305 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:34 AM, said:

Everything you are suggesting appears to have the assumption that the game is being auto-played by computer AIs.

This is a semi-FPS. The system you are presenting looks like trying to order food on a 100 item menu, written in alien language, in the middle of a fight where seconds could decide the match result.

For ONE second, try imagining yourself or any human, playing it and you'll see what I mean.

You do know that you don't have to read the list right? It could be like the Gauss-charge that lights up green on your weapon-groups. Likewise, that is exactly the point, seconds could decide the match result, that is why prolonging the locking sequence is crucial for the system to work exactly to deter the use of a lot of missile tubes.

Hows about for ONE second, actually try imagining it in the game; some streak-boat with 6x SSRM6 have to suffer 2s of lock-time just to nab a light, but a streak-cat with only 3x SSRM6 will only get to suffer 1s of lock time. A background lurmer struggles to get a lock because he brought 6 LRM15s that will make him suffer 2.25s of IDF lock short-range but even longer at long range and vs ECM, whereas a sensible player with 6x ERML + 2x LRM20 and with LOS would do it under 1s.

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:34 AM, said:

You present convoluted mechanics that require additional convoluted mechanics to resolve it's issues which also brings about a new set of issues as consequence.

That's expected with a new system. Could do with a play-test, I mean even the dual-arc LRM underwent testing.

Feral Clown, on 12 July 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

Wut? Yeah they should be same skill level because they are in the same race to use your analogy. Sprint cars don't race superbikes in the the same race...for good reason. You can have weapons that are different but to have them all on the same playing field you definitely want them in the same realm of difficulty since they are competing against each other on that field.

What makes you think that it's the same field in the first place? You know it's supposed to fulfill a role right? Do you expect an AC2 plinker to do as well as a brawler in brawling? If not then why would you use that argument? Even if it's the same battlefield, we're not exactly competing in same roles.

Feral Clown, on 12 July 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

Why not? I already said why, chain firing is bad. So not a fair or reasonable trade off and anyone who is near or close to competent would never use them then, which mean the why not is because it would remove their usefulness and usage from the game.

No, you asserted that chainfiring is bad. But hey lets take that as a given -- so don't chain-fire, eat up the doubled lock-duration by using so many missile launcher, or you could just have the same lock-duration by using the prescribed amount of missiles.

Feral Clown, on 12 July 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

And why would it adhere to meta....to not be useless. Boating is a thing and forcing bracket builds cause you be all anti-meta, is weak. The justification is to not make them utter garbage and delete their usage completely.

So it's fine that lights get nuked by Streakboats? Okay sure.

Feral Clown, on 12 July 2019 - 12:35 PM, said:

Honestly, sometimes you have good ideas (like doing something about under performing ppc classes) but this just isn't one of them. I don't think this is at all a reasonable compromise for a weapon that does only one thing well and isn't over powered at that.

I am sure you can come up with some other idea that doesn't involve such a convoluted mechanic and forced chainfire or whatnot. This idea would ruin a weapon that doesn't need ruining. As I said, I am much more interested in PGI making it far harder to maintain a lock without the skill of tracking properly/tightly.

There are just people that just don't understand and get them, because they think it's too convoluted, because they're too used with the same old **** because PGI couldn't be bothered with a legitimate mechanical rework until it's too late, like the LRM arc lock.

They're simply not open to change. I'm not saying that it will work right out of the box, but surely we could at least test it.

I don't say that it's overpowered, there's a LOT of certain overperforming people that don't like the fact that certain weapon systems counter them, and you know what, this is just the olive-branch.

We can't just make homing weapons require precise lacing, that totally defeats the point. Changing the stats by xml can only go so far, i mean how many poor LRM decisions did we have endure until we get the dual-arc LRMs that finally given LRMs much more respect?

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

I never said we should get rid of streaks. I said we should rebalance them so they are equal against classes or stronger vs the stronger mechs and weaker vs the bigger mechs, so better vs assaults and heavies instead of lights and mediums. Basically the point I'm against is in your title "nerf streaks without losing niche". I think we absolutely should lose the niche or move it.

Then this thread is not for you. I mean seriously take away their niche, then SSRMs doesn't have a point.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

It would serve the anti-assault role. Those are the stronger mechs in the game and if you lack aim are also hard to kill so why not? And we wouldn't be auto headshotting 12 enemies in a qp game unless the enemy brought 12 assaults. Its a basic example of switching effectiveness of the weapon from one class to the other, to show how absurd it currently is. Nobody would like it if the enemy could just auto aim kill their assault so easily.

