59 replies to this topic

[The Lobsters]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

And if it were completely lore-based, PGI shouldn't include non-canon hero variants, don't bother releasing Roughneck cause it's nowhere in the original BT. What about P variants like Shadow Cat P?

If "muh lore" is just your argument. Then really you don't have anything argue with.

He is correct in saying that artemis doesn't give the 35% lore bonus.

It gives a 33% bonus.




Also, I think you are missing my point. So you make it a smaller bonus. You're still essentially buffing lurmtard playstyle at the expense of good lrm play.

Do not want.

Lurmtards already have enough incentive to get forward and find Los, which they choose not to exploit. Nerfing artemis is not good for the game.


Dps/m2 is the only useful metric for assessing how effective an Lrm package is, being an area effect/CoF weapon.

What you are suggesting is essentially normalising effective dps (dps/m2) between artemis launchers and vanilla launchers.

Sorry to be rude, but Nope<sup>tm


.</sup>

Edited by The Lobsters, 23 March 2017 - 03:50 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

He is correct in saying that artemis doesn't give the 35% lore bonus.

It gives a 33% bonus.

Yes and? We have Roughneck, Shadow Cat P, etc. There's a lot that's not in lore with the current game. Him invoking "no because muh lore" is invalid, when PGI is already breaking lore.

Besides, table top is played differently from FPS. Why on earth would we expect it to work like the table top? In here you can aim, and move freely because it's not turn based.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 03:29 AM.

[The Lobsters]

You're awfully argumentative for a person trying to persuade others to come round to your way of thinking, and very easy to wind up.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Also, I think you are missing my point. So you make it a smaller bonus. You're still essentially buffing lurmtard playstyle at the expense of good lrm play.

No, you miss my point. Lore argument is irrelevant.

Likewise lurmtard playstyle isn't completely hinged on the launchers, it's on the pilot. That's like saying pencils mispell. Stop blaming the tool for the pilot error. Be responsible man.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Lurmtards already have enough incentive to get forward and find Los, which they choose not to exploit. Nerfing artemis is not good for the game.

But what is good for the game is making large launchers not garbage that Artemis is needed. If Artemis launchers were to stay in their balanced pedestal, they will invariably get direct or indirect nerf by buffing the base launchers.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Dps/m2 is the only useful metric for assessing how effective an Lrm package is, being an area effect/CoF weapon.

Yes and? SRMs exists too, likewise there's LRM20.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

What you are suggesting is essentially normalising effective dps (dps/m2) between artemis launchers and vanilla launchers.

Sorry, but nope. The essence of the suggestion is to make vanilla launchers not garbage without Artemis, not completely equal.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

You're awfully argumentative for a person trying to persuade others to come round to your way of thinking, and very easy to wind up.

That's because you're ill-informed about some threads, the point just blows away past you. Like in my Frigate thread. It's frustrating because it's like you might as well not even read my responses.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 04:02 AM.

[The Lobsters]

I'm not going to argue with you bro, you're beating me with experience.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

I'm not going to argue with you bro, you're beating me with experience.

No, you're just shitposting like in the other thread.

I mean really, going on a personal level? You started this, and it's pathetic.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

You're awfully argumentative for a person trying to persuade others to come round to your way of thinking, and very easy to wind up.

But hey, whatever lets you sleep at night.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 04:09 AM.

[The Lobsters]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

No, you're just shitposting like in the other thread.

I mean really, going on a personal level? You started this, and it's pathetic.



But hey, whatever lets you sleep at night.

I'm really not, I was actually trying to take part in your idea. As far as 'going' on a personal level', you set the bar with that yourself. You may not see it, but that really comes across in your posts.

It is clear however, that you do get upset easily, and take things a bit too personal too quick. I believe you may be seeking a bit too much personal validation on these forums, and when that isn't immediately forthcoming, you take that as a slight, and generally imply that all respondents who aren't agreeing with you are idiots and stupid.

I'm not trolling you here, I actually am a bit concerned about your meatspace avatar's well being, genuinely I am. We all can be a bit ragey from time to time, and such is the internet, as we read and type in the safety of out private spaces, it can be easy to feel out private spaces are invaded by strangers when we read something that challenges us. It takes effort to maintain an objective, cool distance in these circumstances. I'm trying to reach out to you here, don't get so mad so quick, it only serves to alienate people who may actually be interested in what you have to say.

