66 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Khobai, on 16 June 2019 - 09:04 PM, said:

Weapons like the LBX2, ATM3, SRM2, SSRM2, etc... just dont need to exist at all. Theyre bad weapons and people who use them are only hurting their team by running inferior builds. So why even let people use them?

lol what about a SSRM/SRM2 JVN with the hardpoints to use it for a burst SRM harrasser?
Perhaps even cSRM2 on ACW SRMbomber and others to manouver around ghost heat...

Once again showing how little you know about the game because you don't play it.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 17 June 2019 - 07:42 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Yeah, SRM2s are actually quite useful. Locust, Javelin, Mist Lynx, hell even my Linebacker.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 17 June 2019 - 10:17 AM, said:

No lol. Even if the LBX2 did 3 damage it still wouldnt get used over the UAC2.

Again certain weapons just dont have any room for design space.

The only way LBX2 should remain in the game is if PGI could resolve mode switching somehow. If you could switch between slug and cluster than the LBX2 would have a place in the game. Although the AC2s place in the game would be supplanted instead, and it would have to be replaced with the Light AC2.

While switching between two modes that each use a different ammo type isnt possible. I believe mode switching while using the same ammo type is 100% possible and PGI just hasnt explored that alternative. It wouldnt be a big deal if LBX and slug both used the same ammo type.

If LBX-2 did 3 damage (1.5 damage per pellet), I'd insta swap my 8 C-AC2 Dire Wolf to 8 LBX-2, EZ.

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 17 June 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

lol what about a SSRM/SRM2 JVN with the hardpoints to use it for a burst SRM harrasser?
Perhaps even cSRM2 on ACW SRMbomber and others to manouver around ghost heat...

Once again showing how little you know about the game because you don't play it.

thats hardly the optimal loadout for a JVN or ACW. youre exaggerating the effectiveness of suboptimal loadouts to try and justify the existence of weapons we dont really need solely for the sake of trying to argue against me. SRM2 could be removed from the game and most people wouldnt even miss it. Thats a fact. Same goes for ATM3s, LBX2s, etc...

the ghost heat argument is also a weak one IMO because itd be very easy to increase the ghost heat limit on SRM6s and SRM4s in response to removing SRM2s from the game. if the only reason the SRM2 needs to exist is to get around ghost heat then why not simply increase the ghost heat limit for the SRM4/SRM6 so the SRM2 no longer needs to exist. Rather than forcing people to use a hodgepodge mix of different SRM types to circumvent ghost heat which is an absolutely absurd artificial system to begin with.

Vxheous, on 18 June 2019 - 12:13 AM, said:

If LBX-2 did 3 damage (1.5 damage per pellet), I'd insta swap my 8 C-AC2 Dire Wolf to 8 LBX-2, EZ.

Did you not read anything the OP suggested? That 3 damage wouldnt come without other drawbacks like a slower cooldown. You arnt going to get an objectively better LBX2 compared to the CAC2. And if the only reason youd use LBX2 over the CAC2 is if its objectively better than youre just proving my point that we dont need the LBX2 in the game. What we could use though is a CAC2 that could fire both slug and cluster munitions.

Furthermore thats not a good build for the direwolf. If anything youre just supporting why LBX2 doesnt need to exist in the game because the last thing we need is more direwolfs with eight LBX2s running around. Its a weakass build thats literally only used by trolls. But you two idiots supporting trollbuilds quite frankly doesnt surprise me.

The6thMessenger, on 16 June 2019 - 10:30 PM, said:

Sure, but that begs the question, why not just make more space?

Because when it comes to balancing CAC2 vs LBX2 as separate weapons one will always be objectively better than the other. There isnt enough design space for both.

Specifically because theyre not supposed to be competing weapons but rather two halves of the same weapon. Thats the reason theyre so similar.

Edited by Khobai, 18 June 2019 - 05:48 AM.

