The Lighthouse, on 26 August 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:
The post is getting really long so I will restrict myself from chopping up the comment too much. This will be prob my very last comment against you in this thread, because it is very obvious now that all you are doing is moving goalposts nonstop.
Moving goal posts? Mostly just trying to keep you factual and get you to clearly define yourself...
Quote
FIrst of all, I mean... all power to you to spend money on this game. Sure, if you say so, I will definitely research how much did you spend on this game indeed.
Go for it, me and my 400+ 'mechs and possibly dozens (honestly can't remember for sure) of gifted 'mech packs welcome the audit.
Quote
But, at the same token, I am not going to really bother pointing out references regarding the fact that Gauss Rifle is mainly long-range weapon as well. The reference is everywhere, and you can get it easily. If you can spend so much money, you should have no problem grabbing some of the novels from Amazon, right? Paperback version are ultra cheap these days and I am sure you have some spare to buy those books to get into Battletech lore, just like I did.
<chuckle> Couldn't find 'em could you?
And if you're referring to novels rife with 'poetic license'. Don't make me laugh, otherwise we'd be begging for cockpit seeking missiles, and jump jet induced damage values...
The game's rules aren't derived from plot points, they're derived from the TT rule sets published over the years.
And again, no where in any of those is the gauss rifle defined as a "primarily long range", "sniper", "non-brawling" weapon.
Quote
And speaking of Smurfy, it actually has very nice ability to tell you that sustained DPS I've been talking about. Experiment with it for a while and I am pretty sure you will find many cases where Gauss builds exceeds AC builds in terms of DPS.
It's a flat value, I can't make gauss DPS any greater than 2.61 per weapon.
In a face off of equivalent tonned 'mechs with similar armor with equally skilled pilots the greater DPS of AC can over come the gauss with a single crit. It doesn't take long, AT ALL, for most of the other AC's to chew through a component and start scoring crits.
With dual gauss I can do 60 damage in 11.5 seconds. Dual AC/20 I can do 120 in 12 seconds, if heat is problem after the second cool down I simply utilize a coolant flush, and fire.
Simple math. Simple knowledge of the game. No agenda inflicting the quality of my logic.
Quote
And no, stop twisting my words. You know what I mean "AC vomit", yet you are again twisting into pure dakka build. I did face the terror of KDK-3 so you don't have to mention about it. And you definitely know this is not what I am talking about.
And...
No, I don't know what you mean. Your definitions have been skewed and/or wrong from the outset, which is why I've worded the things as I did to give you room to refine your statements so that we can agree on exactly what you're trying to say and what you're point actually is, FOR EXAMPLE:
Quote
Hey, it's not so cool that you are using this twisting trick again on this one. Just when were we arguing about drivers' comforts? Last time I remember, we were talking about aiming shaking which is related to weapons, not drivers. Sure crew would feel the vibration, but as the video shows, weapons should have no problem completely negate shaking effect.
Uh huh, you show me a vid of a weapon that's being held steady by an external process, and my point was the people doing the aiming are probably going to be shaking around a lot as that tank moves at speed. If they're MANUALLY aiming the weapon as we, theoretically, are in our stompy robot sim, that movement while not affecting where the gun points, will probably make it more difficult for the gunner to aim properly. In other words, stick a rocket up that tanks *** and launch it into the air 50 meters and see if that beer, or the crew in it, aren't being
just a little bit jostled, THEN call me, k?
That's what the appropriate cockpit shake occurring during an active JJ is all about. BUT AGAIN we come to the point where BASIC knowledge of the game and how it works and a tiny modicum of skill will counter that absolutely minor inconvenience, namely the pop-tart pilots who actually know what they're doing will jump up, cut thrusters (where the cockpit shake stops) aim and fire on the way back down to the ground.
The cockpit shake doesn't prevent pop-tarting, it just makes it slightly more difficult to do well.
Quote
Yes, that's true. But once again you are moving goalpost. The point is never about the fact that people whining in forums and subreddit. The point is that PGI apparently cares about these whining and implement lore-breaking, un-fun (it's subjective, I must admit) and extremely complicated methods to satisfy their demands when there is very simple solution to all of these (or maybe energy draw for extreme.)