I'm not actually against the idea that basic launchers could receive a buff in some way, but not cooldown. That would break the game. Maybe ammo amount, but not cooldown.

[Roughneck45]

Why? The cost is the extra weight and pod space. Its designed to be more desirable on large launchers.

How about we tighten the spread of the SRM6 just a tiny bit. Give it the flight patter of a 2 and 4 firing together.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

I'm really not, I was actually trying to take part in your idea. As far as 'going' on a personal level', you set the bar with that yourself. You may not see it, but that really comes across in your posts.

No, you did. I was there only answering to your post. Then you turn the focus to me. You made it personal, like so.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

You're awfully argumentative for a person trying to persuade others to come round to your way of thinking, and very easy to wind up.

You know how we could tell? Because this post is nowhere near about SRMs, Artemis, etc. It's all about me.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

It is clear however, that you do get upset easily, and take things a bit too personal too quick. I believe you may be seeking a bit too much personal validation on these forums, and when that isn't immediately forthcoming, you take that as a slight, and generally imply that all respondents who aren't agreeing with you are idiots and stupid.

Exactly like this, instead of going back to the topic at hand. You focus to me. I don't care what you believe about me.

Dakota disagreed with me, and i accepted it.

I am only upset because in the last encounters we had, you failed to properly participate to the topic at hand. Seriously, one person uses lore as justification not to modify the Artemis in such a way, in which i explained that PGI is doing non-lore stuff, therefore his argument is invalid.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

Lightfoot, on 22 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

No, BattleTech says it would not be canon for Artemis to increase recycle times, so it's not allowed.

You said:

Lightfoot, on 22 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Of course Artemis does not increase the accuracy of missiles by 35% in MWO either.

And if it were completely lore-based, PGI shouldn't include non-canon hero variants, don't bother releasing Roughneck cause it's nowhere in the original BT. What about P variants like Shadow Cat P?

If "muh lore" is just your argument. Then really you don't have anything argue with.

He is correct in saying that artemis doesn't give the 35% lore bonus.

It gives a 33% bonus.

Then you corrected the value from 35% to 33% -- how is correcting the value makes the argument of "muh lore" any more relevant? Seriously, so the what?

Quite frankly, I am quite upset with you intruding in the thread without enough understanding. In the frigate thread, i already explained that I don't like the lurm-boat builds to the King Crab, which indicates that i know their builds, and then you posted on it as if i don't even know their builds. You failed to understand my position, you didn't get my point, yet you responded anyways. What kind of **** is that?

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

I'm not trolling you here, I actually am a bit concerned about your meatspace avatar's well being, genuinely I am. We all can be a bit ragey from time to time, and such is the internet, as we read and type in the safety of out private spaces, it can be easy to feel out private spaces are invaded by strangers when we read something that challenges us. It takes effort to maintain an objective, cool distance in these circumstances. I'm trying to reach out to you here, don't get so mad so quick, it only serves to alienate people who may actually be interested in what you have to say.

With the level of understanding you demonstrated here and on the last thread, you might as well. Here we are having a proper conversation about Artemis, me explaining why "muh lore" is wrong and you correcting the value is irrelevant, then you shifted the focus on me personally. It's like you're going ad hominem, stop, it's pathetic.

We only met on two threads, are you really going to assume so much of it?

Dakota and I discussed, did you even bother to read the thread? We compromised, i accepted his position. I didn't just sticked to the cooldown completely, heck i even lowered it from 25% to 6.6666%.

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

I'm not actually against the idea that basic launchers could receive a buff in some way, but not cooldown. That would break the game. Maybe ammo amount, but not cooldown.

Couldn't you just say something like this? Stay on topic instead of not being personal?

Now back on topic, what Artemis needs to be come is "optional" not "necessary". So like 120 ammo/ton when No-Artemis?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 03:27 PM.

[The Lobsters]

I really think you'd shouldn't be getting upset about anything on an internet forum at all, and to reiterate, I don't think you have an idea of how alienating you are to people who actually are trying to contribute.

You don't take criticism well. You're more of a giver than a taker. Rise above it. Don't be that guy.

Edited by The Lobsters, 23 March 2017 - 04:36 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

You don't take criticism well. You're more of a giver than a taker. Rise above it. Don't be that guy.

No, I take criticism quite well.

