for a mech to receive a missile warning message.

Since it was introduced, the missile warning message has effectively removed the 'long range' portion of the LRM.

That missile warning is the single best defense a mech has against missiles. Why then is it not part of the AMS?

Please make the missile warning only function if the player has an AMS system installed. Single AMS warning range: 600m. Dual AMS warning range: 1km.

Last I checked, exactly zero mechs can fit dual AMS. You really need to be more subtle in your "my weapon isn't broken, so buff it" thread.

[FupDup]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Last I checked, exactly zero mechs can fit dual AMS.

Sup.

[JingleHell]

FupDup, on 29 July 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

Sup.

Ok, so I hadn't checked recently. Exactly one. Which means it's not exactly a point to balance around. Anyways, it's a terrible idea, unless we're going to make AMS stronger.

This makes AMS a 100% mandatory system, rather than just strongly advised. I run it on anything without ECM. If this were implemented, AMS would need a serious buff to keep up with the soon to increase volume of LRMs flying at you.

Anyways, let's go to reality for a second. These aren't fly by wire. They're guided by active locks, which even modern military hardware can detect. And by modern, I mean a couple of decades old. The AMS in our mechs is purely the part that tracks and shoots down missiles, which is specialized hardware, rather than general hardware.

The better buff to ask for to missiles would be to look for some form of Fire and Forget missiles, however, those historically tend to have minor problems keeping track of who to blow up, and you'd probably get some teamkill penalties.

[xDeityx]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

recently.

Try again.

Edited by xDeityx, 29 July 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Lugh]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Ok, so I hadn't checked recently. Exactly one. Which means it's not exactly a point to balance around. Anyways, it's a terrible idea, unless we're going to make AMS stronger.

This makes AMS a 100% mandatory system, rather than just strongly advised. I run it on anything without ECM. If this were implemented, AMS would need a serious buff to keep up with the soon to increase volume of LRMs flying at you.

Anyways, let's go to reality for a second. These aren't fly by wire. They're guided by active locks, which even modern military hardware can detect. And by modern, I mean a couple of decades old. The AMS in our mechs is purely the part that tracks and shoots down missiles, which is specialized hardware, rather than general hardware.

The better buff to ask for to missiles would be to look for some form of Fire and Forget missiles, however, those historically tend to have minor problems keeping track of who to blow up, and you'd probably get some teamkill penalties.

Sorry Johnny there are TWO. An Atlas (The K which has been around since closed beta )and a Stalker.

Edited by Lugh, 29 July 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[JingleHell]

xDeityx, on 29 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Try again.

You assume that when I started playing again, I memorized the hardpoints and stats for every chassis I had no real interest in playing, and you play semantics to avoid responding to my actual points. Nuff said.

[FupDup]

Lugh, on 29 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Sorry Johnny there are TWO. An Atlas (The K which has been around since closed beta )and a Stalker.

Oh, I forgot about the Atlas K.

[JingleHell]

FupDup, on 29 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Oh, I forgot about the Atlas K.

Me too, apparently. Regardless, instead of crying about me failing to memorize information on mechs I've never had much interest in playing (if they were any slower they'd move backwards), let's try responding to my primary points.

LRMs are already functionally strong. In fact, forcing everyone to take an AMS would probably nerf you, instead of being the buff you seem to want, since it would increase the volley defense as long as people stayed moderately grouped.

Yes, they have weaknesses. They kind of have to when they're indirect fire.

[xDeityx]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

You assume that when I started playing again, I memorized the hardpoints and stats for every chassis I had no real interest in playing, and you play semantics to avoid responding to my actual points. Nuff said.

Actually I was just clarifying that 'recently' is incorrect. The Atlas is one of the four founders' 'mechs so 'recent' has nothing to do with it, you just straight up didn't know. Which is fine, except that you made a snarky reply that 'exactly zero' 'mechs had dual AMS when the truth is that one of them has had it since you started playing. If you haven't memorized the hard points for each chassis then don't make a claim which requires you to at least have looked at each one.

edit: as to the points you made, I'm not interested in that discussion because I think the OP is worthless. I'd rather be a pedant.

Edited by xDeityx, 29 July 2013 - 09:21 AM.

[JingleHell]

xDeityx, on 29 July 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Actually I was just clarifying that 'recently' is incorrect. The Atlas is one of the four founders' 'mechs so 'recent' has nothing to do with it, you just straight up didn't know. Which is fine, except that you made a snarky reply that 'exactly zero' 'mechs had dual AMS when the truth is that one of them has had it since you started playing. If you haven't memorized the hard points for each chassis then don't make a claim which requires you to at least have looked at each one.

