172 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 January 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Deathlike... I wsa hit by arty last week in my Battlemaster, I took damage all over... Are you saying One arty shell is putting all 40 damage on the melon?

It might not necessarily be 1 direct hit, but 2 relatively close hits to the head (from the same arty/airstrike) is usually sufficient (assuming they aren't using the old splash damage calculations). When you're taking an arty hit to the head, usually, you are taking a serious hit to the CT anyways, but since I'm not familiar with how they are calculating damage now (I assume it's damage by proximity ratio), that's probably accounting how the cockpit is hit. The bigger the cockpit radius, the greater the damage bubble.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ok, Since i am in a Battlemaster and it has what I think is an exposed Cockpit, I will be mindful of if I die to arty or not. I still take responsibility if I die cause I will have been warned.

[Doctor Proctor]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 January 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Ok, Since i am in a Battlemaster and it has what I think is an exposed Cockpit, I will be mindful of if I die to arty or not. I still take responsibility if I die cause I will have been warned.

Well, that's assuming you see the smoke plume. It can be placed directly behind your mech, around a corner, on top of a resource collector that you're under or even at a higher/lower elevation in certain areas where you're close to a near vertical surface (Tourmaline, for example, has several spots like this where people like to drop arty strikes). Any of those sorts of locations make it difficult to impossible to see, unless you constantly pinwheel your mech about looking in all directions every .25 seconds (which would be another problem altogether if you play like that). Only an {Dezgra} would miss the smoke if it always appeared directly in front of your cockpit.

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 31 January 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

I thought I was pretty clear on how it should work.

100% 33 pt Full Head Armor -> immediately dead by one arty/airstrike = NOT ACCEPTABLE

This is your opinion, and a perfect example of the "I don't like it" position you talked about above.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

100% 33 pt Full Head Armor -> 1 Arty/Airstrike + whatever else hits the head (meaning another arty/airstrike, laser, whatever weapon of choice) = ACCEPTABLE

The point I was getting at is that more than one shell falls during a single artillery strike and you could still die to that one artillery strike alone even if you lowered the damage to a point it wouldn't one shot you. Is that ok, or is that also a problem, and if it is a problem why let them kill you at all?

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Do you not even understand the implications of 80 damage per projectile? There would be hordes more crying and not because of instant-head gibbing. It would just be a casual artifact of the stupid amounts of damage that would be added.

I do understand the implications, which is why I am all for leaving them as they are.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Well, until they add something to address arty deployments (they have yet to do this since its debut), I'm not sure what else I can suggest. When I mean AUDIO CUE, it doesn't mean Betty has to inform you... in MW2, there were plenty of audio cues denoting problems (like a missile launch warning). The fact that the smoke indicator is not sufficient IMO (because most of the time, it is usually a sign of being too late to avoid once you realize its there) is a problem. I would prefer both audio and visual, but if it has to be one or the other, MAKE IT SO. Right now, it's insufficient.

Fair enough, but I would suggest making suggestions to address those problems instead of nerfing artillery/air strikes which would do nothing for that. Once they break them with a pointless nerf they are unlikely to go back and fix them even if they fix the information problem, which they would have little incentive to do if you preemptively nerf artillery/air strikes.

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

It might not necessarily be 1 direct hit, but 2 relatively close hits to the head (from the same arty/airstrike) is usually sufficient (assuming they aren't using the old splash damage calculations). When you're taking an arty hit to the head, usually, you are taking a serious hit to the CT anyways, but since I'm not familiar with how they are calculating damage now (I assume it's damage by proximity ratio), that's probably accounting how the cockpit is hit. The bigger the cockpit radius, the greater the damage bubble.

My understanding is that it does 40pts of damage at the point of impact and the damage falls off from there to the edge of the explosion radius.

Edited by WarHippy, 31 January 2014 - 12:26 PM.

[Deathlike]

WarHippy, on 31 January 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

This is your opinion, and a perfect example of the "I don't like it" position you talked about above.

