167 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 04 August 2019 - 08:51 AM, said:

Just to reiterate my official MWO stats PROVE that I'm only ~15% LRMs, clear enough even the most basic hardcore facts are not getting through to you. Because you're so religiously entrenched in your own pre-conclusion that no fact demonstrating the exact opposite will reach you.
Basically your reasoning is : MWO stats must be wrong because they don't support what I always thought.

I am not buying what you are selling. At one point you said you had over 12,000 games in ATM's. Your story keeps changing. You keep readjusting it to back up what you are saying. At this point you'd need to provide actual screen shots because your credibility is highly questionable.

Also the amount of games you played before ATM's is documented in the leaderboards for quick play, and while CW leaderboards make it harder but still the number of games overall don't add up to what you are saying.

Using the CW leaderboards it's also very clear if I add up the four accounts I have used there, that I have a lot more games played than you do. So of coarse I have ended up with you on my team and on the other team a great deal. Even before recently, the population was low enough to know who the regulars are and what they are known for. Have also been in groups with you, most recently a month or so ago with the 420 dudes on their TS.

So no I am not saying MWO stats are wrong, I am saying you are lying about your MWO stats unless that is you played 150% more CW since ATM's were introduced which I find that as someone with 2600 games in CW from the leaderboard currently says (don't forget there was a leaderboard reset a couple years ago too).

[Feral Clown]

Spheroid, on 04 August 2019 - 09:26 AM, said:

Weapon usage in faction is not represented in those numbers.

Weapons used in CW show up in your weapon stats. There's no debating this as I have accounts that only dropped in CW and the weapon stats aren't blank.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Feral Clown, on 04 August 2019 - 09:26 AM, said:

At one point you said you had over 12,000 games in ATM's. Your story keeps changing. You keep readjusting it to back up what you are saying. At this point you'd need to provide actual screen shots because your credibility is highly questionable.

I have :
- ATM 9 5,834
- ATM 12 6,400
- LRM 15 1,438
- LRM 20 2,802

Almost all of my ATM builds are a mix of ATM9 and/pr ATM12, almost all of my LRM builds are a mix of LRM15 and/or LRM20, so the way you explained it to me, the first time I was counting my ATM matches twice, and counting my LRM matches twice.

This is my THIRD time explaining it to you, and I have yet to find a simple enough way to get it through to you.

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 04 August 2019 - 11:03 AM, said:

I have :
- ATM 9 5,834
- ATM 12 6,400
- LRM 15 1,438
- LRM 20 2,802

Almost all of my ATM builds are a mix of ATM9 and/pr ATM12, almost all of my LRM builds are a mix of LRM15 and/or LRM20, so the way you explained it to me, the first time I was counting my ATM matches twice, and counting my LRM matches twice.

This is my THIRD time explaining it to you, and I have yet to find a simple enough way to get it through to you.

This is your third time trying to sell me a pile of bs.

It's not that it isn't simple enough, it's that how you'd have made what you claim to be your original mistake is utter nonsense and either makes you one of the dumbest people in existence (ie the columns are literally labeled matches, fired, hit, accuracy, time equip, damage) or a liar.

You pick which one of those choices I should go with then.

Alternate ending is that you actually increased the amount you played by like a hundred and fifty times (although the current leaderboard for CW lists you as having only played 768 matches which doesn't support this argument), and you take a screenshot of your weapons stats and share it.

Otherwise like I have said your story was changed too much and doesn't make sense and only way I'd be stupid is if I were to believe the utter crap you are saying without something to back it up.

So prove me wrong (and laughably the implications of your original assertion) and go to your weapon stats, screen shot them and share on imgur.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

I'm afraid I could easily fake a screenshot too, so unless there's a way I can share my stats there's not much point of getting myself accused of faking a screenshot instead of faking a text.

This was my first time even checking out my weapon stats, and I'm content to know that whatever those numbers mean, my LRM usage numbers are low enough that you can't bring yourself to believe that they're true.

Go ask whatever's player made leaderboard to include weapon stats to demonstrate I can't make it into the 99th percentile of LRM% usage or whatever ^^

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 04 August 2019 - 11:31 AM, said:

I'm afraid I could easily fake a screenshot too, so unless there's a way I can share my stats there's not much point of getting myself accused of faking a screenshot instead of faking a text.

This was my first time even checking out my weapon stats, and I'm content to know that whatever those numbers mean, my LRM usage numbers are low enough that you can't bring yourself to believe that they're true.

