Paigan, on 09 February 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:
Even if just one point would be false (which is not the case, but rather you have no idea what you are talking about), the whole topic is discarded?
Do you understand how you sound?
Ok, obviously not. But I can't explain it to you because I would get reported for it.
Oh please, don't be so white knight about it. Go re-read his "premise" on why you think it should be nerfed. It's not a list of reason, it's pretty much 1 reason in that seismic replace uav/whatever in scouting and is way too powerful. Where you learn to read? Imagination land?
"Imagination land, where we teach you to invent 10 thoughts out of 1."
(not a bad tagline for Trump's America)
TercieI, on 09 February 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:
On this, no, you are wrong. Seismic is a key scouting tool (though not the only one nor as good as it was once).
Nope. By definition of scouting, the process is active. By the time the enemy is 300 meters within your main attack force, your scouting sucks and it's no longer a scouting situation. Does it have value to put seismic on a scout mech? Sure. But a passive process is horrible scouting practice.
Let me give you an example.
(and hopefully you'll understand that intel gathering is NOT the same as scouting.)
When we want to see Russian movement near Alaska, we don't sit on our radar base in Anchorage. We sent spy planes to fly over Russian bases in Siberia and take pictures. That is scouting. (or satellites, whatever)
Now, we DO keep track of activities over Bering Sea using radar stations, and it's a vital part of intel warfare. But that's called "monitoring."
By definition, scouting is an active process. If your scouting consist of placing in strategic location passively guesstimating a 300 meter radius, again, you failed as a scout.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of scout
-
intransitive verb
-
1: to explore an area to obtain information (as about an enemy)
-
2a : to make a searchb : to work as a talent scout
Note how there is no 3rd definition that states to sit around passively waiting for intel? Perhaps you are getting the umbrella term "info warfare" with "scouting" itself confused.
-----------
Now, whether info warfare needs to be nerfed, that's another discussion. Though I am on the side that we are in the freaking 31st century, stop trying to make the game like WWII soldiers. Rather than nerf, PGI should introduce countermeasures to better highlight the tech part. I've always advocated for counter UAV, holographic projector, and stuff like that. Maybe we can add a seismic decoy to the list.
But then, you guys don't care about any of that. You care about your meta talk where either side just going to drone on and on about some pointless whether this is too powerful debate that will never have any point of convergence.
So, with that said, I'll leave you guys so that you may continue your worthless meta talk. I bid you goodday!
Edited by razenWing, 09 February 2017 - 11:01 AM.