819 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Jerry Beard, on 11 August 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

Positioning is the use of the terrain to your advantage which takes thinking there [Redacted]. Tactics and the use of them require a certain amount of thought ...

Good lord have you stepped in some doo doo here.

Quicksilver is an excellent player, he players for Steel Jags, one of the best (and consistently top tier) comp teams in the game.


It's actually embarrassing watching you try to talk tuff, as you try to tell him about using his head and "tactics".


Go pick 7 friends, and he'll bring 7 of his. When it's over, and you've lost repeatedly, you'll be so dizzy from the pounding that you won't even probably know what went wrong.

Edited by draiocht, 11 August 2016 - 08:55 AM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Gas Guzzler]

Jerry Beard, on 11 August 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

Nope I said " That this was supposed to be a thinking man's Shooter"

And his response was the most important thing in this game is thought intensive (positioning) which you then proceeded to explain how positioning requires thought mixed in with a bunch of insults for some reason.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 11 August 2016 - 08:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Your definitition of "accurate use" is extremely narrow. Accurate does not have to mean hitting a single pixel, generally it means hitting within the scope.

To me accurate in the context of this game does mean hitting what my reticle is aimed at keeping in mind that this does make leading mechs tricky, especially with weapons of different velocities or in different places. Whether you find that narrow or not, that is what I come to expect with this game *shrug*.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Either way, you do not attack the argument, you attempt to invalidate the premise, which is based solely on your opinion and interpretation.

No where did I say your entire argument is invalid, only your argument about what the meta entails, seriously, how many times must I say this?

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

No, I said the meta is, and has always been, about group fire. This is because, as I have stated and you have never refuted: group fire is more effective than chain fire in almost every situation. And this is against the BT universe, in which this game is supposedly set.

First, let's stop using alpha and group fire as interchangeable words, because they aren't. Second, you are correct, group fire is how you play the game, but why is that a problem? The effect of 4 AC5s and 4 AC20s in a grouped fire is very different so lumping all group fire as "the devil" is about as silly as treating all damage as equal. Not to mention with group fire does not always mean you are alpha striking either, most people have setup groups for when you reach your heat cap, things like the Black Knight of old would get two alphas off in a sustained engagement and then be relegated to a very small subset of its weapons for the rest of the time. Group firing is just about alphas, so let's stop pretending it is please.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Then you should be more careful in your posted assertions. You said you have not seen any of those things. You did NOT say that you personally have not done so. You can move the goalposts all you like, but my point still stands.

The only assertion I made was the lack of ad hominems, straw men are not ad hominems in this case.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Yes, it DOES matter. Being able to use the crutch of multiple small weapons having the same advantage as one big weapon, with NONE of the drawbacks removes a fundamental balancing tool.

I'm curious, are talking about in general, or small arms boating (all of which are pretty bad weapons)?

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

You DO realize that damage and heat on all weapons is already TRIPLE their TT values, right?

Having their DoT and HoT doubled/trippled is different from having their actual heat and damage per shot double/trippled which is what I was going after.

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

In MW:O, that balancing tool is thrown out of the window.

No, its what saved weapons like the AC5 from being worthless, and even then it still hasn't saved weapons like the AC2/MGs/SRM2/iSL/iSPL/etc.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 August 2016 - 08:22 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ultimax, on 11 August 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Good lord have you stepped in some doo doo here.

Quicksilver is an excellent player, he players for Steel Jags, one of the best (and consistently top tier) comp teams in the game.


It's actually embarrassing watching you try to talk tuff, as you try to tell him about using his head and "tactics".


Go pick 7 friends, and he'll bring 7 of his. When it's over, and you've lost repeatedly, you'll be so dizzy from the pounding that you won't even probably know what went wrong.

What went wrong would be the winning teams abuse of alpha strikes, obviously.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

Maybe that was in response to you wanting multiple shots fired at once to not be accurate? That's what I remember you saying but I could have been skimming I suppose.

Less accurate does not mean random in any way.

[Deathlike]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

What went wrong would be the winning teams abuse of alpha strikes, obviously.

No no no.

Focus fire is OP... you know that you have to "stay strong" while moving single file into a firing line... because that's what all players should be doing!

[Ultimax]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

What went wrong would be the winning teams abuse of alpha strikes, obviously.

They could set a stock mode only rule, or a chainfire only mode and I think we still know how it would turn out.

[Deathlike]

Ultimax, on 11 August 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

They could set a stock mode only rule, or a chainfire only mode and I think we still know how it would turn out.

Absolutely not! You have to chainfire your lasers onto an enemy, so that they have every opportunity to shoot you back with an AC20 to the face!

[Y E O N N E]

Ultimax, on 11 August 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Good lord have you stepped in some doo doo here.

Quicksilver is an excellent player, he players for Steel Jags, one of the best (and consistently top tier) comp teams in the game.


It's actually embarrassing watching you try to talk tuff, as you try to tell him about using his head and "tactics".