Go ask whatever's player made leaderboard to include weapon stats to demonstrate I can't make it into the 99th percentile of LRM% usage or whatever ^^

You have not shown the sophistication to even interpret simple columns in weapon stats. So I think it would be far beyond you to fake screen shots in a manner that would not be noticeable. A guy got caught trying to fake his stats before and it's pretty easy to spot someone trying to do it in photoshop or ms paint....

If you are asking about the Isen dudes who run Jarl's, they take what is publicly available to anyone with an MWO account. What they cannot do is get individual players weapon stats, or mech stats, or map stats because only the player themselves have access to it.

So to reiterate, at one point you claimed 12,000 matches with ATMs. That quickly changed when pointed out you don't have 12 thousand games played in any mode. Your excuse for how you came up with that mistake is highly questionable.

On top of that I have been playing CW a long time and have so many games played in the mode at 2582 since the CW leaderboard reset, it's pretty safe to say that I have seen you around and run into you a lot.

My firm belief is that you won't post them not because they could be faked and fear of being accused of that, but because you did not use ATMs 3 times the amount that you used LRMs.

It's rather all moot though because the big difference between the two and distinction is mostly in your head. While ATMs if used on a jumping mech, are a great deal more effective that LRMs, the lock on mechanic is identical. There's a reason BCMC/Evil didn't run a bunch of ATM Supernova's in CW, it's just that you'd never be able to understand or accept why.

[The6thMessenger]

Humble Dexter, on 04 August 2019 - 08:51 AM, said:

I agree that one pinpoint damage is worth 2+ spread damage : But I'm into damage per match, so I'd rather do 0kill and 300 spread damage, then 1 kill and 150 pinpoint damage.

Sure. But don't act as if that's some valid way to equate you to a good player.

That 150 damage that did 1 kill has waaay more impact to the game especially if it happened early on.

[Feral Clown]

The6thMessenger, on 04 August 2019 - 02:35 PM, said:

Sure. But don't act as if that's some valid way to equate you to a good player.

That 150 damage that did 1 kill has waaay more impact to the game especially if it happened early on.

This dude is the kind of guy that when you and I bumped heads over lrm being much more respectable is what I meant. You'd think someone so hardcore into using and doing nothing but lurms would be thrilled to see them fired direct and core out a ct.

While we don't always agree, I am glad there are guys like you who enjoy the new mechanic. One thing I think we both agree on is that playing them now is more fun and if you are looking straight at an lrm dude I definitely respect what I might just be getting a face full of a good deal more than previously when I knew I could for the most part just shrug off a couple of volley's.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 04 August 2019 - 06:58 PM, said:

This dude is the kind of guy that when you and I bumped heads over lrm being much more respectable is what I meant. You'd think someone so hardcore into using and doing nothing but lurms would be thrilled to see them fired direct and core out a ct.

I know right? PGI gave them every bit of tool to make it as decent when competing with direct fire weapons as possible. But no, it always has been what we known before, that they are just out to leech from locks, proud of that IDF playstyle with a false sense of accomplishments in the QP.

[Skippy The Danger Squirrel]

The6thMessenger, on 04 August 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

I know right? PGI gave them every bit of tool to make it as decent when competing with direct fire weapons as possible. But no, it always has been what we known before, that they are just out to leech from locks, proud of that IDF playstyle with a false sense of accomplishments in the QP.

The problem with your line of reasoning is the inconsistent DPS. LRMs are too easy to counter and still have too much weapons spread, even with DF. Compared to other missile systems (SRM and MRM) they are slower and most vulnerable to AMS too. In a DF situation, you cannot acquire locks and do damage fast enough, without being cored yourself. Anyone fighting with LRMs are at a substantial disadvantage vs other missile types.

Then there's the whole targeting mechanic mess to deal with. Where if you walk behind a light pole, you're now out of Line of Sight... So the only maps where you can even get descent LOS is Alpine Peaks, Polar Highlands or Caustic valley. And if you've been playing of late, those maps once famous for the rain of LRMs are pretty much long range duels with AC, PPC and ERLL. Because the IDF targeting mechanics suck, the ECM and Radar Derp is too effective, NARC and UAVs no longer apply any targeting bonus. No, LRMs are hopelessly broken.

[Dimento Graven]

Skrapiron, on 05 August 2019 - 05:05 AM, said:

The problem with your line of reasoning is the inconsistent DPS. LRMs are too easy to counter and still have too much weapons spread, even with DF. Compared to other missile systems (SRM and MRM) they are slower and most vulnerable to AMS too. In a DF situation, you cannot acquire locks and do damage fast enough, without being cored yourself. Anyone fighting with LRMs are at a substantial disadvantage vs other missile types.

