142 replies to this topic

[mrpetzold]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 November 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:

If you want to get technical (as is the wont around here a lot) this could be considered A troll thread and breaking the ettiquite of posting:

http://mwomercs.com/...ting-etiquette/

Also; getting around the word filter is also a no-no

http://mwomercs.com/...nduct-expanded/

Just thought I might help

Can the mods close this yet? Its gone way off topic and the topic has been beaten to death way before he/she even posted this

Good, I can see that we both agree that you are trolling. Probably only to get this thread off topic, but you are the only one who truly know your own intentions.

If you want to give a new answer to my thread, here is what I wrote again:
The reason I started to answer you was the condecending "you must be new" argument. It is against those who are new, and stop playing this game early because of lrm's, that lrms are OP. On the other side of the scale lrm as useless against the top-bracket. To find the correct balance and make it viable for all elo-brackets is needed.

Please dont only quote "lrms are OP" since you have given proof thats a no-no, since its getting it around the word filter.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

Good, I can see that we both agree that you are trolling.

Explain that? As it was already explained to you, having a different opinion than yours IS NOT trolling. I dont get why youre having difficulty with that.

[mrpetzold]

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 03:19 AM, said:

The point of nigh all of your posts was "lrms are op". He specifically countered that sentiment numerous times. You don`t have to waste everyone`s time and bandwidth with 10,000 word quotes when only 3 had any actual relevance.

Seriously, man, you`re grasping at straws and you know it. Just stop before you make us all bad by association.

Please stop the trolling. Have you even read what I have written? I have even written that lrms are useless. Actually none of my posts was "lrms are op", since thats not where I stand. Even the OP isn't about it. It is about angle of attack of the IS-lrms.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

since its getting it around the word filter.

no; when you accused me of ****posting was when you broke that rule.

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

Please stop the trolling.

Ironic this

[Sjorpha]

To, without "trolling", answer the op in the most on topic and simplest way:

I don't find the angle too steep at all, cover works.

But I would like the radar deprivation and lock function changed. Targets should be instantly lost when los is broken as the default mechanic, except when you have target decay module, and radar deprivation should be the counter to target decay. That would give newbs a better tool to avoid LRMs by learning to break los and detect spotters, without affecting LRMs for skilled players.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I mean you wanna talk trolling, thats the only reason I can think that youre throwing the label at me for nothing more than disagreeing with your idea.

Youre purposefully refusing to understand what Im saying and the only reason I can think someone would want to do that would be to get a rise out of someone else which is literally textbook trolling.

[Zerberus]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

Please stop the trolling. Have you even read what I have written? I have even written that lrms are useless. Actually none of my posts was "lrms are op", since thats not where I stand. Even the OP isn't about it. It is about angle of attack of the IS-lrms.

Dude, you show all the classic signs of "teenager with problem in a videogame he and an idea to get it fixed for him".

1. You are arguing for a position that you supposedly do not personally hold, and /or obviously do not fully understand.

If the AoA is OP, then by definition it makes the weapon OP, otherwise it wouldn`t be a problem to begin with.

2. You accuse any and every person who disagrees with you oif trolling, especially if they can back it up.

This is because you either have no valid counterarguments to present, or because you think that somehow you calling people trolls makes thir points less valid instead of undermining yours.

3. You absolutely refuse to consider the validity of any and every post that disagrees with yours.

This is not gym class, swinging your dong around in the locker room doesn`t count for jack here, though it may get you a virtual wedgie. And right now you`re on the best path to giving that to yourself, either by mod or by public ridicule.

Edited by Zerberus, 28 November 2014 - 03:37 AM.

[mrpetzold]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 November 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

Explain that? As it was already explained to you, having a different opinion than yours IS NOT trolling. I dont get why youre having difficulty with that.

You need to decide yourself here.. You just said that getting around the word filter is a no-no (aka trolling) after you did that when answering my post. Now you are saying its not trolling. Please take some time deciding wether or not doing that is trolling. I have tried to have a discussion with arguments and dilemmas around it, and you haven't come up with a single valid argument other than posts like "bull", "You think you know my history, you fail", "I take it youre new", "you must be new". Thats what you have contributed with in this forumthread. If you disagree with the OP, and other posters here, then use a couple minutes to write your counterarguments other then the summorising of your posts I did 2 lines above in this post.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mercules, on 27 November 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

Bah, you only need cover if you are wandering around in a sub 60kph mech without ECM or AMS around. If you go faster than that then concealment will break LoS and the missiles will fly to the last spot they "saw you at" then swoop down and straight forward. All you have to do is take a step perpendicular to their flight path and they don't hit you.

I am seriously going to have to get my 12-year-old playing this game so I can show him how to do it then come back here and claim "It's so easy a child can do it."

While I agree, the thing is, a lot of players ARE in those ñlumbering monstrosities.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:37 AM, said:

You just said that getting around the word filter is a no-no (aka trolling)

No I didnt, I said it was breaking the rules.