"I don't like it" is more about "giving your opinion" but having no facts or at least logical reasoning to back that up. Having on an opinion on things is fine, but you have to be able to defend your position within reason to make that point.

You might be thinking it is just a preference, and sure it can be, but unlike differences of opinion, these things won't affect my bottom line. Even if what I'm vouching for does have a personal gain or benefit, there are a lot more reaching effects than just "it benefits me". If I told you that spending 80k C-bills on some fictional consumable assures that the target will be guaranteed to die, people will buy it, regardless of whether it is profitable. Even though the current version of the consumable makes no such guarantee, the oft chance that it does insta-gib someone is not healthy for the game, as much as it's "fine" in random PUGs, but when you have to use it to decide for territory or something... well, the recorded events of "the arty/airstrike" defined the battle after instantly gibbing that 100% healthy mech in the first few minutes... well, that's going to translate to the death of a game due to poor balance.

Quote

The point I was getting at is that more than one shell falls during a single artillery strike and you could still die to that one artillery strike alone even if you lowered the damage to a point it wouldn't one shot you. Is that ok, or is that also a problem, and if it is a problem why let them kill you at all?

Why are you going to an extreme to prove your point? Just based on the math alone, it will take less than 50% damage (or the damage radius) of 2 projectiles of the arty/airstrike to kill the cockpit of any mech (16.5 damage per projectile, 41.25%). However, the cockpit radius of every mech is variable, so someone else smarter than me can figure out the size of the projectile vs the size of the cockpit that would make this favorable or unfavorable with actual math.

Quote

I do understand the implications, which is why I am all for leaving them as they are.

Fair enough, but it will continually unacceptable for some. I think it's terrible and I personally can live with it, but as it stands, I'd rather be vocal for a change because it's not beneficial for the game in the grand scheme of things.

Quote

Fair enough, but I would suggest making suggestions to address those problems instead of nerfing artillery/air strikes which would do nothing for that. Once they break them with a pointless nerf they are unlikely to go back and fix them even if they fix the information problem, which they would have little incentive to do if you preemptively nerf artillery/air strikes.

You don't have to nerf the airstrike/arty directly, even a damage reduction to the head is sufficient (minimum 25% damage reduction required). I've been giving less harmful options to address the situation, but leaving it as is will not resolve the matter at hand.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Jack Avery]

Honestly, I am okay with the damage of both, even the head shots. It is a large artillery shell/bomb being delivered into your lap...live...so it should hurt. Or kill.

That said, the cooldown isn't remotely long enough. And no, 20 seconds doesn't cut it, either. If you want it to be powerful, if you want it to be able to headshot someone, you are asking for 60 seconds minimum. If you or your team want it to have a high payoff, you have to pay a high risk for that. That risk comes from a misaimed and wasted strike with the inability to repeat for a considerable amount of time. Besides, it is a 15 minute match, you could still get a full 12 off in a long match, but that shouldn't be the expectation. Start carrying other modules.

[Roadkill]

I write:

Roadkill, on 30 January 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

It feels the same to me.

And you respond:

Deathlike, on 30 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Although, the one button random arty/airstrike headshot kill is better?

How did you read "same" yet hear "better" in your head?

I repeat, it feels THE SAME to me. All of those cases essentially feel random on the receiving end. One second you're fine, the next second *poof* Mech falls down.

And I'll also repeat that I've never been killed by artillery or an airstrike at all, let along headshot by one. If you're getting killed like that regularly, you're doing something wrong.

Deathlike, on 30 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

The irony to that is that this tends to happen to walking mechs. You are making the general faulty assumption that everyone is just milling around, waiting for something to occur. That's not the case under reasonable circumstances (aka, your target isn't a complete newbie).

Ironically, EVERY jump sniper in the 12-man queues is carrying one. It's not a counter to jump snipers in that sense of your suggestion.

Jump snipers aren't truly mobile. They're standing (or milling about) in mostly fixed or easily predictable positions getting ready for their next jump snipe. THAT is why everyone carries artillery in the 12-man queue - BECAUSE it's a perfect counter to the 12-man meta.