Then there's the whole targeting mechanic mess to deal with. Where if you walk behind a light pole, you're now out of Line of Sight... So the only maps where you can even get descent LOS is Alpine Peaks, Polar Highlands or Caustic valley. And if you've been playing of late, those maps once famous for the rain of LRMs are pretty much long range duels with AC, PPC and ERLL. Because the IDF targeting mechanics suck, the ECM and Radar Derp is too effective, NARC and UAVs no longer apply any targeting bonus. No, LRMs are hopelessly broken.

This is exactly the kind of excrement I was talking about, right here.

The posts where people who are either really, Really, REALLY, REALLY bad at this game come in and complain about a computer guided weaponry system (or they are people who just want computer guided weaponry systems to be FURTHER enhanced, so they ***** and complain, falsely, about it being broken in hopes that PGI will start buffing those systems and nerfing their counters)...

Either way, GOD FORBID, these people actually learn to aim by themselves.

I cringe every time I hear at the beginning of a match, "I brought x thousands of missiles, hold locks"... It means this jagoff plans to stand behind everyone else and let the computer deliver his damage, happy to let RNGesus decide when the target has had enough and should blow up.

Yeah, yeah... You can pump out a fair bit of damage this way, but ultimately these guys, typically in assault 'mechs, are more detriment than helpful. They are typically SO BAD at playing this game they actually have to STOP MOVING to get their missiles locked to fire their weapons, which means they get further and further behind, ultimately getting eaten by the nigh unavoidable "potato tornado". Those rare instances where they actually do sizable damage sure, they've 'chicken pecked' 600 - 1200 damage for the entire match, but because the enemy targets are more functional during the duration of the 'rain' (due to the lack of pinpoint damage allowing someone who can aim to knock out a torso, leg, or other weapon carrying location) the enemy is delivering more damage for longer to the other people who are out there, sharing armor.

AND, GOD FORBID (again), a light/medium decides to hunt these mofos down and start shooting them in the ***... Oh man, the howling vitriol about how the entire team doesn't turn around and save their 2 full sectors out of position butts... Just classic.

PGI has already buffed missiles by increasing velocity AND durability vs AMS, while AT THE SAME TIME, nerfing AMS... And complaining about radar deprivation is laughable as it's buried at the bottom of the sensor skill tree making it out of reach for most standard skill configurations. ECM being 'too effective' is laughable too, yeah the range was brought back to 120 meters, but there are SO MANY counters to ECM it barely has any measurable effect (unless you plan on loading stealth armor). Every time I take out my ECM equipped Fafnirs I am amazed at how "instantaneous" the enemies locks always are, due to either someone inside the ECM range targeting me for the computer guided weapons ******, or their having loaded tag, or BAP, or there being a UAV up, or a NARC, or I've recently been hit by some form of PPC, etc., etc., etc....

Yeah, no.

Cut it out! After having read the past 4 pages, it should be pretty obvious to anyone reading with any moderate ability to be objective about it, that almost everyone using LRMs/ATMs extensively understands those weapon systems are actually currently over powered for a game that's supposed to be a 'player skill vs player skill' based game.

Defeating computer guided weapons and RNGesus is ONLY FUN in single player games. In a PvP game, not so much...

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Dimento Graven, on 05 August 2019 - 06:18 AM, said:

PGI has already buffed missiles by increasing velocity AND durability vs AMS, while AT THE SAME TIME, nerfing AMS...

Ok so here's a summary of what really happened

Since the creation of MWO :
LRM20: 1.0 (20.0)
LRM15: 1.0 (15.0)
LRM10: 1.0 (10.0)
LRM5: 1.0 (5.0)

In the March 2019 patch :
LRM20: 0.7 (14.0)
LRM15: 0.8 (12.0)
LRM10: 0.9 (9.0)
LRM5: 1.0 (5.0)

In the April 2019 patch fix :
LRM20: 0.8 (16.0)
LRM15: 0.9 (13.5)
LRM10: 1.1 (11.0)
LRM5: 1.2 (6.0)

So apparently that's :
- LRM20 : 20% health nerf (-4HP)
- LRM15 : 10% health nerf (-1.5HP)
- LRM10 : 10% health boost (+1HP)
- LRM5 : 20% health boost (+1HP)

And at the same time AMS got a 15% range boost (no nerf in sight ?), from 165m to 190m (that's for the optimal range, because the max range is ~50% higher).

