257 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

Hunka Junk, on 23 October 2016 - 01:55 AM, said:

I think the greater point is that the side you think you're helping would be better off without your "help".

you're right. I need to go to the side that provides no actually evidence for their claims. I might go a long way.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 October 2016 - 01:59 AM.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 October 2016 - 01:46 AM, said:

genius, go read my re-edited post. Also you are the one that brought up the resent UAC changes. I don't even care about the recent changes on the mechs.

All you added was this...

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 October 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

After looking at them I actually do not know why those mechs specifically. Maybe Ill ask around.

So.... you didn't bother to read the patch notes, and you expect people to take you seriously?

I'm just saying, if you are able to discuss balance... you could probably defend ED...

However, you can't. That's your problem.

All you're essentially saying "it's better, because I said so".

I've already written a lot more in the PTS forums than you have, and you still don't get why people are up at arms, when the balance changes are woefully arbitrary and not thought out.

You can run whatever excuse, but your inability to explain "why it's good" other than "I said so" does not constitute a good defense.

Quote

So basically you are saying I can not ask for sources because I didn't know about the recent changes to these UACs on certain mechs. Too which had nothing to do with what I was talking about and it was an irellevent topic you brought up?

You ask for sources from other people w/o doing your own research. That is very helpful in a discussion, nor being a responsible person. Sometimes I forget and ask people, but in many cases I use due diligence as much as I possibly can before I have an opinion on the matter.

If you can't explain the UAC changes, how do you think anyone is going to listen to your take on ED seriously?

Edited by Deathlike, 23 October 2016 - 01:58 AM.

[L3mming2]

ED is going to happen (sooner or later), i'll save my breath for when it douse

[BLOOD WOLF]

Deathlike, on 23 October 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:

If you can't explain the UAC changes, how do you think anyone is going to listen to your take on ED seriously?

Becuase my ability to explain the recent UAC jam changes to specific mechs, which I didn't read in the first place, Has nothing to do with my ability to explain the concepts of ED.

which is all irrelevant to the topic

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 October 2016 - 02:07 AM.

[BluefireMW]

Battlemaster56, on 22 October 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

Let the playerbase vote what they think about ED

bad idea
The people who want the high alphas as they are right now will vote against.
You first need to change something on live that the gaps are filled, then you can ask for a vote.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 October 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

Becuase my ability to explain the recent UAC jam changes to specific mechs, which I didn't read in the first place, Has nothing to do with my ability to explain the concepts of ED.

It does actually.

It's not like we're trial lawyers or anything, but your job is to convince people at large why your opinion is valid.

If you can't properly debate the point, then why should anyone listen to you?

It's really as simple as that.

BluefireMW, on 23 October 2016 - 02:06 AM, said:

bad idea
The people who want the high alphas as they are right now will vote against.
You first need to change something on live that the gaps are filled, then you can ask for a vote.

It doesn't fix what you think it fixes. The meta will change, but the good players tend to stay good.. whereas some of the bad players may get totally confused at what actually changed.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Deathlike, on 23 October 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

It does actually.

It's not like we're trial lawyers or anything, but your job is to convince people at large why your opinion is valid.

If you can't properly debate the point, then why should anyone listen to you?

It's really as simple as that.

Thats not my job. I am not gonna debate a point that is irrelevant to the topic, because I don't know why they made those changes. My only job is to put facts and argument the merit of whats actually true. Because I am a person who cares about facts, I care about cause and effect. I care about correlation. I will say it again I care most about what I true.

The topic is why is ED winning, not the recent changes to UACS. As long as ED continues to plug the hole that the old system left wide open then I see no reason to believe that it is not doing its job. Balancing aside.

I was hoping for actual detailed video evidence of why ED would not affect all weapon systems and combinations. That was what I was looking. There is merit in a forum post, but how is anyone to verify it? how is anyone actually gonna know if the post is correct?

So far the thread has given me exactly what I didn't ask for.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 October 2016 - 02:15 AM, said:

Thats not my job. I am not gonna debate a point that is irrelevant to the topic, because I don't know why they made those changes. My only job is to put facts and argument the merit of whats actually true. Because I am a person who cares about facts, I care about cause and effect. I care about correlation. I will say it again I care most about what I true.

You don't listen to the opposing side's facts and refution of your arguments.

Quote

The topic is why is ED winning, not the recent changes to UACS. As long as ED continues to plug the hole that the old system left wide open then I see no reason to believe that it is not doing its job. Balancing aside.

You haven't obviously paid attention to the specifics. I even dedicated a thread to why ED doesn't account for naturally different weapon mechanics (lasers vs PPLD vs spread). You can't have a fixed number to be the same for all of them. It doesn't work.

Quote

I was hoping for actual detailed video evidence of why ED would not affect all weapon systems and combinations. That was what I was looking. There is merit in a forum post, but how is anyone to verify it? how is anyone actually gonna know if the post is correct?