Something else that makes snipers excellent targets for artillery and airstrikes is that they're usually using zoom which reduces their situational awareness. Brawlers are constantly moving and looking around, so they're likely to see the smoke long before it's dangerous. Yet again, artillery/airstrikes are working to discourage the long range sniping meta.

Of course, if people would rather ignore the not-so-subtle hint that they're getting when they get clobbered by artillery, that's their problem. But it doesn't mean that artillery/airstrikes need a nerf.

And I don't even use them. Too expensive for me, I need the c-bills. But I like that they're in the game and that they have a chance of taking out jump snipers, hill humpers, and campers because all three of those things make the game stale.

If you want to reduce the chance of artillery or airstrikes hitting the head, that'd be fine. But in that case I'd want the time-to-target reduced or something to offset the nerf. And no, doubling the number of shells while halving their damage doesn't have the same effect. I don't want to do 20 damage to every Mech in the circle. I want to do 40 damage to some of them. That turns the ones that do get hit into targets. Doing 20 damage to everyone doesn't help with target selection.

[Deathlike]

Roadkill, on 31 January 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

How did you read "same" yet hear "better" in your head?

No... my point that I was trying to imply was more like "is this truly the same?" I guess the overall result is the same... but how you got there is different. My personal difference is that they aren't quite the same (almost like trying to argue the "ends justify the means" kind of discussion). One allows you to dictate whether or not you survive due to personal build, and one doesn't give you that much of a choice, outside of being fortunate or unfortunate. In both cases, you can be unfortunate, but at least in the case of the instant headshot with direct fire (not airstrike/arty), you probably can still survive it outright.

Quote

And I'll also repeat that I've never been killed by artillery or an airstrike at all, let along headshot by one. If you're getting killed like that regularly, you're doing something wrong.

It's not regular, so I guess that's the only nice benefit.

Quote

Jump snipers aren't truly mobile. They're standing (or milling about) in mostly fixed or easily predictable positions getting ready for their next jump snipe. THAT is why everyone carries artillery in the 12-man queue - BECAUSE it's a perfect counter to the 12-man meta.

That's half correct. Poor meta jumpers tend to stay in the same area. I'm probably guilty of that in PUG matches. In 12-mans, I'm compelled to find a different locations to jump from within the same area. Although I'm probably firing from the same direction, it's not as easier to get a beat on me because you're expecting a strict up and down motion, instead of a "jump from left to right" (not that it isn't counterable, but it makes for tougher retaliation shots).

Quote

Something else that makes snipers excellent targets for artillery and airstrikes is that they're usually using zoom which reduces their situational awareness. Brawlers are constantly moving and looking around, so they're likely to see the smoke long before it's dangerous. Yet again, artillery/airstrikes are working to discourage the long range sniping meta.

TBH, most effective arty/airstrike engagements are used within brawling to semi-long range (PPC/LL distances). It is actually more difficult to plant the arty at a longer distance (ERPPC/Gauss Rifle range)... and the damage done is usually not high enough to justify that usage. It's better to get rid of clumps of slow mechs than the sniper/lrm boat at long range.

Quote

And I don't even use them. Too expensive for me, I need the c-bills. But I like that they're in the game and that they have a chance of taking out jump snipers, hill humpers, and campers because all three of those things make the game stale.

The risk/reward deal has changed their usage quite a bit, so I'm kinda willing to pay for the 40k for every match if I had/wanted to use them every match. 2 is too much for me, but the C-Hundred Millionaires (and Billionaire) is probably not affected.

Also.. with respect to JJs. Although an arty/airstrike does "shoo" them away... jumpjets to a degree have a better opportunity to "reduce" the damage dealt. Unlike the ground bound mechs, you can at least jumpjet above the intended destination to reduce the overall hits to the body (unless, the projectiles hit the body). Chances are, the damage is actually more focused on the legs, and assuming you aren't skimping on the leg armor, the damage mitigation through Jump Jets is another plus (or negative, depending how you view JJs).