Sure, but you know simply focus-firing or piranha on the back will solve the assault problem. This is just not the case with lights because they leverage their speed and mobility to precisely avoid fire.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's not much of an answer, you could say that for any change somebody suggests. We are talking about changing the game and changing streak effectiveness isn't much of a change. Actually I would say the rebalance ideas I suggested are less of a change than your lock on suggestion.

Probably because that's not much of a question to begin with.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

And when was it written in stone that streaks should be an anti-light weapon?

About the same time when ERLL, Gauss, and AC2 is made for long range.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

So assaults should only be countered by lots of guns and multiple enemies but lights should be countered by that, plus countered by less weapons, plus countered by auto aim for those that can't aim good?

Yes.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

But we shouldn't let auto-aim be added to the list of counters for the higher performing assaults?

So it's hard for you to track slow-moving giant target-dummies? If not, then why the stupid question?

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

Because even if you have lots of guns you still need to aim well in order to beat an assault in a ~equal fight. Simply hitting an assault isn't enough to beat it, putting a couple hundred damage into the arms of a mostly torso weaponed assault is about as effective as missing most of your shots vs a light.

Do I really need to remind you that lights are fragile and they precisely levy their mobility (and like locusts, their size) to not get hit? Why do you need to treat Lights and Assaults the same? They're not the same, that's why you have to treat them differently.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

An assault killing the piranha far outside of its range or one shotting it when it comes in is a counter for that so theres that.

As if the light couldn't sneak. Were you playing with incompetent light players?

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

Serving the role of anti-assault makes more sense since those are the stronger mechs in battle.

Which is adequately answered by light on the rear, or focus-firing. This is just not the case with Lights, because they precisely leverage their fast speed to avoid said damage.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 July 2019 - 03:33 PM.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 12 July 2019 - 02:53 PM, said:

Then this thread is not for you. I mean seriously take away their niche, then SSRMs doesn't have a point.

Did you miss the part where I said balance them against the classes or make them good vs bigger mechs? That would give them a point.

Quote

Sure, but you know simply focus-firing or piranha on the back will solve the assault problem. This is just not the case with lights because they leverage their speed and mobility to precisely avoid fire.

And assaults leverage their armor to soak damage and firepower to out damage the enemy. So again if we have a weapon that ignores the light's strength then why can't we have a weapon that ignores the assault's strength?

Quote

Probably because that's not much of a question to begin with.

Ummmm you might need to reread my and your own posts if you don't think that's an important question. It is directly related to the conversation.

Quote

About the same time when ERLL, Gauss, and AC2 is made for long range.

Really? Where? Because I haven't really seen it said that its a main never to be changed part of this game. IIRC they worked pretty good vs bigger mechs way back in the day when people ran Raven 3Ls and Streak Catapults. And lore just says its an ammo conserving feature and sounds like it would support my suggestion of making them not all fire against small fast mechs, but fire all into big slow mechs.

Quote

Yes.

So you going for a bigger is better balance then?

Quote

So it's hard for you to track slow-moving giant target-dummies? If not, then why the stupid question?

Is it hard for you to kill the least armored/armed mechs in the game? If not, then why the stupid threads?

Quote

Do I really need to remind you that lights are fragile and they precisely levy their mobility (and like locusts, their size) to not get hit? Why do you need to treat Lights and Assaults the same? They're not the same, that's why you have to treat them differently.

So...that's a yes on the wanting bigger is better???
Oh and if we did rebalance streaks to be anti-assault and weak vs lights then we would still be treating them differently.

Quote

As if the light couldn't sneak. Were you playing with incompetent light players?

As if the assault or his team couldn't spot the light. Are you playing with incompetent assaults?

Quote

Which is adequately answered by light on the rear, or focus-firing. This is just not the case with Lights, because they precisely leverage their fast speed to avoid said damage.

Lights are adequately answered by shooting them from the rear, front, side, legging, whatever, focus fire not really needed if aim is good but can be helpful.
So an anti-assault weapon is needed more than an anti-light weapon.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Did you miss the part where I said balance them against the classes or make them good vs bigger mechs? That would give them a point.

