Official Request For 330 Ton Is Cw Dropdeck Post Nerf
#21
Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:02 PM
#22
Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:25 PM
MechregSurn, on 13 February 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:
There is a core segment of the try hard MWO who we can not expect to handle disappointment with maturity.
When performance does not meet expectations, it creates disappointment. The try hard groups are competing among their own teammates for approval and to impress. In so, they are looking for EVERY advantage to minimize disappointment by increasing performance.
This is only human, but they have begun lobbying PGI to gain additional advantages and this will lead to the failure of this game.
My personal "want" is to play tactical and strategic challenges, but it is becoming clear that esports wanna be players want a twitch shooter they can exploit. I have big monitors at high resolution for long range fighting, they have twitch layouts.
Its clear to everyone you live in a fantasy world where there are two types of people. Your type, who are die hard IS supporters, and super meta brawl tryhard mtn dew twitch shooters. Despite the fact that this is objectively false, its clear nothing anyone says will sway you, or convince you that your opinions are flawed. This conclusion is supported especially by the fact that you have ignored me at every turn, and never even made an effort to counter opposing arguments (though your dopey friends seem to have alot to say to everyone else). Throwing out misguided opinions dressed as fact does not make them true, nor will ignoring dissenting voices actually silence them.
Thank god PGI will never listen to you, or your *** backwards friends. May the matchmaker continue to stack teams against you.
Edited by pbiggz, 13 February 2016 - 08:28 PM.
#24
Posted 13 February 2016 - 09:57 PM
#25
Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:01 PM
#26
Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:27 PM
The other difference will be the tonnage setting. IS teams were in a better position to use the increased tonnage, which at the same time saw the Clan contracts of those units ending. And the influx of new IS mechs, the previously Unseen.
The major difference will also be which major faction as more solid units dropping. And with the next patch the Clans will also see some negative quirks being removed AND seeing a number of positive missile/ballistics quirks being added.
#27
Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:03 AM
MechregSurn, on 12 February 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:
Nearly all IS loyalist leaders are reporting they will be switching to clan post nerf. Those few players that stay IS will need an extreme tonnage increase to balance the clan tech imbalance.
hahahaha NO.
#28
Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:18 AM
Do
not
fight
the
Clans!
PGI can't force you to man the Clan front (well, not yet... but thankfully I doubt their ability to code the changes necessary to introduce such a mechanic), so just go for old-fashioned Succession War goodness by slugging it out with fellow Spheroids.
Leave the Clans to either enjoy their remaining easier-than-ever* seal clubbing (if pugs don't get with the program) or to bore themselves to death - or more probably just quitting - with ghost drops.
*Looking forward to five responses by people who did not understand the reason for this phrase.
Edited by Koshirou, 14 February 2016 - 01:18 AM.
#29
Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:17 AM
Unfortunately it wont happen, especially many items have not made it into the CW, since there are no true supply lines and max 30 light year jump routes.
Edited by Tarl Cabot, 14 February 2016 - 08:18 AM.
#30
Posted 14 February 2016 - 10:00 AM
Koshirou, on 14 February 2016 - 01:18 AM, said:
as this whole thread implies you are not the brightest of the bunch. lets assume the clans go around uncontested into the inner sphere. sure, it would be boring, but ultimately every inner sphere faction would be seperated by clan progression routes and unable to fight other inner sphere factions.
if this inability to fight amongst yourselfs will lead to your kind quitting the game, so be it. that would be alot more healthy for this game anyways.
it pains me to see this community (actually, this is true for all gaming communitys ever) infested with that much stupidity concentrated into single entities (consider this a direct attack at your persona, regardless of it being a troll or not [lets try to have some hope in humanity and assume your are just a troll instead of an entirely incompetent and deluded being]).
Tarl Cabot, on 14 February 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:
i agree with you on this matter. just as IS vs IS is a nice change from playing IS vs CLANS so is CLANS vs CLANS from playing CLANS vs IS. it also deepens the knowledge of your own mechs weakpoints, which is a major perk mercenary units have against loyalist units (and idiots, like the one above).
----
man, this was my first plainly insulting post in quite some time. its strange having to openly explain someone that he is being insulted out of fear that he wouldnt understand it otherwise. yes, this is a coninuation of that insult.