Quote

If you want to reduce the chance of artillery or airstrikes hitting the head, that'd be fine. But in that case I'd want the time-to-target reduced or something to offset the nerf. And no, doubling the number of shells while halving their damage doesn't have the same effect. I don't want to do 20 damage to every Mech in the circle. I want to do 40 damage to some of them. That turns the ones that do get hit into targets. Doing 20 damage to everyone doesn't help with target selection.

Shouldn't that be an idea for revising their arty/airstrike module boosters?

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 01:11 PM.

[Roadkill]

WarHippy, on 31 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

My understanding is that it does 40pts of damage at the point of impact and the damage falls off from there to the edge of the explosion radius.

Correct. Plus each shell "hits" random parts of the Mech, so having two shells do head damage in the same volley is a pretty remote chance.

[Roadkill]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

One allows you to dictate whether or not you survive due to personal build, and one doesn't give you that much of a choice, outside of being fortunate or unfortunate. In both cases, you can be unfortunate, but at least in the case of the instant headshot with direct fire (not airstrike/arty), you probably can still survive it outright.

40 points of damage is 40 points of damage. If I hit your head with an AC/20 and two PPCs, you're dead. You can't dictate your survival with your build, you're just dead. Same for an artillery or airstrike.

I'm not that great of a shot, so if I hit your head it truly was a random event. Sure, there may be guys out there who can intentionally headshot targets regularly, but I'm not one of them and I don't think there really are that many of them out there.

I think it's funny that, apparently, artillery and airstrikes are a bigger problem in the 12-man queue than they are while pugging. I see 2-3 used per game, and that's the combined total between the teams. They don't seem to be that effective, either, and I've watched guys use the tactics you describe to carefully place them where they can't be seen.

Honestly I just don't see them as a problem. Laugh it off when it happens and carry on. That's pretty much what you have to do when someone headshots you from across the map, right?

[Deathlike]

Roadkill, on 31 January 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Correct. Plus each shell "hits" random parts of the Mech, so having two shells do head damage in the same volley is a pretty remote chance.

It's not as remote if you use the module buffs (I mean the addon-modules that buff arty/airstrikes)... but I don't think they are in use that often.

Those buffs exist to "reduce" the radius of the blast to deal more concentrated damage. So, if anything, the remote chance is not quite that... although, I don't know how many people those addon modules.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[Deathlike]

Roadkill, on 31 January 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

40 points of damage is 40 points of damage. If I hit your head with an AC/20 and two PPCs, you're dead. You can't dictate your survival with your build, you're just dead. Same for an artillery or airstrike.

The major difference at this point in time with the AC20 and 2 PPCs... you'd still have convergence to contend with, so it's unlikely either hit the same location due to completely different projectile speeds (at least back in the PPC+Gauss era, the Gauss wasn't too far close off for me... the AC20 and 2 PPCs are radically different, especially where the PPC is literally twice as fast as the AC20).

The 2 PPC+AC20 combo still have major flaws, but that's not really for this discussion.

Quote

I think it's funny that, apparently, artillery and airstrikes are a bigger problem in the 12-man queue than they are while pugging. I see 2-3 used per game, and that's the combined total between the teams. They don't seem to be that effective, either, and I've watched guys use the tactics you describe to carefully place them where they can't be seen.

Perhaps, you are not seeing the stuff that I am seeing due to ELO. It's not a magical place, but it's not a great place to be either.

Quote

Honestly I just don't see them as a problem. Laugh it off when it happens and carry on. That's pretty much what you have to do when someone headshots you from across the map, right?

See, the thing is... it is actually unlikely that most concentrated alpha builds will cause a killing headshot... unless you lower your head armor enough to make the weaker alphas strong enough. Then, you are setting yourself up to fail slightly more.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

"I don't like it" is more about "giving your opinion" but having no facts or at least logical reasoning to back that up. Having on an opinion on things is fine, but you have to be able to defend your position within reason to make that point.