[Zerberus]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 November 2014 - 03:37 AM, said:

While I agree, the thing is, a lot of players ARE in those ñlumbering monstrosities.

Yes. But again, refusal to adapt and mental incapacity to accept that there are other ways to play the game. Though admittedle, this is also partly due to overall game design and balance as it currently stands, CW may help a bit, as will further quirk passes

[Zerberus]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 November 2014 - 03:42 AM, said:

No I didnt, I said it was breaking the rules.

Ah, yes, forgot 4: intentional twisting of other`s statements. Thanks

[mrpetzold]

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 03:35 AM, said:

Dude, you show all the classic signs of "teenager with problem in a videogame he and an idea to get it fixed for him".

1. You are arguing for a position that you supposedly do not personally hold, and /or obviously do not fully understand.

If the AoA is OP, then by definition it makes the weapon OP, otherwise it wouldn`t be a problem to begin with.

2. You accuse any and every person who disagrees with you oif trolling, especially if they can back it up.

This is because you either have no valid counterarguments to present, or because you think that somehow you calling people trolls makes thir points less valid instead of undermining yours.

3. You absolutely refuse to consider the validity of any and every post that disagrees with yours.

This is not gym class, swinging your dong around in the locker room doesn`t count for jack here, though it may get you a virtual wedgie. And right now you`re on the best path to giving that to yourself, either by mod or by public ridicule.

Come on man..
If you want to know where in the lurm-debate I stand, take a look at post 34, post 27, post 42 and post 53.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

My point in pointing out that you are new is that you dont know the history of the constant nerfs theve done to LRMs including the angle of attack (which I said before but you ignored)

[Zerberus]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

Come on man..
If you want to know where in the lurm-debate I stand, take a look at post 34, post 27, post 42 and post 53.

As stated and quoted, that`s the side you supposedly stand on. I have my doubts based on some of the rest of the posts.

Now, of course I could be misinterpreting all of this due to you simple not being around nearly as long as the people telling you why they disagree and therefore lacking relevant background knowledge. But I have no problem admitting I`m wrong when it is in fact the case, however, that has yet to be proven

Edited by Zerberus, 28 November 2014 - 03:49 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

RiggsIron, on 27 November 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

It is so much fun to spend most of a game hiding under cover right?

And if you get caught moving from one cover to another and get hit with multiple boats of LRMs in that 5 seconds - well thats fun too right?

Maybe you are not aware the maps do not have 100% cover over every square inch of the map. maybe try some out and see how many hills do NOT provide cover from LRMs, and small buildings, and open areas...really you should check out the game.

Sorry, but if you think you should be able to blithely stand in the open and not get shot, you are playing the wrong game.

And I always laugh when I hear that argument. Smart players spend the majority of the game using cover. It's a great way to advance. If you don't use cover, then that Dakka Wolf will kill you long before LRMs do.

I'm sorry if you are against smart play, tactics, etc.

[Saobh]

Guys stop it with the off-topic. We don't care about your egos (or do it by private message)

Sjorpha, on 28 November 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

To, without "trolling", answer the op in the most on topic and simplest way:

I don't find the angle too steep at all, cover works.

But I would like the radar deprivation and lock function changed. Targets should be instantly lost when los is broken as the default mechanic, except when you have target decay module, and radar deprivation should be the counter to target decay. That would give newbs a better tool to avoid LRMs by learning to break los and detect spotters, without affecting LRMs for skilled players.

As a part time LRMer I'd be ok with that (well perhaps keep it just for 1-2 seconds as the signal weakens). But in that case how would radar deprivation work as lots of people have put a lot of money in those so if they are the default effect I would think they would get pretty pissed having 6 Mc-bills thingies becomes worthless.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Im curious if Bishop is trolling too to the OP

[mrpetzold]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 November 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

My point in pointing out that you are new is that you dont know the history of the constant nerfs theve done to LRMs including the angle of attack (which I said before but you ignored)

So, because of the nerf/buff-history PGI should't even try to make work better? It is not to put under a chair that PGi has used a too heavy nerf-hammer and buffed things to the sky way to often in the past. Unlike you, I focus more on the present and the future then the past. The past has already happend, and can't be changed. The future however can be changed and this community can influence it aswell.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Saobh, on 28 November 2014 - 03:54 AM, said:

Guys stop it with the off-topic. We don't care about your egos (or do it by private message)

Dont care about my ego. Just want the OP to realize that ppl who dont agree with him arent trolling

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

So, because of the nerf/buff-history PGI should't even try to make work better? It is not to put under a chair that PGi has used a too heavy nerf-hammer and buffed things to the sky way to often in the past. Unlike you, I focus more on the present and the future then the past. The past has already happend, and can't be changed. The future however can be changed and this community can influence it aswell.

lol interesting way to try and bypass ignorance of the past.