But rather i hate it when i'm trying to keep on topic, and some guy interjects with little understanding with the topic at hand. Especially when it turns personal, like what you're still doing. You may be trying, but like the last thread all you have done is made a **** out of the thread by ignoring the topic at hand.

Don't be that guy, don't be pathetic.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 March 2017 - 04:41 PM.

[Scout Derek]

Doubling down on no. Artemis is fine where it's at, more tonnage and more crit slots for better CoF. Most mechs don't use Artemis unless they have the tonnage and the slots to do so, and that at times is not good overall.

[The Lobsters]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

No, I take criticism quite well.

But rather i hate it when i'm trying to keep on topic, and some guy interjects with little understanding with the topic at hand. Especially when it turns personal, like what you're still doing. You may be trying, but like the last thread all you have done is made a **** out of the thread by ignoring the topic at hand.

Don't be that guy, don't be pathetic.

There you go, with the alienating chat again.

I've tried to reach out to you, genuinely, with good will. Now I feel like an enabler. Sorry to have posted in your thread.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

There you go, with the alienating chat again.

I've tried to reach out to you, genuinely, with good will. Now I feel like an enabler. Sorry to have posted in your thread.

Because we're not supposed to be chatting, we are supposed to be discussing. We're serious about artemis here, and you made this **** about me.

Off topic is over here: https://mwomercs.com...ic-discussions/

If you have nothing about the topic at hand, get out.

[The Lobsters]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2017 - 04:52 PM, said:

Because we're not supposed to be chatting, we are supposed to be discussing. We're serious about artemis here, and you made this **** about me.

Off topic is over here: https://mwomercs.com...ic-discussions/

If you have nothing about the topic at hand, get out.

Sorry, that was 'chat' as in scottish vernacular for talk or discussion.

I have already said much about your topic. You haven't come across as the 'discussing' type.

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Sorry, that was 'chat' as in scottish vernacular for talk or discussion.

I have already said much about your topic. You haven't come across as the 'discussing' type.

I accepted Dakota's input, along with others, that's because they actually have something to say with substance.

And i have already said, what you have been trying to focus on is me, not the important topic at hand. In your last posts, it's about me as a person, not about Artemis as it is the object that is being discussed.

Again, stop being that pathetic guy that makes it about the person, not the topic.

[Lyoto Machida]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

I accepted Dakota's input, along with others, that's because they actually have something to say with substance.

And i have already said, what you have been trying to focus on is me, not the important topic at hand. In your last posts, it's about me as a person, not about Artemis as it is the object that is being discussed.

Again, stop being that pathetic guy that makes it about the person, not the topic.

Maybe he's tired of you spamming wacky ideas out all the time...consider it forum fatigue or something.

In reference to your actual post...why exactly does Artemis need a nerf at all at this point? I generally don't see too many "ALRMs/ASRMs are OP!" threads, if any at all. Maybe they're out there and I just haven't been around much lately...

[The6thMessenger]

Lyoto Machida, on 23 March 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Maybe he's tired of you spamming wacky ideas out all the time...consider it forum fatigue or something.

He doesn't have to read it, nor this forum is owned by him.

Lyoto Machida, on 23 March 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

In reference to your actual post...why exactly does Artemis need a nerf at all at this point? I generally don't see too many "ALRMs/ASRMs are OP!" threads, if any at all. Maybe they're out there and I just haven't been around much lately...

Well, if you have been following the conversation, it's actually because if i buff the base launchers, it will inevitably buff the Artemis launchers as well. And to do so without moving the Artemis from it's balance pedestal is still a nerf.

I never said that Artemis is OP, rather i pointed out that Artemis isn't optional to larger launchers, it's necessary to be effective. And that's what i intended to change.

[ExoForce]

Lurmtard here. IMHO, currently Artemis is not worthy, I regret putting it on my prime mech in the first place.
TAG is the name of that game.

Edited by ExoForce, 24 March 2017 - 09:42 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

dont think a Cooldown increase with the Artimis upgrade is necessary,
LRMs are already not too Viable and with its cost of +1Ton/Crit, i think its balanced,
as Artimis isnt required on all missilles its a trade off, i can say right now it feels balanced,

The Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

You're awfully argumentative for a person trying to persuade others to come round to your way of thinking, and very easy to wind up.

many people here are very passionate about MWO,

Keep it civil guys and try to keep an open mind,