[Vxheous]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

thats hardly the optimal loadout for a JVN or ACW. youre exaggerating the effectiveness of suboptimal loadouts to try and justify the existence of weapons we dont really need solely for the sake of trying to argue against me. SRM2 could be removed from the game and most people wouldnt even miss it. Thats a fact. Same goes for ATM3s, LBX2s, etc...



Did you not read anything the OP suggested? That 3 damage wouldnt come without other drawbacks like a slower cooldown. You arnt going to get an objectively better LBX2 compared to the CAC2. And if the only reason youd use LBX2 over the CAC2 is if its objectively better than youre just proving my point that we dont need the LBX2 in the game. What we could use though is a CAC2 that could fire both slug and cluster munitions.

Furthermore thats not a good build for the direwolf. If anything youre just supporting why LBX2 doesnt need to exist in the game because the last thing we need is more direwolfs with eight LBX2s running around. Its a weakass build thats literally only used by trolls. But you two idiots supporting trollbuilds quite frankly doesnt surprise me.



Because when it comes to balancing CAC2 vs LBX2 as separate weapons one will always be objectively better than the other. There isnt enough design space for both.

Specifically because theyre not supposed to be competing weapons but rather two halves of the same weapon. Thats the reason theyre so similar.

I wouldn't use it now because yeah, LBX 2s are worse than CAC2s. 8 CAC-2s on a Direwolf however is a good build, it's easy 1.4k-2k damage if you don't get nascared.

[justcallme A S H]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

thats hardly the optimal loadout for a JVN or ACW. youre exaggerating the effectiveness of suboptimal loadouts to try and justify the existence of weapons we dont really need solely for the sake of trying to argue against me. SRM2 could be removed from the game and most people wouldnt even miss it. Thats a fact. Same goes for ATM3s, LBX2s, etc...

What do you mean hardly optimal... The JVN/SRM2s was played in a number of comp matches last few seasons.
How is that exaggerating if comp teams are bringing it I wonder...

It is simply a case of you, yet again, purporting things to be "fact" when realistically it's just a uneducated opinion. You have next to no idea how the game is played because you don't play it. You just waffle on with totally misleading statements on a forum.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 18 June 2019 - 05:47 AM.

[Ssamout]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

thats hardly the optimal loadout for a JVN or ACW. youre exaggerating the effectiveness of suboptimal loadouts to try and justify the existence of weapons we dont really need solely for the sake of trying to argue against me. SRM2 could be removed from the game and most people wouldnt even miss it. Thats a fact. Same goes for ATM3s, LBX2s, etc...

What a dumbassed statement as usual. I've been rocking srm2's on javelin AND artic woffel since they came out and still having fun with it. They are in my FW dropdecks. Stfu when you clearly dont understand how this game works.

[LordNothing]

fix the ac5 while you are at it. it just kinda sucks unless you have 4 or more of them.

i dont think the lb2 really needed a buff, it was pretty strong already given its low heat and high dps when clustered and the is lb2 has tripple max range. the 5 has never been good and think the spread needs to go all the way down to 0.6.

you could probably play with the spread distribution, so a larger number of pellets land close to the center line with a minimal number of outliers. unfortunately with the 2 and 5 having a small number of pellets thats difficult. but if you do 4x0.5 damage pellets on the 2 and 8x0.625 damage pellets on the 5 you can give 3/4s of them half spread. though more dps or more damage would help somewhat. or buff the structure busting attributes a bit more.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 June 2019 - 07:35 AM.

[LordNothing]

Curccu, on 16 June 2019 - 10:19 PM, said:

SRM2 and SSRM2 are ok? those you can boat or add to bigger splat to dodge ghost heat. iSSRM2 has same DPS as cSSRM6 which makes it ok.

the srm2's main advantage is really tight spread. when boated in large numbers they are pretty brutal. in small numbers its more for hit and run work than brawling. its still pretty effective at stripping away armor because they are easier to land all of them on a single torso section. an srm6 on the other hand will hit everything.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 June 2019 - 07:20 AM.

