205 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

Your reading a lot into it that simply isn't there. Let me simplify for you.

Like what? Like you didn't just used LRM to back up your point?

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

1. Adding hard cover to Polar reduces diversity as all other maps provide hard cover.

There's being diverse, and then there's being stupidly-"diverse". I prefer to be diverse enough, not too diverse that it generally becomes an unwelcomed sight, or people just scoff or hate on it.

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

2. I like diversity.

So do i. But no so much so that it's unreasonable.

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

3. Adding hard cover removes one of the unique challenges the map provides.

4. I like to face different challenges.

You still face the same challenges, depending on how many umbrellas were made. Obviously it wouldn't be so prevalent, and you'd still suffer LRM vulnerability IN BETWEEN umbrellas, cause the umbrellas wouldn't completely cover every inch of PH. Sincerely, don't act as if it's either/or scenario. Extremes are stupid.

Likewise it gives you a dilemma -- do you face direct-fire so LRMs couldn't hit you? Or do you suffer LRM vulnerability so you have the ability to move along the trenches and out of direct fire?

Decisions, DECISIONS!

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 November 2017 - 06:38 PM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 15 November 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Im happy bringing AMS.

Not gonna be much help if the enemy, has lots of LRM80A supernova though, my 3x AMS kitfox is just going to pad scores.

How many "LRM80A supernovas" do you see on one team as opposed to AMS-capable Mechs on the other in the same match?

Vonbach, on 15 November 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

No, You mean the people that actually learned to play the game without LRM boating like a noob.
Sorry polar highlands blows its the worst map in the game and I'd rather run HPG all day than play polar once.
I'm not alone either.

That's exactly what people who hate PH for getting killed by LRMs say.

Khobai, on 15 November 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I still think you should only get incoming missile warnings if you have AMS equipped.

Other weapons dont conveniently warn you when youre about to get hit by them? Why should missiles?

if you want the missile warning you should have to shell out the tonnage for an AMS

But we all know why the missile warnings were added in the first place -- people who got killed by LRMs cried loudly and incessantly on the forums.

The same types are doing it again now -- via demands to "fix" (aka. add more anti-missile protection) polar highlands.

Edited by Mystere, 15 November 2017 - 10:05 PM.

[Mystere]

Rampage, on 15 November 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Polar is fine. It adds diversity to the game. A variety of environments to wage battle on makes the game interesting and is important to keep any war game dynamic.

Make more maps. Leave Polar alone.

The problem is many do not actually want diversity. They only want "perfect" maps for their perfectly meta-whoring load outs free from LRM interference.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 15 November 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

How many "LRM80A supernovas" do you see on one team as opposed to AMS-capable Mechs on the other in the same match?

I don't remember much. But i do see AMS or 2x AMS heavies time to time, but a lot more frequent is LRM80A supernovas, especially when it's PH. And when i do while as a 3x AMS kitfox, the LRM80As just plow through anyways, and i just pad scores up to 900 missiles down.

I haven't seen an AMS array competent enough to nullify an LRM80A Supernova. That probably takes like 12 AMS with overload, when an AMS is already rare enough.

Mystere, on 15 November 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

The problem is many do not actually want diversity. They only want "perfect" maps for their perfectly meta-whoring load outs free from LRM interference.

I'm actually okay with diversity, just not with extremes like sniper-only or lrm-only, hell even AC-only or brawler-only maps.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 November 2017 - 10:21 PM.

[SeventhSL]

We already have the dilemma, decision making processes and challenge (lol) of moving between LRM hard cover on literally every other map in the game. Alpine for big gaps, Mining Collective for small ones, etc. For no gaps we only have Polar and that is it.

So if Polar is to diverse for you and you don't like it, fine I respect that. Lots of people DO like it and do like the diversity it brings so stop trying to take that away from them. If you can't suck it up and play on it from time to time then campaign for a map bycott system so you don't have to. That way you won't be wrecking it for others who enjoy greater diversity.

[The6thMessenger]

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

We already have the dilemma, decision making processes and challenge (lol) of moving between LRM hard cover on literally every other map in the game. Alpine for big gaps, Mining Collective for small ones, etc. For no gaps we only have Polar and that is it.