No moving of goal posts, defining very specifically what does and does not occur in reality (even giving you room to elaborate to more clearly express your point, which you've decided not to) and that is, YES, while PGI does get ideas from these forums, Reddit, heck even Twitter, it is NOT bound by anything the posters say, and is not obligated to enact any change any poster has ever submitted.
You really seem to be trying to not so subtly hint at is that there's some super secret all powerful Unit that submits their commands to PGI and PGI does there bidding. Again, I gave you an opportunity to elaborate and you've decided it was a goal post move.
While not a totally impossibility, I reserve the right to be extremely skeptical until you provide proof. My tin foil hat is reserved for MY OWN paranoid fantasies, thank you.
Quote
I have no idea what are you trying to argue with me regarding PPC. The post is actually very confused.
You're the one who stated you like PPC builds and I was agreeing with you and listing the benefits of the weapons by comparing them against gauss.
Quote
One thing I must mention is that a lot of people still do play multiplayer mode for MW3, as well as MW4, even today. And whether you agree or not, they also say the balance is better than MWO.
More power to 'em and I'm glad they're playing a game they like.
[sarcasm]I'm certain there are no such things as weapon balance discussions on their forums too, and everyone is absolutely pleased to the dickens about how every weapon works and is perfectly balanced.[/sarcasm]
Quote
Good thing you are writing like this now! But again, you are twisting your own words here. You never wrote "like where it was set in stone" these "rules" you keep referring to? This is what you wrote in the first place:
Are you really going to claim that this has same tone as "like where it was set in stone" these "rules" you keep referring to?"
My friend, if you don't understand paraphrasing and difference between single and double quotes, well... Plus if you don't know that the phrase "set in stone" actually originated from the 10 Commandments (or RULES) being written on stone tablets... You may indeed need to stop posting here, there are other individuals on this forum that won't be as nice about it as I am being...
Quote
Argh..... I already said you should stop insulting me as an arrogant person, but you are keep doing it regardless. And this paragraph has a huge logical fallacy here. The fact that I am not setting policy for PGI does not mean that I am wrong about adding huge cooldowns. What do those two have any common?
Wow, you truly are not ready for the internet. If you are offended THAT EASILY you should never darken another forum with your shadow... You are wrong about the cool down, period. You do not set policy for PGI because of anything you've posted in any forum. These are both facts, and while not related, CAN be typed into a single paragraph and read by most people and understood to NOT imply that you are wrong because you're not allowed to set policy for PGI or any other bizarre interpolation you can come up with, but that you are wrong about the cool down period, AND, that you (nor anyone that I can tell) sets policy for PGI based off forum or twitter posts, or séance, or carrier pigeon, or what have you.
Quote
It is, ultimately, your own opinion, just like mine. But the major difference is that my opinion is well supported by evidence (the fact that MW3 and MW4 were well received and people liked them) and data (the weapon stat from previous games) while your opinion is stemmed from... your own feelings really.
Your opinion is wrong, and you're wrong to assume that long weapon reloads in other games means this one should have them too. Again, MW3 and MW4 were designed around single player experience, and as I understand it, had multiplayer more or less duct taped on. Neither were designed around the MMO experience.
Just because those other game's titles have the words "Mech Warrior" in them doesn't mean any value in them is necessarily valid for MechWarrior Online.
PGI is not obligated to use their values and data from them is like taking data on garbage collection from New York to justify a highway bill in California. Yes, both require roads and heavy equipment, gasoline will be burned BUT, they really don't apply to one another.
Quote
I am sorry to say, but your opinion is objectively far weaker than mine, unless you can bring some concrete numbers and references. You know, after all it is very basic stuffs for debates.
You mean besides all the concrete numbers FROM THIS GAME I've already brought, which conclusively show you've been wrong?
Quote
Finally, I am not even going to bother comment on rest of your comments. Pretty much all of them are twisting and moving goalposts, just like I described so far. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and I have no desire to waste my time for it.
'You keep using that phrase, I don't think it means what you think it means.'
Edited by Dimento Graven, 26 August 2017 - 10:29 PM.