Thing is, you typically only have around ~4 missile slots on a suitable LRM mech, so they don't get wasted on LRM5 and LRM10 : They get used on LRM15 and LRM20, and preferably on LRM20 (which produce less heat per missile, and have a higher total health per missile batch). So that's a lot more of a 20% nerf of something that gets used, and a 20% boost of something that doesn't.

Like if you increase flamer damage by 20% in exchange for reducing ERLL damage by 20% : I'd say that's a lot closer to a 20% energy nerf then a 20% energy boost.

So that was really a LRM nerf on top of an AMS boost.

How much difference does 10% LRM health make ? Well back in March 2019, after the 10% to 30% LRM health reductions, your own LRMs were EXPLODING RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, because they didn't have enough time to exit their launch tubes, so they were exploding all over you instead (no damage done). In fact in some cases you could see AMS fire climbing down your stream of clan LRMs all the way back back into your launch tubes, with not a single LRM getting through.

And of course, the AMS still shoots straight through walls and whatever, that part is working as intended : Terribly broken.

Anyway even a 10% HP nerf is noticeable, it does more then just reduce the amount of LRMs by 10%. And at 30% HP nerf you're reaching a point where your whole stream of LRMs are starting to get shot right back in their launch tubes, which is what forced PGI to PARTIALLY UNDO their March 2019 health nerfs, and even boost the smaller launches beyond their initial value because apparently those ones were having trouble hitting anything at all.

That's your "LRM boost + AMS nerf for you" : A patch openly designed to increase the amount of LRMs an AMS could shoot down (even taking into account the velocity increase that accompanied that same patch, as part of making AMS shoot more LRMs), but a patch that went so overboard that PGI had no choice but to tone it down a bit in the next month's patch (the AMS has become so efficient they were creating visual bugs).

Sure enough, looks like a 20% LRM health boost, until you add the ERLL damage nerf to to flammer damage boost you're entirely focused on, and then suddenly the big picture is that it's one big missile nerf that still hasn't been toned down enough : Not when you're boosting AMS range at the same time you're nerfing the missile efficiency (and firing arc, and lock time, and lock surface, and LRM range, and LRM heat, and...).

Edited by Humble Dexter, 05 August 2019 - 09:22 AM.

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 05 August 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Ok so here's a summary of what really happened

Since the creation of MWO :
LRM20: 1.0 (20.0)
LRM15: 1.0 (15.0)
LRM10: 1.0 (10.0)
LRM5: 1.0 (5.0)

In the March 2019 patch :
LRM20: 0.7 (14.0)
LRM15: 0.8 (12.0)
LRM10: 0.9 (9.0)
LRM5: 1.0 (5.0)

In the April 2019 patch fix :
LRM20: 0.8 (16.0)
LRM15: 0.9 (13.5)
LRM10: 1.1 (11.0)
LRM5: 1.2 (6.0)

So apparently that's :
- LRM20 : 20% health nerf (-4HP)
- LRM15 : 10% health nerf (-1.5HP)
- LRM10 : 10% health boost (+1HP)
- LRM5 : 20% health boost (+1HP)

And at the same time AMS got a 15% range boost (no nerf in sight ?), from 165m to 190m (that's for the optimal range, because the max range is ~50% higher).

Thing is, you typically only have around ~4 missile slots on a suitable LRM mech, so they don't get wasted on LRM5 and LRM10 : They get used on LRM15 and LRM20, and preferably on LRM20 (which produce less heat per missile, and have a higher total health per missile batch). So that's a lot more of a 20% nerf of something that gets used, and a 20% boost of something that doesn't.

Like if you increase flamer damage by 20% in exchange for reducing ERLL damage by 20% : I'd say that's a lot closer to a 20% energy nerf then a 20% energy boost.

So that was really a LRM nerf on top of an AMS boost.

How much difference does 10% LRM health make ? Well back in March 2019, after the 10% to 30% LRM health reductions, your own LRMs were EXPLODING RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, because they didn't have enough time to exit their launch tubes, so they were exploding all over you instead (no damage done). In fact in some cases you could see AMS fire climbing down your stream of clan LRMs all the way back back into your launch tubes, with not a single LRM getting through.

And of course, the AMS still shoots straight through walls and whatever, that part is working as intended : Terribly broken.