The problem in this case is both sides feel they have logical reasoning to back up their opinion, and attempting to handwave either sides concerns does nothing for anyones argument.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

You might be thinking it is just a preference, and sure it can be, but unlike differences of opinion, these things won't affect my bottom line. Even if what I'm vouching for does have a personal gain or benefit, there are a lot more reaching effects than just "it benefits me". If I told you that spending 80k C-bills on some fictional consumable assures that the target will be guaranteed to die, people will buy it, regardless of whether it is profitable. Even though the current version of the consumable makes no such guarantee, the oft chance that it does insta-gib someone is not healthy for the game, as much as it's "fine" in random PUGs, but when you have to use it to decide for territory or something... well, the recorded events of "the arty/airstrike" defined the battle after instantly gibbing that 100% healthy mech in the first few minutes... well, that's going to translate to the death of a game due to poor balance.

If artillery/air strikes worked like the fictional consumable you described I would be agreeing with you, but in this case the consumable isn't guaranteed to kill them and it isn't even guaranteed to hit them. What is or isn't healthy for the game is for the devs to decide. While you feel it is unhealthy for the game others are going to feel it is unhealthy for the game to be turned into paper cut warrior online where they are guaranteed not to die in an unexpected way. I want meaningful consumables not a Nerf light show.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Why are you going to an extreme to prove your point? Just based on the math alone, it will take less than 50% damage (or the damage radius) of 2 projectiles of the arty/airstrike to kill the cockpit of any mech (16.5 damage per projectile, 41.25%). However, the cockpit radius of every mech is variable, so someone else smarter than me can figure out the size of the projectile vs the size of the cockpit that would make this favorable or unfavorable with actual math.

I went to an extreme because even if you lower the damage it would still be possible to die in a single artillery strike all be it less likely but still a possibility none the less. If it isn't ok to die in a single artillery strike why let them do damage to the cockpit or kill you at all? It just seems like a very arbitrary thing to worry about. As for different mechs having different size cockpits and in turn different levels of vulnerability to things like artillery add flavor to the game, and gives us one more thing to take into consideration before we launch our mech.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Fair enough, but it will continually unacceptable for some. I think it's terrible and I personally can live with it, but as it stands, I'd rather be vocal for a change because it's not beneficial for the game in the grand scheme of things.

Hence the discussion was born. I would hope we could come to better terms on what would be overall best, but that is not an easy battle. For me changing it the way you want it would be terrible, and I don't see how pushing away players to appease others is anymore healthy for the game than leaving them as they are.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

You don't have to nerf the airstrike/arty directly, even a damage reduction to the head is sufficient (minimum 25% damage reduction required). I've been giving less harmful options to address the situation, but leaving it as is will not resolve the matter at hand.

While the chances of death would be lower having damage reduction it could still happen and you would still have people complaining about random deaths. The only solution would be to make the cockpit immune to arty/air damage completely, and that I find unacceptable.

[WarHippy]

Jack Avery, on 31 January 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Honestly, I am okay with the damage of both, even the head shots. It is a large artillery shell/bomb being delivered into your lap...live...so it should hurt. Or kill.

That said, the cooldown isn't remotely long enough. And no, 20 seconds doesn't cut it, either. If you want it to be powerful, if you want it to be able to headshot someone, you are asking for 60 seconds minimum. If you or your team want it to have a high payoff, you have to pay a high risk for that. That risk comes from a misaimed and wasted strike with the inability to repeat for a considerable amount of time. Besides, it is a 15 minute match, you could still get a full 12 off in a long match, but that shouldn't be the expectation. Start carrying other modules.

This sounds good to me. I'm fine with them wanting to mess around with different cool downs to alleviate the pressure, or they could make it a requirement to have a command console and/or tag to use it and I would be ok with that as well. My thing is that while we are walking around in large metal robots we aren't Superman, and taking an artillery shell to the face should have life altering consequences.

[Tenpin]

What's really sad to see here is the QQ about headshots and the rallying around a nerf based on nothing but anecdotal evidence.

