775 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Relevant analysis was posted here (not for LRMs, but "analysis" in general):
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3247513

At least Paul gave it "more time" (6 days), which is more than the usual fare.

[Rex Budman]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

actually,. according to Paul, it specifically has nothing to do with community feedback. Take that for what you will

Hurhurhurhur L2Aim

[repete]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

...As you may or may not know, I do have the ability to remotely monitor specific and random games being played...

[Bishop Steiner]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Hurhurhurhur L2Aim

since I spend more time playing, and less time on the forums QQing, than certain people, pretty sure I aim better than you do, sport. Especially since none of my favorite mechs use LRMs. GG..... not so close.

[Rex Budman]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

since I spend more time playing, and less time on the forums QQing, than certain people, pretty sure I aim better than you do, sport. Especially since none of my favorite mechs use LRMs. GG..... not so close.

Hurhurhurhur then tell your drop mates to L2Aim Hurhurhur sport hurhur.

Considering I have much less posts then you I guess you spend more time here than I do and I've been playing since closed beta hurhurhurhur

LRM E-Z Mode No Aim No Skill Paul Ruins the Game on a monthly basis hurrrrrrrr

Edited by Rex Budman, 24 March 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

actually,. according to Paul, it specifically has nothing to do with community feedback. Take that for what you will

I actually buy that.
Had they been listening to the community, SRMs, Large groups and knock down would all have been fixed/re-implemented LONG ago

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

since I spend more time playing, and less time on the forums QQing, than certain people, pretty sure I aim better than you do, sport. Especially since none of my favorite mechs use LRMs. GG..... not so close.

You've lately taken a liking to the House of Lord's stereotypical opening/closing comment, haven't you?

[Roadbeer]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Hurhurhurhur then tell your drop mates to L2Aim Hurhurhur sport hurhur.

Considering I have much less posts then you I guess you spend more time here than I do and I've been playing since closed beta hurhurhurhur

LRM E-Z Mode No Aim No Skill Paul Ruins the Game on a monthly basis hurrrrrrrr

Is there some unwritten law that all Kurita need to be douchenozzles?

[Rex Budman]

FupDup, on 24 March 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

You've lately taken a liking to the House of Lord's stereotypical opening/closing comment, haven't you?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Edited by Rex Budman, 24 March 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Hurhurhurhur then tell your drop mates to L2Aim Hurhurhur sport hurhur.

Considering I have much less posts then you I guess you spend more time here than I do and I've been playing since closed beta hurhurhurhur

LRM E-Z Mode No Aim No Skill Paul Ruins the Game on a monthly basis hurrrrrrrr

maturity and eloquence all in one post. Astounding. L2read,thinkandfighttacticallyinsteadofQQ? Naw, that would take effort, wouldn't it, which if you put as much into your game as you do reasoning through your posts, ain't much to worry about.

[FupDup]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

I have been - it's the only way to get revenge. Logical constructive commentary leads to nothing more than insults such as noob l2p l2cover et al.

So why not eh?

I was quoting Bishop Steiner, not you.

[Rex Budman]

Roadbeer, on 24 March 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Is there some unwritten law that all Kurita need to be douchenozzles?

I like the dragon picture

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 24 March 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

You've lately taken a liking to the House of Lord's stereotypical opening/closing comment, haven't you?

I figure since actual thinking ability is seems consistently lacking in most forum QQers, actually using anything beyond canned platitudes will simply be wasted on them, anyhow. *shrugs* If at any point, intelligent, constructive debate breaks out, well, I have already added reams of contructive analysis to this particular "issue", and found it to be largely overstated, or the whining of poptarts who got their ezmode challenged or people who think that they should never have to use actual cover.

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

I have been - it's the only way to get revenge. Logical constructive commentary leads to nothing more than insults such as noob l2p l2cover et al.

So why not eh?

Probably these changes hit me a little harder to the bone since two years before the game was announced, I was on Google every month searching "Mechwarrior new game" - That's how much I love the concept.

Interesting perspective, were you actually using it toward comments and commentators who had started with similar low brow thinking. On the other hand, since my posts, and multiple others exhaustively exposed most of the missile QQ to be peoples unwillingness to shift tactical doctrines, and nothing more, it seems a rather sill stance to take.

Yet you claim to love the concept but essentially wish to eliminate one of the staple weapon systems from the game. Sounds like Star Wars without lightsabers or the force to me.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 March 2014 - 07:57 PM.

[Rex Budman]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

I figure since actual thinking ability is seems consistently lacking in most forum QQers, actually using anything beyond canned platitudes will simply be wasted on them, anyhow. *shrugs*

I've posted several logcal constuctive arguments that go unnoticed and given blanket responses such as L2p L2 cover etc etc etc... They usually come from people like yourself who are nothing more than forum trolls.