Anyway even a 10% HP nerf is noticeable, it does more then just reduce the amount of LRMs by 10%. And at 30% HP nerf you're reaching a point where your whole stream of LRMs are starting to get shot right back in their launch tubes, which is what forced PGI to PARTIALLY UNDO their March 2019 health nerfs, and even boost the smaller launches beyond their initial value because apparently those ones were having trouble hitting anything at all.

That's your "LRM boost + AMS nerf for you" : A patch openly designed to increase the amount of LRMs an AMS could shoot down (even taking into account the velocity increase that accompanied that same patch, as part of making AMS shoot more LRMs), but a patch that went so overboard that PGI had no choice but to tone it down a bit in the next month's patch (the AMS has become so efficient they were creating visual bugs).

Sure enough, looks like a 20% LRM health boost, until you add the ERLL damage nerf to to flammer damage boost you're entirely focused on, and then suddenly the big picture is that it's one big missile nerf that still hasn't been toned down enough : Not when you're boosting AMS range at the same time you're nerfing the missile efficiency (and firing arc, and lock time, and lock surface, and LRM range, and LRM heat, and...).

How many missiles are shot down by one AMS equipped by one LRM 20? How many can that same AMS shoot down when facing the common 4x LRM 20s being alpha'd at them?

Thinking that AMS is super effective against lurms is patently absurd. Common LRM builds completely overwhelm AMS Nova's and Crabs. Just recently a team tried to rush us with 12 Crab 27's on Polar and got absolutely obliterated. The only players on our side having trouble being the narcer, which is why our guys put two narc launchers on since the change.

You will not accept or perhaps ever be able to understand that the vast majority of your issue and problems are user error. That's why it's funny when you proclaim to be a LRM expert.

[Michelle Branch]

LRMs, streaks and ATMs are anti fun weapons. Leave em be. Stop touching their stats.

[The6thMessenger]

Skrapiron, on 05 August 2019 - 05:05 AM, said:

The problem with your line of reasoning is the inconsistent DPS.

LRMs are too easy to counter and still have too much weapons spread, even with DF. Compared to other missile systems (SRM and MRM) they are slower and most vulnerable to AMS too. In a DF situation, you cannot acquire locks and do damage fast enough, without being cored yourself. Anyone fighting with LRMs are at a substantial disadvantage vs other missile types.

Then there's the whole targeting mechanic mess to deal with. Where if you walk behind a light pole, you're now out of Line of Sight... So the only maps where you can even get descent LOS is Alpine Peaks, Polar Highlands or Caustic valley. And if you've been playing of late, those maps once famous for the rain of LRMs are pretty much long range duels with AC, PPC and ERLL. Because the IDF targeting mechanics suck, the ECM and Radar Derp is too effective, NARC and UAVs no longer apply any targeting bonus.

No, LRMs are hopelessly broken.

No. Learn how to play. Here's the thing, PGI made the LRMs to have inconsistent DPS because it relies on allied locks before. With LOS it's actually consistent, why there's the term "get your own locks" being thrown around, because it's the sure fire way you know that you'd be landing all your **** most of the time.

Granted there's poor map portions all around, but come on, a lot of us that are actually decent and familiar enough with the game is having a blast with the dual-arc mechanic. We are making it work, and it has been working waaay better than before. All this complaints are just coming from the people who aren't interested in getting LOS Locks, those that aren't bothering to get good.

Oh and the long-range LRMs are now sniping-maps? Oh the hugh-manatee!

You want proper long-range IDF to work? Well coordinate with your team and have a dedicated spotter. It's unreasonable to have a effective long-range IDF for free -- with just some bloke leeching locks from afar with little consequence other than consuming ammo and building up heat.

If anything, LRMs with LOS are far better at longer ranges because the lower arc reduces the time-to-target.

Feral Clown, on 05 August 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

How many missiles are shot down by one AMS equipped by one LRM 20? How many can that same AMS shoot down when facing the common 4x LRM 20s being alpha'd at them?

Thinking that AMS is super effective against lurms is patently absurd. Common LRM builds completely overwhelm AMS Nova's and Crabs. Just recently a team tried to rush us with 12 Crab 27's on Polar and got absolutely obliterated. The only players on our side having trouble being the narcer, which is why our guys put two narc launchers on since the change.

You will not accept or perhaps ever be able to understand that the vast majority of your issue and problems are user error. That's why it's funny when you proclaim to be a LRM expert.