[LordNothing]

The6thMessenger, on 16 June 2019 - 10:30 PM, said:

You need:
- Ammo-Quirks for the low-tonnage, as in 20-Tonners get 3x Ammo/Ton quirks, 25-tonners get 2.5x Ammo/Ton-quirks, 30 to 25 tonners get 2.0x ammo/ton quirks, and 40 to 45-tonners get 1.5x ammo/ton quirks.
- AMS needs to not completely nullify missiles, such as a full 1s would only kill 1 missile out of a SRM2, etc.

would certainly love some low tonnage ammo buffs. a lot of lights feel like im banned from using ammo weapons and especially ballistics.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 June 2019 - 07:33 AM.

[LordNothing]

FupDup, on 17 June 2019 - 10:27 AM, said:

I dunno what to do with the CAC/2

ultraviolet. if you like cold dps at extreme range anyway and heat neutral enough to brawl with. of course outside that niche, not much use.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 June 2019 - 07:28 AM.

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 18 June 2019 - 05:46 AM, said:

What do you mean hardly optimal... The JVN/SRM2s was played in a number of comp matches last few seasons.
How is that exaggerating if comp teams are bringing it I wonder...

It is simply a case of you, yet again, purporting things to be "fact" when realistically it's just a uneducated opinion. You have next to no idea how the game is played because you don't play it. You just waffle on with totally misleading statements on a forum.

Again if the sole reason the SRM2 is used is to circumvent ghost heat, then why not just remove the SRM2 from the game and increase the ghost heat limit on the SRM4 and SRM6?

Its dumb for a weapon exist for the sole reason of circumventing ghost heat. Because the entire point of a system like Ghost heat is that you shouldnt be able to circumvent it.

LordNothing, on 18 June 2019 - 07:18 AM, said:

the srm2's main advantage is really tight spread. when boated in large numbers they are pretty brutal.

Ok so tighten the spread on the SRM4 to where it was post-nerf and increase the ghost heat limit.

You could easily get rid of the SRM2 and supplant its role with the SRM4.

There is absolutely overlapping design space there. Theres no need to have all of these weapons especially when PGI is struggling to balance so many weapons.

Edited by Khobai, 18 June 2019 - 11:40 AM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Again if the sole reason the SRM2 is used is to circumvent ghost heat, then why not just remove the SRM2 from the game and increase the ghost heat limit on the SRM4 and SRM6?

That would just be a power buff for a lot of mechs that don't really need it.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Its dumb for a weapon exist for the sole reason of circumventing ghost heat. Because the entire point of a system like Ghost heat is that you shouldnt be able to circumvent it.

One of the main points of Spooky Heat was to specifically stop mega-boat loadouts, not high damage loadouts in general. The idea was to make people have to mix a few different weapons together to get more damage than just putting 4 PPCs on a Stalker.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 18 June 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

That would just be a power buff for a lot of mechs that don't really need it.

Not really since those mechs can already use SRM2s to circumvent the ghost heat.

Theres not really much difference between x4 SRM4s + x2 SRM2s and just allowing x5 SRM4s.

Similarly if you tightened the spread on SRM4s there would be very little difference between x6 SRM2s and x3/x4 SRM4s.

I still maintain SRM2s could be eliminated entirely if you just tightened the spread on SRM4s and gave them +1 ghost heat limit.

Theres just too many weapons in the game with overlapping roles.

FupDup, on 18 June 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

One of the main points of Spooky Heat was to specifically stop mega-boat loadouts, not high damage loadouts in general. The idea was to make people have to mix a few different weapons together to get more damage than just putting 4 PPCs on a Stalker.

Except it doesnt entirely work. Ghost heat doesnt force players to use radically different weapons. It forces them to combine synergistic weapons or somewhat similar weapons from different ghost heat groups to circumvent ghost heat.

Having so many unnecessarily superfluous weapons all in different ghost heat groups only makes it easier to create builds that circumvent ghost heat. The system was setup for failure from the start.