Like other weapons are also good at bigger mechs? get real.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

And assaults leverage their armor to soak damage and firepower to out damage the enemy. So again if we have a weapon that ignores the light's strength then why can't we have a weapon that ignores the assault's strength?

You do realize that you could ignore the assault's strength with overwhelming fire-power right? I mean isn't the point of high armor and or high mobility is to prolong your life? Doesn't matter if you could soak up so much damage if you die under a second anyways.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Ummmm you might need to reread my and your own posts if you don't think that's an important question. It is directly related to the conversation.

Not really no. The problem is trying to push lights in the same standard as assaults or any heavier mech for that matter, which you just can't reasonably expect to do so.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Really? Where? Because I haven't really seen it said that its a main never to be changed part of this game.

Go right ahead and try using SPL to snipe someone 800m away. I'll wait for your result.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

IIRC they worked pretty good vs bigger mechs way back in the day when people ran Raven 3Ls and Streak Catapults.

So? Are you asking me for a time-machine?

But you know what, sure, lets remove the bone-tracking -- no really, I am not being coy or snarky, lets do remove the bone-tracking.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

And lore just says its an ammo conserving feature and sounds like it would support my suggestion of making them not all fire against small fast mechs, but fire all into big slow mechs.

Lore also says ammo switching and crit splitting, and many other stuffs. PGI pick and choose what to put here.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

So you going for a bigger is better balance then?

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

So...that's a yes on the wanting bigger is better???

Works so far, but Not really, it's a lot more nuance in that. Such as we do expect the assaults to trade, not so much with lights.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Is it hard for you to kill the least armored/armed mechs in the game? If not, then why the stupid threads?

Do you even understand the thread? You do realize that this will in fact make it harder for people to kill the least armored/armed mechs in the game? The increase of exposure time also increases the amount of lace-able missiles, which makes varying effectiveness with classes.

That's not even the right question if you're trying to have some revenge-question. And In fact, it's actually easy for people to kill lights via streaks, why certain people frown upon them, and why they would have it nerfed or even remove, and why I posted this thread to have a semblance of compromise.

You may want to start another thread for your SSRM personal issues.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Oh and if we did rebalance streaks to be anti-assault and weak vs lights then we would still be treating them differently.

To what point?

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

As if the assault or his team couldn't spot the light. Are you playing with incompetent assaults?

Does it really matter if they spot it? Do you really want assaults chasing after squirrels? Do you think that light players just stand in the open? No, even if they are spotted, they will levy their mobility, they'll hide behind cover after cover, and either the assault could stop effectively contributing by front-line and chase the squirrel, or could do otherwise then be chewed from the rear -- both of which effectively cuts the contribution of said assault away. So yeah, countered.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

So an anti-assault weapon is needed more than an anti-light weapon.

Lol. K. Keep playing your ad-reductio-absurdium without the nuance.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

Lights are adequately answered by shooting them from the rear, front, side, legging, whatever, focus fire not really needed if aim is good but can be helpful.

But firepower isn't needed as much as good aim, and so the SSRM provides that, when you can't get good aim by simply going heavier.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 July 2019 - 05:41 PM.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 12 July 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

Like other weapons are also good at bigger mechs? get real.



You do realize that you could ignore the assault's strength with overwhelming fire-power right? I mean isn't the point of high armor and or high mobility is to prolong your life? Doesn't matter if you could soak up so much damage if you die under a second anyways.



Not really no. The problem is trying to push lights in the same standard as assaults or any heavier mech for that matter, which you just can't reasonably expect to do so.



Go right ahead and try using SPL to snipe someone 800m away. I'll wait for your result.



So? Are you asking me for a time-machine?

But you know what, sure, lets remove the bone-tracking -- no really, I am not being coy or snarky, lets do remove the bone-tracking.



Lore also says ammo switching and crit splitting, and many other stuffs. PGI pick and choose what to put here.



Works so far, but Not really, it's a lot more nuance in that. Such as we do expect the assaults to trade, not so much with lights.



Do you even understand the thread? You do realize that this will in fact make it harder for people to kill the least armored/armed mechs in the game? The increase of exposure time also increases the amount of lace-able missiles, which makes varying effectiveness with classes.

That's not even the right question if you're trying to have some revenge-question. And In fact, it's actually easy for people to kill lights via streaks, why certain people frown upon them, and why they would have it nerfed or even remove, and why I posted this thread to have a semblance of compromise.