So yeah - keep defening EZ mode for your 12man drops or premades so you guys take wins. Great skilled gamer you are

[topgun505]

They have to tread a fine line here. Introduce a patch too soon before enough data is collected and the change may do more harm than good. Wait too long (for an issue that is definitely negatively impacting the populace) and you start losing players to other games. In this situation it is probably better to err on the side of former rather than latter because, once you lose a player due to what they perceive is bad mechanics, chances are you won't get them back. Especially now that there are other similar options out there like Titanfall. Honestly it might not have been a bad thing if they had pulled this back even a day or so earlier even.

Kjudoon, on 24 March 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

I will dial back my feelings and just say I am severely disappointed we did not give the LRM buff more than 5 days before it was decided to do this. Why didn't we wait 2-3 weeks so we could see if the community would actually adapt?

Will AMS's buff be dialed back or will it continue to chew up even more LRMs SRMs and Streaks than it did before because of more time given to do damage? (I believe 5-6 will now be average per volley compared to 4-5) and SRMs are still even more usless thanks to that defensive buff since they are also shot up by AMS.

Again, I'm severely disappointed at backing away from something that was encouraging smarter play more viable options in PUGs and 12mans.

I can see that the poptart community is breathing a huge sigh of relief because they will remain uncontested kings of the battlefield.

[wanderer]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Hurhurhurhur L2Aim

Keep chuckling, kiddo. Until they fix brawling-type weapons, you ain't gonna have balance in the Giant Robot Force. That means pulses and SRMs in specific.

That's where the trouble started. LRMs really, really needed the velocity boost- they were designed originally to hit 630m maximum as their "low-odds" shot...and then were one of the first weapons to get a range boost, of about 40%....but no corresponding speed boost, meaning their effective accuracy vs. range plunged. They SHOULD be accurate to at least roughly 600m at this point, about two-thirds of their maximum, Note that LRM effective accurate range pre speed boost was -still- about 400m for months after the range change...despite reaching more than twice that. At 160-175, 600m is about where we're seeing maximum range accurate fire...and I'm not complaining about that.

And it will be my distinct pleasure to bomb your sorry whiny butt into the Stone Age until you L2manuever, sir.

[Rex Budman]

wanderer, on 24 March 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

Keep chuckling, kiddo. Until they fix brawling-type weapons, you ain't gonna have balance in the Giant Robot Force. That means pulses and SRMs in specific.

That's where the trouble started. LRMs really, really needed the velocity boost- they were designed originally to hit 630m maximum as their "low-odds" shot...and then were one of the first weapons to get a range boost, of about 40%....but no corresponding speed boost, meaning their effective accuracy vs. range plunged. They SHOULD be accurate to at least roughly 600m at this point, about two-thirds of their maximum, Note that LRM effective accurate range pre speed boost was -still- about 400m for months after the range change...despite reaching more than twice that. At 160-175, 600m is about where we're seeing maximum range accurate fire...and I'm not complaining about that.

And it will be my distinct pleasure to bomb your sorry whiny butt into the Stone Age until you L2manuever, sir.

Omfg here we ***** go... I bet I can out manouver you sunshine. In fact I bet 1v1 I can do a much better job even with my 300 ping.

You think ducking for cover is this new thing that you invented?

L2Aim instead of hugging EZ mode tactics that have a large percentage of players hiding behind cover for 50 percent of the match.

Hurrhurrhurrr I don't want to aim I like spam left mouse button from my little fort I built with my portable television hurdurrrr

Edited by Rex Budman, 24 March 2014 - 07:59 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Rex Budman, on 24 March 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

I've posted several logcal constuctive arguments that go unnoticed and given blanket responses such as L2p L2 cover etc etc etc... They usually come from people like yourself who are nothing more than forum trolls.

So yeah - keep defening EZ mode for your 12man drops or premades so you guys take wins. Great skilled gamer you are

Again showing your ignorance, since oh, yeah, I PUG 75% of the time. Don't run AMS, don't run ECM, seldom use LRMS, never poptart, oh, and have been doing just peachy. Also, when I do run team, HARD has consistently refused to adopt Poptart or LRM metas. So if that was another example of your well thought out posts, color me unimpressed.

Another helping of ignorance, please?

[Felio]

Glad to hear it. Though from an earlier post of yours, I was expecting AMS to be buffed more than it was. I sort of got the impression you thought LRMs were more or less balanced before, just too slow, and you didn't want AMS to become less effective (it has, as you know).

Any chance of the AMS Range module getting a buff?

Even after you slow missiles down to 160m/s, they'll only be in that 16-meter bubble for 0.1 seconds vs. a stationary target and 0.14 seconds if it's running directly away at ludicrous speed. Only enough time to destroy a small fraction of a single missile.

But you must know there are a handful of modules of infinitesimally small benefit (Hill Climb), and I assume it's on the "to do" list.

[Rex Budman]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Again showing your ignorance, since oh, yeah, I PUG 75% of the time. Don't run AMS, don't run ECM, seldom use LRMS, never poptart, oh, and have been doing just peachy. Also, when I do run team, HARD has consistently refused to adopt Poptart or LRM metas. So if that was another example of your well thought out posts, color me unimpressed.

Another helping of ignorance, please?

So you basically sit there and play with your balls then?