#31
Posted 14 February 2016 - 11:50 AM
#32
Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:12 PM
I would do way better with 130 tons than 330
#33
Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:26 PM
Rogue Jedi, on 14 February 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:
I would do way better with 130 tons than 330
The old days of non-stop Light Zerg rushing.
#34
Posted 14 February 2016 - 02:32 PM
I believe the problem is that if you have balance then why buy new or different Mechs, I believe there should be a set of diifferential rewards for using different mechs either Cbill, XP or MC
#35
Posted 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM
Cold Darkness, on 14 February 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:
No, ultimately - or rather, very soon - there would not be enough Clan players left to sustain the >2 hours of ghost dropping apiece needed to capture a single planet. Most Clan players, I would reckon, are actually reasonable people that have better things to do with their limited leisure time.
Also, if it by some miracle actually came to the scenario you depicted above - which is for all practical purposes impossible - CW would be dead as a doornail long before. Which would also be fine by me, because then maybe PGI would finally realize that it does not work as intended.
P.S.: He who would insult others only insults himself. Reported nonetheless, since posts like yours are detrimental to the community environment.
P.P.S.: If this was your first direct insult in "quite some time", and you only have 33 Posts, we can assume that at least 2/33, or ~6% of your posts are direct insults. Which does not sound at all far fetched, if rather sad.
Edited by Koshirou, 14 February 2016 - 02:57 PM.
#36
Posted 15 February 2016 - 03:37 AM
MechregSurn, on 12 February 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:
Nearly all IS loyalist leaders are reporting they will be switching to clan post nerf. Those few players that stay IS will need an extreme tonnage increase to balance the clan tech imbalance.
but you need 335 to bring 3 100t mechs and a FS9
Karmen Baric, on 13 February 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:
are you kidding? those comps sacrifice a lot tonnage for hardly any range, people won't bing more than a tc1 or 2. the tradeoff in lakc fo cooling and more dakka isn't worth it.
IS dakka is better and most IS mechs are geneally better than many clanmechs per default. Yet i don't get why PGI wants to unnerf the holy chassis of the clans, thats surely a BAD idea. bad for clan vs is balance bad for clan interchassis balance.
Edited by Lily from animove, 15 February 2016 - 03:40 AM.
#37
Posted 15 February 2016 - 03:35 PM
Koshirou, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:
2 hours of ghost drops was nothing unusual a short while back. people still play the game. and thats something you should be thankful for. even if you appearently do not realize why.
Koshirou, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:
that would not be the death of CW that would be the end of MWO. if your only goal is to see mwo shut down, just leave it. at least try to realize that your mindset is what is detrimental to the community.
Koshirou, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:
stop posting crap and other people wont answer with crap. instead make actual useful and non delusional suggestions.
Koshirou, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:
somehow i assumed that youd figure that similar posts may have happened in other environments. like, other communitys. sadly, i was mistaken again.
Edited by Cold Darkness, 15 February 2016 - 04:10 PM.
#38
Posted 16 February 2016 - 03:51 PM
Cold Darkness, on 15 February 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:
Yes it was.
Quote
No it wouldn't. The vast majority of players does not play CW.
Quote
What would that be? 4chan? I can think of few other "communitys" who would tolerate the presence of someone who openly insults others and brags about it.
#39
Posted 17 February 2016 - 03:27 AM
Koshirou, on 16 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:
and loads of development ressources funneled into its creation as well as many people waiting for it to actually become a decent part of the game because quickmatches being rather shallow in the long run when there is NO alternative is obviously a nonfactor.
Koshirou, on 16 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:
its rather easy to figure out that this isnt the case based on the style that posts are written.
------------------
anyways:
did you EVER consider that you just might not be as good as some other people at this game? if you feel you need 70 tons of advantage against your opponents, that is most likely the case. it is beyond me how one can even suggest such a change and talk it of as a normal suggestion.
if you cannot figure out how grave the effects of this change would be, you SHOULD NOT make balancing suggestions at all. simply because you are unable to do so in a reasonable manner. what you SHOULD DO, is point out things you feel are unfair and why you think that this is the case.
#40
Posted 17 February 2016 - 03:39 AM
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users