Go pick 7 friends, and he'll bring 7 of his. When it's over, and you've lost repeatedly, you'll be so dizzy from the pounding that you won't even probably know what went wrong.

Haven't you heard? To be a "thinking man's shooter," everything must be slow and clumsy, and you must be older than 25 to truly understand how to use such seasoned and proven "tactics" like "stand as far away from the target as possible while firing the slowest projectiles in the game at them" and use proven strategies like "that 'Mech killed me, let's raise them a PGI." Jeez, get with it, scrub.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

Less accurate does not mean random in any way.

So you really just want lack of convergence when firing in groups? That's kind of a different discussion but there are definitely draw backs there as well when it comes to mech balance. Honestly, alphas and group fire are here to stay, what's on the table right now is unilaterally limiting all weapons to an arbitrary alpha limit and expecting balance to not go down the drain.

[Jerry Beard]

Ultimax, on 11 August 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Good lord have you stepped in some doo doo here.

Quicksilver is an excellent player, he players for Steel Jags, one of the best (and consistently top tier) comp teams in the game.


It's actually embarrassing watching you try to talk tuff, as you try to tell him about using his head and "tactics".


Go pick 7 friends, and he'll bring 7 of his. When it's over, and you've lost repeatedly, you'll be so dizzy from the pounding that you won't even probably know what went wrong.

I clearly never stated that I was good and for talking tuff that is left to interpretation. Besides being able to beat 7 cartoon walkie robts with another 7 is not my idea of tuff by any sense. Tough to me is being able to play your shift in a hockey game with a broken arm or leg of being shot and continuing to fight. Speaking no matter how forceful you do it is not tough. Posturing is not tough at all to be honest. Epeens (which BTW I do not have one nor do I need one) are funny things. These forums are rife with them and I find them amusing. Being good at a video game is as important as being the best nose picker it only means something to other nose pickers and the group is rather small. I am middle of the pack at best in this game, he could beat me with both arms tied behind his back I am sure. That being said I am sure I could beat him in the other game I play because well I am far better at that. So your point which I do get is moot but still understood. He responded to my post and I responded to his. He responded again and if I choose I will respond to his, it's the real meta in MWO...lol

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

So you really just want lack of convergence when firing in groups? That's kind of a different discussion but there are definitely draw backs there as well when it comes to mech balance. Honestly, alphas and group fire are here to stay, what's on the table right now is unilaterally limiting all weapons to an arbitrary alpha limit and expecting balance to not go down the drain.

Well he could want recoil patterns much like CS:GO, which would probably require macros to actually emulate alphas and have a chance to counteract the recoil rather than pressing that one button and watch all but the first veer from your reticle. Then the complaints that macros are cheating would be the number one complaint

Jerry Beard, on 11 August 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

Nope I said " That this was supposed to be a thinking man's Shooter"

Good thing this game does require thinking then I guess?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 August 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[Jerry Beard]

It should be more than it is but we have what we have. Until they understand that nerfing and quirks will never truly work there will never be parity. All I want is a game that requires the use of your head more than this game does most times and it is a shame PGI has not seen that. Oh well I will continue my point and shoot adventures with the hopes that the game continues t evolve into what it should have been from the start.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

To me accurate in the context of this game does mean hitting what my reticle is aimed at keeping in mind that this does make leading mechs tricky, especially with weapons of different velocities or in different places. Whether you find that narrow or not, that is what I come to expect with this game *shrug*.

And all I am saying is that reticle should be larger the more weapons that are fired simultaneously.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

No where did I say your entire argument is invalid, only your argument about what the meta entails, seriously, how many times must I say this?

I have to tell you that that is merely a thin attempt at discrediting the main argument in debate. We can agree to drop that part entirely, and have a separate discussion on those merits.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

First, let's stop using alpha and group fire as interchangeable words, because they aren't. Second, you are correct, group fire is how you play the game, but why is that a problem? The effect of 4 AC5s and 4 AC20s in a grouped fire is very different so lumping all group fire as "the devil" is about as silly as treating all damage as equal. Not to mention with group fire does not always mean you are alpha striking either, most people have setup groups for when you reach your heat cap, things like the Black Knight of old would get two alphas off in a sustained engagement and then be relegated to a very small subset of its weapons for the rest of the time. Group firing is just about alphas, so let's stop pretending it is please.

For the record, I have been careful to distinguish between alpha striking and group firing. The confusion has come from some who interchange those terms in order to counter my arguments.
The effect of group firing 4 AC/5s is not that different than chain firing 1 AC/20 (which I think you meant to say), and my point is that it SHOULD be.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

The only assertion I made was the lack of ad hominems, straw men are not ad hominems in this case.

And the lack of them by you. We were originally talking about the lack of them overall. We can let this one go.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

I'm curious, are talking about in general, or small arms boating (all of which are pretty bad weapons)?

