71 replies to this topic

[Liquid Leopard]

Muffin Stump, on 01 September 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Wrong.

^ This makes you come off as being confrontational, and there's no need for that if we're both trying to help the original poster.

You have a valid point that a mech with a standard engine can take more hits, and I have several Cataphract configurations built that way. I could actually build a poptart sniper like this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c8d4d4c4848f2f7
If you had something else in mind, I would honestly like to see your counterproposal. Everything I come up with using a standard engine is much slower than my configs with an XL, and being slow brings its own vulnerability.

When I must use a standard engine, I don't bother using a PPC/Gauss configuration. It's a heavy combination, and I can have fun with something else.

When I first got a Cataphract I paid attention to the forum posts and stuck with standard engines, but then I realized the CT is a huge target, and it gets cored out WAY more often than "Death by XL".

The forums also had me believing the Cataphract's head was a huge target, and I later realized you have to hit the right pane of glass to register a head hit. The head hitbox is now a tiny target, and I'd been following outdated information.

XL engines are expensive, and I worked without them when C-Bills were tight, but in most mechs they have a big advantage in weight savings, and little effect on survivability.

Your experience may vary.

Edited by Liquid Leopard, 01 September 2013 - 05:45 AM.

[Void Angel]

Kattspya, on 01 September 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person"

Edit: I know cognitive dissonance is painful so just step out of your armor and join us.

Words have meaning; just as it is intellectually dishonest to twist words to mean what was not intended by the speaker, it is also reprehensible to use a word inappropriately simply because of its negative value.

PGI broke a promise which they made in haste - this isn't a good thing, but it is what it is. However, insistence on the term "lie," simply because the word is a pejorative, is disgusting. It's the most petty kind of mud-slinging, and it's untrue. A lie is a false statement made with deliberate attempt to deceive - promising something and later recanting the promise does not qualify. A lie requires intent; PGI's position changed, they didn't lie about it. To insist that they did lie actually makes you a liar. I dislike 3PV as well, and I think it should be tweaked so that people can't swap back and forth in matches, at the very least. But my dislike doesn't change the facts, and I will not resort to name-calling to make my case.

I know cognitive dissonance is painful, so just hop off your hypocrisy horse and join us on solid ground.

Edited by Void Angel, 01 September 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Kattspya]

Void Angel, on 01 September 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Words have meaning; just as it is intellectually dishonest to twist words to mean what was not intended by the speaker, it is also reprehensible to use a word inappropriately simply because of its negative value.

PGI broke a promise which they made in haste - this isn't a good thing, but it is what it is. However, insistence on the term "lie," simply because the word is a pejorative, is disgusting. It's the most petty kind of mud-slinging, and it's untrue. A lie is a false statement made with deliberate attempt to deceive - promising something and later recanting the promise does not qualify. A lie requires intent; PGI's position changed, they didn't lie about it. To insist that they did lie actually makes you a liar. I dislike 3PV as well, and I think it should be tweaked so that people can't swap back and forth in matches, at the very least. But my dislike doesn't change the facts, and I will not resort to name-calling to make my case.

I know cognitive dissonance is painful, so just hop off your hypocrisy horse and join us on solid ground.

"Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person"

[Void Angel]

Repeating yourself verbatim when your position has been thoroughly debunked (in the very post you quoted) doesn't magically make you right - it makes you childish and unreasonable. Goodbye. See you when you reach adulthood.

[Muffin Stump]

Liquid Leopard, on 01 September 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

^ This makes you come off as being confrontational, and there's no need for that if we're both trying to help the original poster.

You have a valid point that a mech with a standard engine can take more hits, and I have several Cataphract configurations built that way. I could actually build a poptart sniper like this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c8d4d4c4848f2f7
If you had something else in mind, I would honestly like to see your counterproposal.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I am being confrontational. If that makes sense. We're just talking builds, hehe, no big woop...

Anyways, uhm...

*looks around*

Here, this is the proper build... it is build like so:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...169c1f5edd23295

Without derailing the rest of this thread or getting into trouble, I'll PM you from this point out.

To the op - don't let anyone influence your opinion, just pick peoples thoughts on stuff... I think the game is a lot of fun... check it out for yourself and if you think it's worth sticking around for, now is the time because CW is right around the corner!

Edited by Muffin Stump, 01 September 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Death Knell]

LRM's aren't terrible. They allow you to support your team in fights from up to a kilometer away, regardless of LoS.

[Void Angel]

The problem is that you're supporting them with a mediocre amount of damage which is rather easily avoidable and spread across their chassis even if it does hit. The balance of benefits (extremely long range, homing damage, indirect fire) and drawbacks (multiple counters, reduced accuracy and increased spread in indirect fire, scattered damage that's nothing to write home about in the first place) just doesn't feel like it's positive right now.

It's not that LRMs are "terrible," or "useless," but they are sub-par.

[Kattspya]

Void Angel, on 01 September 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Repeating yourself verbatim when your position has been thoroughly debunked (in the very post you quoted) doesn't magically make you right - it makes you childish and unreasonable. Goodbye. See you when you reach adulthood.

Yep, you better run. Words have meaning and all that.

[Bracchus]

Void Angel, on 01 September 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

It's not that LRMs are "terrible," or "useless," but they are sub-par.

I have to agree, they aren't bad, but not great either. Unless you spam them, then they get very nasty. Catapults spamming LRMs can ruin your day fast. But I found that the best thing with LRMs is that they tend to get people running for cover. So I usually use them for crowed control, most players will simply not be efficent when they have LRMs raining down on them.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bracchus, on 02 September 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

I have to agree, they aren't bad, but not great either. Unless you spam them, then they get very nasty. Catapults spamming LRMs can ruin your day fast. But I found that the best thing with LRMs is that they tend to get people running for cover. So I usually use them for crowed control, most players will simply not be efficent when they have LRMs raining down on them.

To add to that - it really does not take a very big launcher to make them do that either
- I maintain at least an LRM5 on all my Centurion just for that purpose - that and I tend to wind up in the wrong canyon in the canyon map even when I stick with the group....

[Bracchus]

Shar Wolf, on 02 September 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

To add to that - it really does not take a very big launcher to make them do that either
- I maintain at least an LRM5 on all my Centurion just for that purpose - that and I tend to wind up in the wrong canyon in the canyon map even when I stick with the group....

Yep, really good for making those 2xERPPC/Gauss snipers stay behind their chosen cover while you advance

[Mudhutwarrior]

Past what the apologists have to say if you play pug you don"t stand much of a chance here. I have seen some pretty wild stretches to justify putting voice coordinated teams against pugs but they defy any logic most often. They will tell you to join a team so you to can enjoy slaughtering the innocent but none of that has any bearing on attracting new players. I think many of these guys like to torture animals by their need to post multiple GG after a quick slaughter.
PGI has made it even more difficult to get any fun out of the game by building or experimenting by killing dollars earned or sucking in newbs to sell what they have to make cash at loan shark prices. Or getting total suckers to spend real money thinking that will help. It won't but PGI will have pizza on your dime.

Fact is until they let pugs decide if the want to play against teams or not they will always be bleeding new players. Out of 8 I got to join 8 left because of these reasons. Its insanity.the way it stands.

I