66 replies to this topic

[Duzenbury]

When everyone is using them as opposed to nearly everything else you need to fix something. One TAG and it's game over because 10 mechs fire LRMs over the mountains perfectly accurately.

Fix this, seriously.

It's NOT EVEN CANONICAL. Worthless developers. No balance.

[Dock Steward]

Thanks for starting a new thread on this topic. I can't believe no one else is talking about this.

Edited by Dock Steward, 21 March 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[zztophat]

Ooooh it's this topic again! I wonder what fresh spin the OP has placed on this...

Oh.

Darn.

[Duzenbury]

More threads generally means devs listen more.

Unlikely with this group.

We'll see.

[Black Arachne]

Duzenbury=Broken

Lrms are actually working decently now - next up is fixing the Awesome hopefully and this joke of a heat system.

[Dock Steward]

Seriously. I mean, it's been, like, four whole days since the patch and there are still a bunch of people playing with LRM's. It's not like they were nearly useless before and people are excited now that they've been bumped up to "okay." Clearly they're only prevalent on the field because they're OP!

[Duzenbury]

Everyone using LRMs, one tag, instant death. No counter? In any way? Perfect accuracy and non-canon.

Imbalanced and incorrect to the timeline.

[Dock Steward]

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Everyone using LRMs, one tag, instant death. No counter? In any way? Perfect accuracy and non-canon.

Imbalanced and incorrect to the timeline.

Counter: Cover, ECM, AMS, Cover, Closing within 180m, Cover...

Also, if the devs even were thinking about paying attention to this thread for one second, they probably stopped at "worthless developers..."

[zztophat]

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

No counter? In any way?

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

No counter?

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

In any way?

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

No

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

counter

No counter for LRMs other than... all the myriad counters for LRMs?

I mean aside from the obvious one; walking behind blocking terrain because that doesn't count for some reason(?).

[Mcgral18]

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Everyone using LRMs, one tag, instant death. No counter? In any way? Perfect accuracy and non-canon.

Imbalanced and incorrect to the timeline.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, so I'll answer like it isnt.

ECM, AMS and a solid building. All of those reduce or completely eliminate LRMs. Perfect accuracy? You mean all over the target, including some missiles that fall to the ground. Unlike PPCs and ACs, which are both perfectly pinpoint AND frontloaded.

Imbalanced, but correct to the timeline.

[Rex Budman]

Lol@LRM fanboys who just like seeing their damage ratings prop up.

The op is right - get tagged = LRM spam until you die or find a big enough cover. And no one believes the gameplay has changed in a manner that is not befitting the games original intention.

Hididng behind cover for the duration of an entire match is not how people plan on spending their game time.

[Dock Steward]

Rex Budman, on 21 March 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

And no one believes the gameplay has changed in a manner that is not befitting the games original intention.

Can't...discern...meaning....behind...double negative....*POP

Edited by Dock Steward, 21 March 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[Duzenbury]

Not to mention the number of maps that have zero cover.

[Dock Steward]

Duzenbury, on 21 March 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

Not to mention the number of maps that have zero cover.

1 (arguably...0)

[zztophat]

Rex Budman, on 21 March 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

Lol@LRM fanboys who just like seeing their damage ratings prop up.

The op is right - get tagged = LRM spam until you die or find a big enough cover. And no one believes the gameplay has changed in a manner that is not befitting the games original intention.

Hididng behind cover for the duration of an entire match is not how people plan on spending their game time.

Quote

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

• Person 1 has position X.
  
• Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
  
  • Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
    
  • Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).^[4]
    
  • Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.^[3]
    
  • Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
    
  • Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form: "Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is: "Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

[Rex Budman]

Dock Steward, on 21 March 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

Can't...discern...meaning....behind...double negative....*POP

Oh please - go start a debate on Youtube, but first show me where the sentence is so poorly constructed that you could not gather the meaning.

zztophat, on 21 March 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

I take it you cut pasted that from a debaters cheat sheet while wondering what to post back on an Theistic youtube channel?

[TehSBGX]

LRMS aren't op, just kind of annoying.

[Dock Steward]

Rex Budman, on 21 March 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Oh please - go start a debate on Youtube, but first show me where the sentence is so poorly constructed that you could not gather the meaning.



I take it you cut pasted that from a debaters cheat sheet while wondering what to post back on an Theistic youtube channel?

And no one believes the gameplay has changed in a manner that is not befitting the games original intention.

Edited by Dock Steward, 21 March 2014 - 09:06 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

Dock Steward, on 21 March 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

1 (arguably...0)

you mean mordor? that one has very few barriers to hide behind

[Rex Budman]

Dock Steward, on 21 March 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

[color=#959595]And no one believes the gameplay has changed in a manner that is not befitting the games original intention.[/color]

Sigh... A1 Troll...