You may want to start another thread for your SSRM personal issues.



To what point?



Does it really matter if they spot it? Do you really want assaults chasing after squirrels? Do you think that light players just stand in the open? No, even if they are spotted, they will levy their mobility, they'll hide behind cover after cover, and either the assault could stop effectively contributing by front-line and chase the squirrel, or could do otherwise then be chewed from the rear -- both of which effectively cuts the contribution of said assault away. So yeah, countered.



Lol. K. Keep playing your ad-reductio-absurdium without the nuance.



But firepower isn't needed as much as good aim, and so the SSRM provides that, when you can't get good aim by simply going heavier.

Whats needed is game balance. And having an anti-light weapon isn't balance since those are the lower performing class. So again, if streaks are not balanced vs all, they should be balanced by being strong against assaults and weak vs lights. We can sit here and talk about what counters what all day. But at the end of the day, assaults are the highest performing class and lights are the lowest so the belief that streaks must retain their anti-light balance is not logical.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

Whats needed is game balance. And having an anti-light weapon isn't balance since those are the lower performing class.

That depends on the effectiveness of the weapon. I mean being anti-light means it's used for light, doesn't mean it's the best one, it could also mean that it's just worse for everything else.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

So again, if streaks are not balanced vs all, they should be balanced by being strong against assaults and weak vs lights.

Meanwhile you have yet to justify why it's unbalanced, why they should be strong against assaults and weak vs lights, and how to do so.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

We can sit here and talk about what counters what all day. But at the end of the day, assaults are the highest performing class and lights are the lowest so the belief that streaks must retain their anti-light balance is not logical.

Not logical because of the wrong approach. You could go about the class-performance, in the end of the day it's about roles in a supposedly team-game.

The lights being fragile and homing weapons seems to be an inevitability, of course bone-tracking never helped, but still. I've tried to address it though, with low exposure-time = low missiles out, the setup should give lights more chance and have better effectiveness with heavier targets that satisfies the supposedly linear progression of effectiveness that you want, if you only understand that.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 12 July 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

Meanwhile you have yet to justify why it's unbalanced, why they should be strong against assaults and weak vs lights, and how to do so.

Yes I have. All classes already have counters but lights are the ones with the nearly auto-aim counter for the players that are not good at that counter and since its so good at it even the players that are able to use the other counters sometimes use it. And since lights are the lowest performing class and already have counters they shouldn't be the ones that get extra easy to do counters.

And some ways to do that would be something like giving streaks tighter spread vs bigger mechs but lower their damage. If you lower the damage enough and make the spread tight enough then you have buff them vs assaults and nerfed them vs lights. Would be good for a balanced against the classes system. Or if you want to go all the way to anti assault then make them ct only or even headshot the assaults.

Another option which I recently mentioned was the not firing all the missiles vs smaller mechs. The actual thing streaks are said to be for is ammo conservation, if the system doesn't think you will hit, it won't fire the missiles. So just put something like that in game, if you are targeting a smaller fast moving mech with ssrm36 then just have it not fire all the missiles when you alpha. The smaller faster mechs will only be hit by a small percentage of the missiles even though all will go into cooldown, while a bigger slower target will get hit by all the missiles. Maybe add in that better torso focus on the bigger mechs to get a buff vs the assaults or just faster rof.

Your suggestion could be fine too if it was approached with the intent of not having streaks be anti-light. Though it impacts lrms and atms as well.

Whatever nerfs vs lights, buffs vs bigs could be considered.

Edited by dario03, 12 July 2019 - 07:47 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Yes I have. All classes already have counters but lights are the ones with the nearly auto-aim counter for the players that are not good at that counter and since its so good at it even the players that are able to use the other counters sometimes use it. And since lights are the lowest performing class and already have counters they shouldn't be the ones that get extra easy to do counters.

And in the context of fulfilling a role instead of simply just competing with the big brothers in some long streaks of random game, it's actually rather fine.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

And some ways to do that would be something like giving streaks tighter spread vs bigger mechs but lower their damage. If you lower the damage enough and make the spread tight enough then you have buff them vs assaults and nerfed them vs lights. Would be good for a balanced against the classes system.

Tighten the spread how? You do know that it is a bone-seeking homing missiles with weighted average on the torso.

You know what would actually satisfy what you want, this suggestion, you know why? As I have been saying to you, more missiles = longer lock time, which means you can only get out less missiles to light as you do with assaults because they would have different exposure times.