To be fair, if anything, the current AMS or the Iron Dome builds somewhat nullfies REASONABLE lrm builds like 2x LRM20A or 2x LRM15A -- with a lot of lasers of course. While yes the LRM80s and LRM60s could still punch through the iron-domes, that is just reinforcing the stupidly built LRMs instead of actually encouraging a healthy laser-vomit with LRMs as cherry on top.

If only the AMS was properly implemented, like with ghost-health that increase or decreases missile HP based of how many missiles are launched all at once -- which would result at a fixed percentage of missiles downed. We wouldn't have to bother trying to put more LRMs in a mech just so it could punch through AMS.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 August 2019 - 04:26 PM.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

So I'll be using this quote from ANOTHER thread, to also excuse myself from this thread :

Feral Clown, on 05 August 2019 - 04:10 PM, said:

Humble Dexter, on 05 August 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:

Feral Clown, on 04 August 2019 - 08:56 AM, said:

The other thing you don't get is I have heard you cry out over comms

I don't have a mike.

You saying you don't have a mic doesn't matter

Edited by Humble Dexter, 06 August 2019 - 10:26 AM.

[Gristle Missile]

Ive headshot an assualt and a heavy early in a match with dual gauss
Died shortly after to a combination of light backstabbers and a friendly fire arty strike and ended the match with like 90 damage and 2 solo kills lol

Edited by Gristle Missile, 06 August 2019 - 08:40 AM.

[Feral Clown]

The6thMessenger, on 05 August 2019 - 04:08 PM, said:

To be fair, if anything, the current AMS or the Iron Dome builds somewhat nullfies REASONABLE lrm builds like 2x LRM20A or 2x LRM15A -- with a lot of lasers of course. While yes the LRM80s and LRM60s could still punch through the iron-domes, that is just reinforcing the stupidly built LRMs instead of actually encouraging a healthy laser-vomit with LRMs as cherry on top.

If only the AMS was properly implemented, like with ghost-health that increase or decreases missile HP based of how many missiles are launched all at once -- which would result at a fixed percentage of missiles downed. We wouldn't have to bother trying to put more LRMs in a mech just so it could punch through AMS.

This is fairly tough since boating is the way to go in the games current iteration and for as long as I have been playing.

So I have seen a guy who runs a Timby all of the time with two erppc's and two lrm twenty's. It's a bad build with what we have. To balance AMS around it, would be terrible because the common strong builds of lrm 60, 90, and so forth would completely make AMS useless which is the state it was in for years.

If anything AMS especially triple or quad since it is quite an investment, should absolutely be able to be effective against the common Supernova's and Awesome's that people are fond of bringing out.

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 06 August 2019 - 08:09 AM, said:

So I'll be using this quote from ANOTHER thread, to also excuse myself from this thread :

You got me, even though I cleared it up and you clipped it out of context, I meant chat and not voip.

Hold onto that gaff and ignore everything else such as addressing the lies that you in fact used ATM's far more than LRM's.

Keep telling yourself you're really good to while you are at despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Love that you aren't even good at lurms, and it is even sweeter that you don't like the changes to them that negate your selfish approach to the game since I in part helped get them changed.

I am winning here sir, you just don't possess the capacity to grasp it.

Oh and it's mic, not mike as in short for microphone.... you really are special my dood.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 06 August 2019 - 01:12 PM, said:

This is fairly tough since boating is the way to go in the games current iteration and for as long as I have been playing.

True, but for a role maybe. But lets face it, Lasers would just work better for that certain guy that gets their own locks. Dang Clan ER Lasers are just the best.

Feral Clown, on 06 August 2019 - 01:12 PM, said:

So I have seen a guy who runs a Timby all of the time with two erppc's and two lrm twenty's. It's a bad build with what we have. To balance AMS around it, would be terrible because the common strong builds of lrm 60, 90, and so forth would completely make AMS useless which is the state it was in for years.

I agree, if we're balancing it with our static Fire-Rate, and that is exactly the problem I am pointing it out. It should have been percentage base, such as 20%/AMS.

As in if it's an LRM5, it's just 1 missile down, or if it's LRM20 it's 4 missiles down -- LRM80 is 16 missiles.

Feral Clown, on 06 August 2019 - 01:12 PM, said:

If anything AMS especially triple or quad since it is quite an investment, should absolutely be able to be effective against the common Supernova's and Awesome's that people are fond of bringing out.

Hey, remember the time when you said to me that there shouldn't be hard-counters?

Of course if it's 20%/AMS, 3x AMS even 4x AMS would still down 36 to 48 missiles down, and that's still a LOT of missiles being downed.