Whats wrong with putting 4 PPCs on a stalker, if youre going to allow degenerate dual gauss + laser loadouts anyway? Its absurd to punish the stalker for using 4 PPCs but then allow a madcat MK2 to use dual gauss + 6 med lasers. Thats the problem with ghost heat... the loopholes make it entirely arbitrary.

PGI themselves even came to the realization that to force people to use different weapons they would have to make them use stock mechs. And thats exactly what they did for competitive play last year. Because the ghost heat system failed at its ultimate goal of promoting weapon diversity.

Edited by Khobai, 18 June 2019 - 12:56 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Again if the sole reason the SRM2 is used is to circumvent ghost heat, then why not just remove the SRM2 from the game and increase the ghost heat limit on the SRM4 and SRM6?

Its dumb for a weapon exist for the sole reason of circumventing ghost heat. Because the entire point of a system like Ghost heat is that you shouldnt be able to circumvent it.




Ok so tighten the spread on the SRM4 to where it was post-nerf and increase the ghost heat limit.

You could easily get rid of the SRM2 and supplant its role with the SRM4.

There is absolutely overlapping design space there. Theres no need to have all of these weapons especially when PGI is struggling to balance so many weapons.

just remove all weapons but 1 then.

[Khobai]

thievingmagpi, on 18 June 2019 - 12:36 PM, said:

just remove all weapons but 1 then.

eliminating half a dozen superfluous weapons is hardly the same thing as removing all the weapons but 1. Besides im not against adding new weapons provided they dont overlap with existing ones.

customization has gotten out of control in this game. to the point where PGI doesnt even wanna deal with it and just wants people to play stock mechs competitively lol (and MW5 has no customization at all). reducing the weapon bloat would help eliminate some problems caused by too much customization and make things more manageable from a weapon balance perspective. It would also help open up room for new weapons that dont overlap with existing weapons.

youre not gonna convince me we need all three: CAC2, CUAC2, and CLBX2. theres just not design space for all three. One of those should be removed and the CRAC2 could be added instead. And on the IS side you could remove the standard AC2 and replace it with the light AC2. Same goes for SRMs. I dont believe we need SRM2, SRM4, and SRM6. The SRM4 is perfectly capable of assuming the role of the SRM2 if its spread is tightened and its ghost heat limit increased. You could even then add a new type of SRM like inferno SRM or tandem charge SRM; a new SRM type that wouldnt overlap.

Edited by Khobai, 18 June 2019 - 01:27 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

Because when it comes to balancing CAC2 vs LBX2 as separate weapons one will always be objectively better than the other. There isnt enough design space for both.

Specifically because theyre not supposed to be competing weapons but rather two halves of the same weapon. Thats the reason theyre so similar.

You do realize that your answer is basically "Drugs should be illegal, because they are illegal", you know that right?

Nevertheless they don't have to be competing, or about which is objectively better, it's about having their own niche. One doesn't have to out peform another, just do a different job well enough. That's practically the LPPC problem, and PGI is just ignoring such an obvious solution of just giving LPPC a lower CD.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

Not really since those mechs can already use SRM2s to circumvent the ghost heat.

I'm pretty sure that SRM-Boats not only have better synergy, they could also run higher over-the-GH builds with less heat penalty.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

I still maintain SRM2s could be eliminated entirely if you just tightened the spread on SRM4s and gave them +1 ghost heat limit.

And a dumb thing to maintain, because aside from stock builds that actually use them which their elimination would require a massive deviation from the lore which PGI has shown to be unwilling to do, the SRM2s still provide a good variety.

Ash is right, you should play the game. I can't ignore it anymore to maintain a sense of professionalism, there's just plenty of uses for SRM2s, and it's just asinine for you to come up to people who actually play the game and tell them otherwise.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

Theres just too many weapons in the game with overlapping roles.

Why are you so preoccupied with what makes them the same? You should be looking at what makes them different, like the SRM2 has completely tighter spread and faster rate of fire, which would work well with Lights -- and if anything it might help them to have even lower CD, but first Ammo-Ton quirk.