Because you don't even understand how weapons work, it is hard to put together a video explaining this if you don't understand the foundations of the weapon systems as currently constituted.

Quote

So far the thread has given me exactly what I didn't ask for.

That is what you deserve.


I didn't write this specific thread relating to ED, but it essentially explains the different weapon systems and "attempting" to balancing them is misguided if you don't understand how they function.

http://mwomercs.com/...oldown-modules/

[The6thMessenger]

In war, nobody is right, only who's left.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Deathlike, on 23 October 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

You don't listen to the opposing side's facts and refution of your arguments.

yet I keep addressing your points

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 October 2016 - 02:45 AM, said:

yet I keep addressing your points

You haven't.

[Baulven]

I would like to point out one thing. In the new system clan LL becomes very powerful, and a lot of clan omni's have a pod that can fit one in their head. The amount of salt that alone will produce will be staggering.

[martian]

Baulven, on 23 October 2016 - 02:50 AM, said:

I would like to point out one thing. In the new system clan LL becomes very powerful, and a lot of clan omni's have a pod that can fit one in their head. The amount of salt that alone will produce will be staggering.

Well, "a lot" ...

Four of them:

• Ryoken
  
• Loki
  
• Night Gyr
  
• Daishi

[Baulven]

martian, on 23 October 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:

Well, "a lot" ...

Four of them:

• Ryoken
  
• Loki
  
• Night Gyr
  
• Daishi

My bad I thought there was 8 in total. I must be thinking of something else. Regardless people will cry foul the moment your talk about a potential buff to clans right now since IS has been getting the shaft recently.

[Deathlike]

Baulven, on 23 October 2016 - 02:50 AM, said:

I would like to point out one thing. In the new system clan LL becomes very powerful, and a lot of clan omni's have a pod that can fit one in their head. The amount of salt that alone will produce will be staggering.

You're forgetting the overbuffed CERMED.

IS LL/LPL and to a lesser extent Clan LPL got screwed.

[C E Dwyer]

Well I did two things after I saw this thread.

One was Report it, because I believe it a thread created to gloat, and start a flame war.

Two, was to Tweet Russ and try and draw his attention to Imperius's poll, because in my opinion if those small numbers are representative of the player base, then ED could well be the thing that closes this game down, and I don't want that.

Having been spending a lot of time playing Wargaming's PvP offerings, in the last couple of months, made me realise that P.G.I, a smaller company, have actually tried to give us far more than WG.net have even attempted.

[Hunka Junk]

Cathy, on 23 October 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

One was Report it, because I believe it a thread created to gloat, and start a flame war.

If you thought that about this, be sure to check out Mr. WOLF's other most recent thread he's created to assist PGI and combat community negativity.

As an aside, will you be paying the $50 to join the HBS Beta?

Part of me wants to. The other part of me does not pay to be part of betas.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Cathy, on 23 October 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

Well I did two things after I saw this thread.

One was Report it, because I believe it a thread created to gloat, and start a flame war.

so because I asked for actually demonstrable evidence, I want to start a flame war? sounds reasonable. good luck with that report.

I made this thread for someone do demonstrate with valid evidence.

gonna have to just hit that report button myself when certain people come to the threads I make, because its getting to a level of childish ridiculousness, and I am too old.

Gonna have to stick to just addressing the arguments and stop with this nonsense. I just cant deal with certain people on these forums anymore.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 23 October 2016 - 03:43 AM.

[L3mming2]

Deathlike, on 23 October 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

You haven't obviously paid attention to the specifics. I even dedicated a thread to why ED doesn't account for naturally different weapon mechanics (lasers vs PPLD vs spread). You can't have a fixed number to be the same for all of them. It doesn't work.

it douse account for different weapon mechanics, PPFLD =1 draw lasers= 0.9 draw =spread 0.75 draw

wile those numbers might need to be dailed in more they indicate that ED is perfectly capable to take in to account the effectivness of different kinds of weapon mechanics

[Deathlike]

L3mming2, on 23 October 2016 - 03:42 AM, said:

it douse account for different weapon mechanics, PPFLD =1 draw lasers= 0.9 draw =spread 0.75 draw

wile those numbers might need to be dailed in more they indicate that ED is perfectly capable to take in to account the effectivness of different kinds of weapon mechanics

It doesn't do it well.

For instance, why isn't the "spread" applied to LBX?

LBX naturally provides a spread, but it's counted exactly like an AC10.. and anyone with a clue knows they aren't even in the same boat.

Streaks are not even considered in the spread phenomenon either, (not that they need buffing), but SRMs are not in the same boat as Streaks either.

It's a loose interpretation, plus how do you justify smaller weapons (like the IS SL) not having a smaller value?

It's not fully complete nor comprehensive.