I am talking about overall. It is actually one of the reasons that bad, but light, weapons stay bad. It is impossible to buff the MG to usefulness, when that makes 6 of them too OP. (or Small lasers, etc.) They could be buffed to be made more useful if boating them had the drawback of either being 1. spread when fired in groups, or 2. accurate but taking longer to deliver the whole salvo.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Having their DoT and HoT doubled/trippled is different from having their actual heat and damage per shot double/trippled which is what I was going after.

I get it, we meant different things. However it does need to be noted that near triple damage combined with perfect convergent precision, and topped off by a component system in which only one part of a 'mech needs be destroyed is an inherently problematic (flawed, IMO) system.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 August 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

No, its what saved weapons like the AC5 from being worthless, and even then it still hasn't saved weapons like the AC2/MGs/SRM2/iSL/iSPL/etc.

As addressed above, I see it the opposite way. We have a chicken and the egg dichotomy here.

[Y E O N N E]

@Jerry Beard: Please enumerate exactly what you think you want when you say you want the game to require more head-usage than it currently does. A lot of people make the same claim, but falter when asked to elaborate because they don't actually know what they want or what is actually required in MWO.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 11 August 2016 - 08:47 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

I get it, we meant different things. However it does need to be noted that near triple damage combined with perfect convergent precision, and topped off by a component system in which only one part of a 'mech needs be destroyed is an inherently problematic (flawed, IMO) system.

It just leads to a faster paced game is all that means. Whether or not that is good or bad is 100% opinion. Ironically, laser vomit peakaboo matches are typically slower paced and more about positioning than would be rushing in and chainfiring everything. It is also rare that all damage goes into one part of the mech, typically it ends up spread regardless of how pinpoint the damage is because of movement. There are always those shots when one gets caught off guard, **** happens.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

So you really just want lack of convergence when firing in groups? That's kind of a different discussion but there are definitely draw backs there as well when it comes to mech balance. Honestly, alphas and group fire are here to stay, what's on the table right now is unilaterally limiting all weapons to an arbitrary alpha limit and expecting balance to not go down the drain.

Not lack of convergence, per se, but lack of pinpoint precise convergence. Every shot hits inside the reticle, but the player must decide how small or large they are willing to let that reticle be. That way there is a trade-off.
Alphas and group fire SHOULD be here to stay. They should remain a viable choice for the given tactic. But as they are right now, they are the only choice. Using heat to balance them does not work, especially with the binary heat system. (You are either shut down, or you are not), Using "power draw" I believe is a similar band aid, as I do not believe raw damage is the problem, but pinpoint damage from multiple weapons at once is.

Gas Guzzler, on 11 August 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

It just leads to a faster paced game is all that means. Whether or not that is good or bad is 100% opinion. Ironically, laser vomit peakaboo matches are typically slower paced and more about positioning than would be rushing in and chainfiring everything. It is also rare that all damage goes into one part of the mech, typically it ends up spread regardless of how pinpoint the damage is because of movement. There are always those shots when one gets caught off guard, **** happens.

Yes, a good player will spread laser damage by moving/twisting. This isn't about any single weapon system at all.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Not lack of convergence, per se, but lack of pinpoint precise convergence. Every shot hits inside the reticle, but the player must decide how small or large they are willing to let that reticle be. That way there is a trade-off.
Alphas and group fire SHOULD be here to stay. They should remain a viable choice for the given tactic. But as they are right now, they are the only choice. Using heat to balance them does not work, especially with the binary heat system. (You are either shut down, or you are not), Using "power draw" I believe is a similar band aid, as I do not believe raw damage is the problem, but pinpoint damage from multiple weapons at once is.

That honestly sounds like something PGI would turn down based on HSR and server loads.

[Jerry Beard]

Yeonne Greene, on 11 August 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

@Jerry Beard: Please enumerate exactly what you think you want when you say you want the game to require more head-usage than it currently does. A lot of people make the same claim, but falter when asked to elaborate because they don't actually know what they want or what is actually required in MWO.

The maps need to be multi-dimensional in the fact that there needs to be more objective based play. As we have most maps are 1 dimensional and always play the same way. Mechs in TT all play very differently and they should here as well by nerfing/quirking you pretty much get cookie cutter type builds that unless you use them or a really really good you don't stand a chance. Maps such as the ones in FP give very few options as to how to solve the problem and to me that limits the use of actual tactics and startegy as far as that goes. The units that win have sound tactics and I applaude them but if you look at the game there are very few ways to crack these tactics until the next round of meta builds filter down due to changes. Crunching numbers on damage potential is fine and well but to me but having a game that allows a myriad avenues of approach and allows teams to use multiple styles of play and mech builds and not just certain builds (I.E Meta) I think would go a long way in repopulating the game.

Edited by Jerry Beard, 11 August 2016 - 08:56 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 11 August 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

Yes, a good player will spread laser damage by moving/twisting. This isn't about any single weapon system at all.

Right, I was just pointing out that ironically, a big alpha gameplay can be slower paced and more thought intensive than chain fire gameplay. Also, lack of precise convergence spreads the damage for you, but even with pinpoint convergence, damage spreading already happens, so I would argue it is unnecessary.