Your tunnel vision is just jaw dropping. SRM2 en-masse has a bit of different playstyle than just simple SRM4s or SRM6s, and your problem exactly is forcing SRM2 to play like SRM4s or SRM6s, instead of coming up ways in making SRM2s work -- like 6x SRM2 Javelin.

Even if there are overlapping roles, it doesn't matter, the point is variety. We're on a game that we could play around with the loadouts, what you want we might as well remove the option of a mechlab and just limit everyone for stock builds.

You keep pointing out that damage deadzones are dumb and aren't fun, and sure, fine. You know what else isn't fun? A bland selection of equipments.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 June 2019 - 02:45 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

Did you not read anything the OP suggested? That 3 damage wouldnt come without other drawbacks like a slower cooldown. You arnt going to get an objectively better LBX2 compared to the CAC2.

Yeah, but it would play a little bit differently.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

And if the only reason youd use LBX2 over the CAC2 is if its objectively better than youre just proving my point that we dont need the LBX2 in the game. What we could use though is a CAC2 that could fire both slug and cluster munitions.

Sure, but you know, you are just proving everybody else that you just need to actually play the game.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

Furthermore thats not a good build for the direwolf. If anything youre just supporting why LBX2 doesnt need to exist in the game because the last thing we need is more direwolfs with eight LBX2s running around. Its a weakass build thats literally only used by trolls.

Lol, just lol. Point of Direwolf is all of the weapons, and 8x LB2X is precisely it could be a choice at all.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

But you two idiots supporting trollbuilds quite frankly doesnt surprise me.

Dunning-Kreuger Effect.

[thievingmagpi]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 12:56 PM, said:

eliminating half a dozen superfluous weapons is hardly the same thing as removing all the weapons but 1. Besides im not against adding new weapons provided they dont overlap with existing ones.

customization has gotten out of control in this game. to the point where PGI doesnt even wanna deal with it and just wants people to play stock mechs competitively lol (and MW5 has no customization at all). reducing the weapon bloat would help eliminate some problems caused by too much customization and make things more manageable from a weapon balance perspective. It would also help open up room for new weapons that dont overlap with existing weapons.

youre not gonna convince me we need all three: CAC2, CUAC2, and CLBX2. theres just not design space for all three. One of those should be removed and the CRAC2 could be added instead. And on the IS side you could remove the standard AC2 and replace it with the light AC2. Same goes for SRMs. I dont believe we need SRM2, SRM4, and SRM6. The SRM4 is perfectly capable of assuming the role of the SRM2 if its spread is tightened and its ghost heat limit increased. You could even then add a new type of SRM like inferno SRM or tandem charge SRM; a new SRM type that wouldnt overlap.

cool thoughts

lol

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 12:56 PM, said:

customization has gotten out of control in this game. to the point where PGI doesnt even wanna deal with it and just wants people to play stock mechs competitively lol (and MW5 has no customization at all). reducing the weapon bloat would help eliminate some problems caused by too much customization and make things more manageable from a weapon balance perspective. It would also help open up room for new weapons that dont overlap with existing weapons.

Problem with PGI is not that they are unable, but just not willing. We had a chance to balance the game, they just ****** it up by not listening to us.

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 12:56 PM, said:

youre not gonna convince me we need all three: CAC2, CUAC2, and CLBX2. theres just not design space for all three. One of those should be removed and the CRAC2 could be added instead. And on the IS side you could remove the standard AC2 and replace it with the light AC2. Same goes for SRMs. I dont believe we need SRM2, SRM4, and SRM6. The SRM4 is perfectly capable of assuming the role of the SRM2 if its spread is tightened and its ghost heat limit increased. You could even then add a new type of SRM like inferno SRM or tandem charge SRM; a new SRM type that wouldnt overlap.

We don't need to, we don't need your approval.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 June 2019 - 03:18 PM.