So what? What makes it imperative that we have no-gap map? Just because you want to? Can't we reason balance? Or hows about not have the victor near-decided when the map is decided?

I'm not saying that I want triumph yours or anything, that there's either all-gap or no-gap, it's just i want compromise.

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

So if Polar is to diverse for you and you don't like it, fine I respect that. Lots of people DO like it and do like the diversity it brings so stop trying to take that away from them. If you can't suck it up and play on it from time to time then campaign for a map bycott system so you don't have to. That way you won't be wrecking it for others who enjoy greater diversity.

I could say the same thing, lots of people DON't like it, and they don't like the kind of "diversity" it brings, so stop trying to enforce what you want for them. If you can't suck it up... etc. etc.

Really though, what makes your desires (or mine) worth considering than others? If you argue that I'm enforcing what i want to you, really i could say the same thing.

You know what others want? Polar Highlands to be deleted. Do you know what i want? Get it "fixed", what i want is compromise. It's not the end of the world, why do we have to be disrespectful and abrasive to one another? But I guess nuance like that is dead.

It's not going to kill LRMs, it will just prevent LRMs from being too effective and have the match somewhat decided when the map is picked.

Hell, do you expect me to argue against other maps too? Yes i will, i will literally advocate for more LRM effectiveness on HPG or on other maps, I also want Alpine Peaks fixed for being usually one-sided.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 November 2017 - 10:42 PM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 15 November 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

I don't remember much. But i do see AMS or 2x AMS heavies time to time, but a lot more frequent is LRM80A supernovas, especially when it's PH. And when i do while as a 3x AMS kitfox, the LRM80As just plow through anyways, and i just pad scores up to 900 missiles down.

I haven't seen an AMS array competent enough to nullify an LRM80A Supernova. That probably takes like 12 AMS with overload, when an AMS is already rare enough.


I'm actually okay with diversity, just not with extremes like sniper-only or lrm-only, hell even AC-only or brawler-only maps.

I call "dropping in a brawler on a long-rang map" the proverbial "luck of the draw". LRM80A supernovas dropping on such a map is the same (but the opposite kind of luck!) as well. And so are those same supernovas dropping against an enemy wirh 100%+ AMS coverage.

Getting rid of map voting and forcing only random maps will make thing fairer over the long term.

Edited by Mystere, 15 November 2017 - 10:57 PM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 15 November 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

So what? What makes it imperative that we have no-gap map? Just because you want to? Can't we reason balance? Or hows about not have the victor near-decided when the map is decided?

I'm not saying that I want triumph yours or anything, that there's either all-gap or no-gap, it's just i want compromise.

The best compromise between the "I like it" and "I hate it, fix it" crowd is to copy a map and change it while keeping the original.

The best compromise if you add the "I hate it, remove it" crowd is to have more map diversity by adding more and different maps.

As I said before, stiffing those who actually like the original is not a good solution.

Edited by Mystere, 15 November 2017 - 11:05 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 15 November 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

The best compromise is to copy a map and change it while keeping the original. As I said before, stiffing those who actually like the original is not a good solution.

What about stiffing those that don't like the original is a good solution too?

Do we just put a copypasta into circulation? That now PH is twice-as-likely to get picked when it's already too damn popular?

I'd argue otherwise for your idea of best compromise. That still presents a possibility of a whole 15 minutes potentially-wasted on a terrible map when it just make those 15 minutes not a potential waste at all. It didn't addressed the issue at hand.

When BOTH got stiffed less than just one side stiffed and the other has it good, now that's the actual compromise, cause that's meeting people halfway.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 November 2017 - 11:10 PM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 15 November 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

What about stiffing those that don't like the original is a good solution too?

Do we just put a copypasta into circulation? That now PH is twice-as-likely to get picked when it's already too damn popular?

I'd argue otherwise for your idea of best compromise. That still presents a possibility of a whole 15 minutes potentially-wasted on a terrible map when it just make those 15 minutes not a potential waste at all. It didn't addressed the issue at hand.

When BOTH got stiffed less than just one side stiffed and the other has it good, now that's the actual compromise, cause that's meeting people halfway.

I suggest doing the math. You'll get it eventually.

[SeventhSL]

If you really want compromise then campaign for a boycott system. That way people who don't like it, and want it deleted, effectively get their wish the same way as people who do like it, get to keep playing on it.

