WarHippy, on 14 November 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:
What spamming? It has a global cool down that is more than sufficient for moving your ass out of the way of the next one. A one minute cool down is going to prevent most people from being able to use them so why would anyone bother buying them when most of the time they will be unable to use them? I'm sorry, but this is just asking for nerfs in a less direct way. Strikes are fine if not a little underwhelming.
Having a bare 10-15 seconds between strikes puts it squarely under the gamer definition of "spamming". You should be buying them for the utility value, not for the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality.
WarHippy, on 14 November 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:
No offense, but this is a stupid suggestion. Almost nobody would use them ever as 100k is more than most make on average per game. Just no.
If you're not making 100k cbills a match even without premium, you're seriously doing things wrong....
WarHippy, on 14 November 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:
Yet you seem entitled to having your hand held by the devs so you don't have to deal with inconvenient game mechanics.
Generally speaking it is his fault as he described. As for me using strikes I rarely do since I don't find them worth the costs when I am trying to acquire c-bills. Maybe we should buff them instead?
That is because there is no reasoning with you people.
So just like in the other artillery thread, once you're presented with rational points that directly conflict with your expressed views, instead of refuting them logically you resort to petty insults and strawman arguments.
"there is no reasoning with you people", indeed.
Macksheen, on 14 November 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:
And you should be laying yours out too ... Give and take.
This is the wrong mentality to have when it comes to keeping a game fun. History of MMO shooters can show that the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality will absolutely kill any competitive community, usually sooner than later. Nobody finds that fun for very long, because it gets stagnant, stale, repetitive, and always defined by everybody abusing the most overpowered go-to gimmick as much as possible.
MWO is absolutely remarkable in that it strives, with every twist and turn, to avoid that, for which I truly have to thank PGI and give them lots of kudos.
It's exactly because of that that air/artillery strikes stand so far out, and why they deserve more attention.
my replies in
comic sans:
WarHippy, on 14 November 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:
If you are going to lose anyway why does it matter if you also get shelled? To answer your question "should players be punished when they already have no good options?" my answer is yes. If you put yourself in a position where you no longer have any good options then you absolutely should be punished for it. Why should you be allowed an out under those circumstances?
Reasonable suggestion to you, but completely unreasonable to me. Your suggestions more or less remove them as they would be so rare you might actually forget they exist. The thing is when your only answer to me is " I don't like them, I don't want to deal with them, and I would remove them if I could" then you are showing a lack of understanding as to why people say you are wrong. Maybe you were just looking for an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you?
Strawman ^
I have not been in a situation like you described. Moving is always an option. It may not always be the best option, but it is still an option. Of course if you are so pinned down that you can't move at all the strikes are the least of your worries.
We've been over this. 4-5 seconds is not enough time to make "move out da way" an always-viable option.
They should be able to hit anything as that is a big part of why they exist. They currently are mostly ineffective against anything that moves faster than 80kph so what is the problem?
So you think it's totally okay for it to serve as a paytowin nerf to any assault, slow heavy/medium, or long-range build? Come on, really? There has to be a better argument than that.
That is just sad. Then again I don't have a problem with any of those things listed. So maybe everyone should stop complaining so much about everything they find inconvenient?
Except now everyone has a chance to use theirs, but under your system they would not. That is simply unacceptable.
more strawman ^
There are no situations that justify what you describe for changes. I used your example because that is what you gave us.
Sure, it isn't fair, but it was perfectly ok when Dimento said the exact same kind of stuff and you happily "+1 to you sir"? Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? Its not fair to hand wave people who disagree with you and accuse them of being unwilling to discuss things because you don't like what they say.
One word: Irony.
WarHippy, on 14 November 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:
Fair enough, but my fear with lower damage and more saturation is that I could just stand in place ignoring the couple small hits that land on me. As they are I already willingly take the hit from time to time because damage isn't enough of a deterrent for me to give up on my target.
Forgive me, but you don't always get the 'choice'. Even assuming something so absurd as "choosing" whether the enemy can hit you with it or not, why on earth would you ever *choose* to take damage like that? So you can get off one more half-volley at a chosen target? This sounds like poor judgement to me.
I really do not see why you wouldn't be deterred if each strike has the potential to immediately take away a full tenth, at the LEAST, of your effectiveness for the rest of the entire match.
I can't understand you at all, apparently.
Mystere, on 14 November 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:
I will just quote myself from another thread:
And yet you neglected to also quote the entirety of that discussion...where your reasoning has, thus far, not wholly stood up to closer examination.