None of us know the frequency of arty deaths due to headshots any more than we know the frequency of arty deaths resulting from critical hits anywhere on a mech.

I've carried arty into matches 589 times and I'm certain I've gotten 3 kills using it. It is impossible for me to know what I hit and frankly, it is about impossible for those killed to know exactly where they got hit. (could been weak back armor that got you insta-killed)

[Deathlike]

WarHippy, on 31 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

If artillery/air strikes worked like the fictional consumable you described I would be agreeing with you, but in this case the consumable isn't guaranteed to kill them and it isn't even guaranteed to hit them. What is or isn't healthy for the game is for the devs to decide. While you feel it is unhealthy for the game others are going to feel it is unhealthy for the game to be turned into paper cut warrior online where they are guaranteed not to die in an unexpected way. I want meaningful consumables not a Nerf light show.

I've provided suggestions that won't make them useless, and still carry most of the stuff intact. Please try not going to hyperbole because the changes themselves will not reduce their usage (except for the crazy people that are relying on the mechanic).

Quote

I went to an extreme because even if you lower the damage it would still be possible to die in a single artillery strike all be it less likely but still a possibility none the less. If it isn't ok to die in a single artillery strike why let them do damage to the cockpit or kill you at all? It just seems like a very arbitrary thing to worry about. As for different mechs having different size cockpits and in turn different levels of vulnerability to things like artillery add flavor to the game, and gives us one more thing to take into consideration before we launch our mech.

While the chances of death would be lower having damage reduction it could still happen and you would still have people complaining about random deaths. The only solution would be to make the cockpit immune to arty/air damage completely, and that I find unacceptable.

I never said "no damage to the cockpit", just less damage to it. If you aren't carrying enough head armor to suppress it, fine, you deserve to die. That's not asking for too much here. Immunity is not what I was asking for at all... it's simply bad outright. Reduction in damage to the head is a far cry from a major nerf to arty/airstrikes.

I once headshot a BM that had critical head damage. I took a risk with lasers and it worked. Of course, with the state of HSR and the netcode, I can't reliably produce/reproduce it, but hey, that was my choice to make. His head was crit, and I obliged to finish his head off in brawling range. Clearly, this isn't an everyday thing, but it has always been a conscious choice in EVERY MW game to how head kills would be handled. This game should be no different.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 01:59 PM.

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Those buffs exist to "reduce" the radius of the blast to deal more concentrated damage. So, if anything, the remote chance is not quite that... although, I don't know how many people those addon modules.

I might need to go back and read what the modules do, but I thought it reduced the radius of the entire targeted area not the individual explosions?

Deathlike, on 31 January 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

The major difference at this point in time with the AC20 and 2 PPCs... you'd still have convergence to contend with, so it's unlikely either hit the same location due to completely different projectile speeds (at least back in the PPC+Gauss era, the Gauss wasn't too far close off for me... the AC20 and 2 PPCs are radically different, especially where the PPC is literally twice as fast as the AC20).

The fact that there is convergence and different projectile speeds mean more often than not when someone one shots you in the cockpit pit it was random, and as such no different than the random artillery shell that hits you in the cockpit, or at least I think that was the point he was making.

[Thejuggla]

I think the problem would be helped if it worked like spotting missiles, you have to keep sight or else it will be very off. Maybe have to spot with a tag on the ground somewhere instead of just fire and forget smoke.

[Deathlike]

WarHippy, on 31 January 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

I might need to go back and read what the modules do, but I thought it reduced the radius of the entire targeted area not the individual explosions?

Yes, it reduces the radius of the targeted area, therefore the projectiles are likely to be closer together and thus... increase the chance to headshot a mech.

Quote

The fact that there is convergence and different projectile speeds mean more often than not when someone one shots you in the cockpit pit it was random, and as such no different than the random artillery shell that hits you in the cockpit, or at least I think that was the point he was making.

TBH, with the 2 PPC+AC20 option, you'd have to literally fire two good shots (1 alpha by the 2 PPCs, then the AC20 following that) to make it happen. Not 1.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2014 - 02:15 PM.