A dire at 54 KPH or 15 meter/sec, versus a Locust at 148 kph or 41.11 meter/sec, assuming 200 meters of run, the dire-wolf has 13.33 seconds of exposure time, while the locust is at 4.865s, and so assuming 18 SSRMs every 1 second, the Direwolf would literally eat up almost 239 SSRMs, the Locust would only get 87. Not that you could pack that much SSRMs in a single go, but that still highlights the effect of sequential-locking that reduces incoming damage with respect to weight-class.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Or if you want to go all the way to anti assault then make them ct only or even headshot the assaults.

Still on about that ******** reductio-ad-aburdium without nuance i see.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Your suggestion could be fine too if it was approached with the intent of not having streaks be anti-light. Though it impacts lrms and atms as well.

Again, that's unavoidable considering that it's aiming that counters the light, with the streaks being best at connecting shots.

The only way you could satisfy not making it anti-light is to make it not good at connecting shots, which in the end defeats the point of it being a homing weapon -- so you might as well remove it. How is this hard to understand?

Likewise, what role could you possibly assign on a basically more-spread longer-range srm? I mean SRMs would be better at brawling and focusing component, both which are even better at heaver targets.

dario03, on 12 July 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Whatever nerfs vs lights, buffs vs bigs could be considered.

Like exactly this one.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 12 July 2019 - 02:53 PM, said:

You do know that you don't have to read the list right? It could be like the Gauss-charge that lights up green on your weapon-groups. Likewise, that is exactly the point, seconds could decide the match result, that is why prolonging the locking sequence is crucial for the system to work exactly to deter the use of a lot of missile tubes.

Hows about for ONE second, actually try imagining it in the game; some streak-boat with 6x SSRM6 have to suffer 2s of lock-time just to nab a light, but a streak-cat with only 3x SSRM6 will only get to suffer 1s of lock time. A background lurmer struggles to get a lock because he brought 6 LRM15s that will make him suffer 2.25s of IDF lock short-range but even longer at long range and vs ECM, whereas a sensible player with 6x ERML + 2x LRM20 and with LOS would do it under 1s.

I know what you are trying to get to.
You want to build a pet mech with one or two streak 4s or 6s and you know it is horrible... So you are trying to find ways to rectify that.
Let it go.

The balance you are looking for is already in with the tonnage and hardpoint requirements.

Lets take your shadowcat example.... are you forgetting that it has one of the best JJs per class, MASC, can mount ECM and can actually hunt the lights?... That is already a huge advantage.

While if you find a mech that can pack 6 Streaks 6s, you are paying the price with lack of speed JJs and agility.


With a couple exceptions, same is true with every other weapon.

If you are thinking about making low number of streak tubes usable... then make them stronger against big mechs. Make them more focused on center mass on larger targets by increasing the hit chance to CT and STs significantly.

Edited by Navid A1, 12 July 2019 - 09:19 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

I know what you are trying to get to.
You want to build a pet mech with one or two streak 4s or 6s and you know it is horrible... So you are trying to find ways to rectify that.

Let it go.

Lol. No. Not even.

That's your assumption? It's always either personal failing or personal agenda?

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

The balance you are looking for is already in with the tonnage and hardpoint requirements.

Sure. If only them salty overperforming people, say a certain swordfish would acknowledge.

You know what, instead of just weakening streaks or homing system, maybe people should have git-gud with lights? So what if it's the underperforming class versus a weapon system specifically designed to counter them? They should just git-good!

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

Lets take your shadowcat example.... are you forgetting that it has one of the best JJs per class, MASC, can mount ECM and can actually hunt the lights?... That is already a huge advantage.

While if you find a mech that can pack 6 Streaks 6s, you are paying the price with lack of speed JJs and agility.

With a couple exceptions, same is true with every other weapon.

On the grounds that it's not even what I want to happen, that's completely irrelevant.

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

If you are thinking about making low number of streak tubes usable... then make them stronger against big mechs. Make them more focused on center mass on larger targets by increasing the hit chance to CT and STs significantly.

Oh, so you got an "if" now? Is it because you don't really understand what I want or what this idea is about?

Lets get this straight, no i am not making low number of streak tubes usable put that out of your god damn mind. Hell I'm not even doing this in the interest of making Chainfiring a viable option either.