You can't fix it satisfy both sides. Putting enough LRM safe spaces to satisfy the Polar haters will only start the laments of different voices. If you don't put on enough LRM safe places then your just going to piss off both sides of the debate. It is a no win situation.

Talk compromise? Literally every other map has LRM safe space and just Polar for the other side of the debate. Taking that away from them by FIXING it isn't compromise.

Edited by SeventhSL, 15 November 2017 - 11:26 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 15 November 2017 - 11:12 PM, said:

I suggest doing the math. You'll get it eventually.

Lol k.

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

If you really want compromise then campaign for a boycott system. That way people who don't like it, and want it deleted, effectively get their wish the same way as people who do like it, get to keep playing on it.

Sure, but then again we could still have this because people can still get drafted into this, it will still be an awful experience for those who hates it and still be a motivation against it.

Needless to say, it could probably be NEVER picked. So where's the "compromise" in that? Sure we get that system, but if it always gets dismissed, then you don't get to enjoy it, now what's the god damn point?

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Putting enough LRM safe spaces to satisfy the Polar haters will only start the laments of different voices. If you don't put on enough LRM safe places then your just going to piss off both sides of the debate.

Well, we have other voices that hates the PH too. Where does that lead us?

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Talk compromise? Literally every other map has LRM safe space and just Polar for the other side of the debate and you want to chance Polar to compromise?

Remember when I told you i support improving LRM for HPG and other maps?

Start a thread about raising the satellite in the middle of HPG, I will literally flock there and support you. But right now, the focus is PH.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 November 2017 - 11:27 PM.

[Mystere]

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

If you really want compromise then campaign for a boycott system. That way people who don't like it, and want it deleted, effectively get their wish the same way as people who do like it, get to keep playing on it.

The problem with such a system is that MWO's concurrent player numbers will be a completely debilitating impediment for those who actually want to play the least liked maps.

Now, if we had 1,000 to 10,000 maps or even more -- and minimal map search filters -- then it might just work. <maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 15 November 2017 - 11:26 PM.

[SeventhSL]

Mystere, on 15 November 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

The problem with such a system is that MWO's concurrent player numbers will be a completely debilitating impediment for those who actually want to play the least liked maps.

Now, if we had 1,000 to 10,000 maps or even more -- and minimal map search filters -- then it might just work. &lt;maniacal &gt;

Yer I agree. Maybe 8v8 would help but honestly people just need to respect the fact that they are going hate things that others like. Lots of people vote for Polar and the haters need to respect that and leave it alone. Of course they won't.

[The6thMessenger]

SeventhSL, on 15 November 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

Yer I agree. Maybe 8v8 would help but honestly people just need to respect the fact that they are going hate things that others like. Lots of people vote for Polar and the haters need to respect that and leave it alone. Of course they won't.

Respect is two-way.

Disrespect is have it deleted or have it stay being hated, respect is only having it less hated and acknowledge one another and meet people halfway. But no, that kind of respect seems to be too much.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 15 November 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Well, with your LRM bias cause it's your favorite weapon, I don't think you're qualified.



No, you're pretty biased and touchy.

That's all, good day.

Keep living in your delusion. Good day.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 16 November 2017 - 01:01 AM, said:

Keep living in your delusion. Good day.

Gubba nub nub doo ra kah.

Whatever lets you sleep at night. Sleep tight.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 November 2017 - 01:13 AM.

[Formosa The God]

Felbombling, on 14 November 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

Polar Highlands is a necessary evil for the game. I love that map, even though I have been blown to bits by LRM spam on in a couple of times. You get Narc'd on that map, it is pure evil. A flanker can also spell your doom with good spotting.

Personally, I'd love PGI to make a grasslands version of it. I believe it has a hand in diversifying builds somewhat.

What a wonderful idea, A nice rolling hills map, maybe with a little forest here and there to break line of sight, a small bog area that can slow movement or something, yep, I like this idea.

[Sjorpha]

I don't see the problem, LRMs are much weaker than direct fire even on Polar Highlands.

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 15 November 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

you know what else brings diversity to the game?

not playing polar every damn game

dump the voting system and give us random maps plz thx

I don't see Polar too often, and very rarely see Alpine, so I'd love to see random maps.