Oh, because your whine thread about one of the primary things keeping LRMs in check deserves better than snark? Speaking of "since the beginning", let's talk about what happens when LRMs get buffs. Pre-nerf LRMs on the Artemis patch day, anyone? Then even the missile lock alarm couldn't save you, because there were only about 3 pieces of cover on existing maps that could protect you once the things were in the air.

[Kitane]

+1 for Incoming Missiles warning being a function of AMS system. No AMS, no warning.

[xDeityx]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Oh, because your whine thread about one of the primary things keeping LRMs in check deserves better than snark? Speaking of "since the beginning", let's talk about what happens when LRMs get buffs. Pre-nerf LRMs on the Artemis patch day, anyone? Then even the missile lock alarm couldn't save you, because there were only about 3 pieces of cover on existing maps that could protect you once the things were in the air.

Link to my whine thread about LRMs please, I was unaware I had one. I don't remember that I've ever created a thread actually.

I have no idea what you're talking about with any of this to be honest...did you mean to reply to me?

Again, I was just pointing out the fallacy in your attempt to sidestep your lack of knowledge by writing it off as "I haven't checked recently." Recently had nothing to do with it because the 'mech with dual AMS had been in the game as long as you've been playing. You originally responded like a know-it-all but you had your facts totally incorrect. People will call you out when you do that.

[Boogie Man]

Horrible idea is horrible. It is fine how it is right now.

[JingleHell]

xDeityx, on 29 July 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Link to my whine thread about LRMs please, I was unaware I had one. I don't remember that I've ever created a thread actually.

I have no idea what you're talking about with any of this to be honest...did you mean to reply to me?

Again, I was just pointing out the fallacy in your attempt to sidestep your lack of knowledge by writing it off as "I haven't checked recently." Recently had nothing to do with it because the 'mech with dual AMS had been in the game as long as you've been playing. You originally responded like a know-it-all but you had your facts totally incorrect. People will call you out when you do that.

No fallacy, at what point did I sidestep my lack of knowledge? I admitted to being incorrect. In fact, if anyone is being fallacious, it's all the ad hominem attacks pointed at me to avoid answering my points about the proposed change.

[SprinkleFree]

Boogie Man, on 29 July 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Horrible idea is horrible. It is fine how it is right now.

+1. As JingleHell pointed out, we have the technology to detect missile locks TODAY, in 2013, and have had it for years. No reason for a mech 500 years in the future to bolt on 1,000 pounds worth of hardware in order to detect it. And as JingleHell also said (what can I say, great minds think alike) the result of your silly LRM buff would actually backfire against LRM users because it would create a larger safety net of AMSs.

[Zyllos]

Honestly, I think the missile warning should be AMS range, (250m?) regardless if you have AMS equipped.

BAP should give a warning if any missiles are locked on to you, it being a sensor suite and all.

This would be a good balancer to making LRMs act like SSRMs in groups of 5 (which is called a swarm) so less of the damage is centered on the torso sections.

[xDeityx]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

No fallacy, at what point did I sidestep my lack of knowledge? I admitted to being incorrect. In fact, if anyone is being fallacious, it's all the ad hominem attacks pointed at me to avoid answering my points about the proposed change.

Like I said, I'm not getting involved in the OP's discussion. I was reading the thread and saw you posting like a jerk while spouting misinformation, so that's what I chose to reply to. I am under no obligation to respond to something you wrote just because you wrote it.

Ad hominem is used fallaciously in your above post, because nowhere in my post do I address anything other than the words you wrote and the argument you presented. Please quote where I attack you personally and not the words you wrote. I'm responding to your claim that the reason you made the original incorrect statement that there are no dual AMS 'mechs is because 'you hadn't checked recently' and then you went on to make the incorrect statement that there was only one 'mech in the game with dual AMS. Both of those are incorrect. The reason that you didn't know about the dual AMS 'mechs had nothing to do with checking recently because the Atlas has been in the game since you have played it.

All clear now? Are we done with this worthless tangent yet? Also I'm still waiting for you to link to "my LRM whine thread."

[Novakaine]

JingleHell, on 29 July 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Last I checked, exactly zero mechs can fit dual AMS. You really need to be more subtle in your "my weapon isn't broken, so buff it" thread.

Stalker bro.

[Rippthrough]

FupDup, on 29 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Oh, I forgot about the Atlas K.

You forgot about the best mech in the game?!

Heathen. Die.