Just as I have said before, it is precisely that those approaches are weak why the system forces it to do, because it's supposed to restrict the effectiveness of homing missiles, thus giving the lights a bit better chance against a weapon system that is made to counter them, without removing it's niche of being a counter to them or making the locking sequence completely mechanically harder like that 20-degree lock-cone nerf.

It'll be stronger to bigger mechs, because you have more exposure time to lace more missiles for your volley versus lights. If you just made more weight in SSRMs tracking the torso, then the lights are still pretty much ****** precisely because they still have little armor there.

[Prototelis]

Your idea is convoluted and bad.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 12 July 2019 - 10:03 PM, said:

Your idea is convoluted and bad.

Lol K.

Enjoy the light-counters.

[Prototelis]

Your bad idea does nothing to reduce low skill auto aim as a counter to the core gameplay mechanics of fast lights.. sooo.. yeah.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 12 July 2019 - 10:13 PM, said:

Your bad idea does nothing to reduce low skill auto aim as a counter to the core gameplay mechanics of fast lights.. sooo.. yeah.

Yeah, but it does reduces the possible missiles that come after your sweet juicy light ***, which makes the light-counters a bit more survivable otherwise.

So good day.

[Prototelis]

Because forced chain fire is really appealing. lol.

Gonna suggest ghost feed for uacs next?

How about ghost armor?

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 12 July 2019 - 10:16 PM, said:

Because forced chain fire is really appealing. lol.

Oh wow, now you're on the side of Streaks and auto-aim?

Guess what, you are also forced to chain-fire 2x gauss and 2x PPC lest you suffer immense heat penalty. So this isn't really that different.

And you know what else, the forced chain-fire of the ghost-heat with Gauss-PPC WORKED.

Prototelis, on 12 July 2019 - 10:16 PM, said:

Gonna suggest ghost feed for uacs next?

How about ghost armor?

Not really. I'm going to suggest further testing though.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 July 2019 - 10:28 PM.

[Prototelis]

I'm firmly on the "this is dumb" side. Because this is dumb.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 12 July 2019 - 10:22 PM, said:

I'm firmly on the "this is dumb" side. Because this is dumb.

Lol. K.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 12 July 2019 - 09:47 PM, said:

Sure. If only them salty overperforming people, say a certain swordfish would acknowledge.

You know what, instead of just weakening streaks or homing system, maybe people should have git-gud with lights? So what if it's the underperforming class versus a weapon system specifically designed to counter them? They should just git-good!



On the grounds that it's not even what I want to happen, that's completely irrelevant.



Oh, so you got an "if" now? Is it because you don't really understand what I want or what this idea is about?

Lets get this straight, no i am not making low number of streak tubes usable put that out of your god damn mind. Hell I'm not even doing this in the interest of making Chainfiring a viable option either.

Just as I have said before, it is precisely that those approaches are weak why the system forces it to do, because it's supposed to restrict the effectiveness of homing missiles, thus giving the lights a bit better chance against a weapon system that is made to counter them, without removing it's niche of being a counter to them or making the locking sequence completely mechanically harder like that 20-degree lock-cone nerf.

It'll be stronger to bigger mechs, because you have more exposure time to lace more missiles for your volley versus lights. If you just made more weight in SSRMs tracking the torso, then the lights are still pretty much ****** precisely because they still have little armor there.

You want to reduce the effectiveness of SSRM against lights... "To give the lights a better chance" against the very thing that is supposed to be a counter to them.


If so, then why the hell would anyone bother bringing Streaks then???
Sure, lets make them less effective in the only role they currently have in the game.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 12 July 2019 - 10:48 PM, said:

You want to reduce the effectiveness of SSRM against lights... "To give the lights a better chance" against the very thing that is supposed to be a counter to them.


If so, then why the hell would anyone bother bringing Streaks then???
Sure, lets make them less effective in the only role they currently have in the game.

I don't know man, there's people who don't appreciate the fact that lights being supposedly the underperforming class, is countered by a set of weapons -- there's Dario, there's Xiphias, there's Prototelis.

As I have said this before, it's a compromise, the SSRMs this way could still function as light-counter that isn't too effective, and doesn't involve removing homing weapons, even reduce the need for aiming without making the low-skill people too effective.

If you want to keep the lights completely vulnerable to streaks, fine, enjoy.

[Prototelis]

Thanks for giving me an opinion again.