Results 11 to 20 of 58
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    1) make the weapon power level more visible, especially if you insist on the google doc poll balance.
    Wouldn't hurt, though going into the game assuming max level from the start would also be prudent.
    The whole "i have no idea how much damage this is going to do" thing was bad with boosts, and is worse with upgrades because at least with boosts around you could do a good estimate based on CPU.

    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    2) Scale the energy of the Flak with the amount of flyers on the enemy team. One energy bar can barely do anything useful vs one player (as always, assuming competent players).
    One energy bar is enough to deal vs. one player, assuming you hit most of your shots. The same is true for most other weapons.
    Should my lasers get more energy based on the amount of players on the ground then?


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    3) lower the trigger altitude of Flak, or change the way the game sees altitude. You have to stop this hide behind a hill meta, it is bad.. There are a host of stats for the weapon you can change to accommodate this.
    Flak's trigger altitude is already as low as it can be. Any lower and it's going to start exploding on hovers. It already triggers on jumping sprinters, mechs, spider legs and hovers going down the hill.

    Hide behind the hill meta is a legitimate strategy. How is it any different from a mech or a spider doing the exact same thing?



    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    4) the weapon power level rank up system favors good weapons where not so good weapons, like the Flak, take far too long to rank up (Comparatively to said good weapons).
    Rank up system has no favors.
    It works purely on the amount of damage you deal with those weapons, and the amount of energy required is based on weapon's tier and CPU usage.
    Naturally something like a T5 rail is going to score damage faster and in higher numbers than a T5 flak.

    It's actually you who is asking the rank up system to show favors to "not so good weapons".


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    5) I'm not sure why you are hanging on to this, new weapon power up = 2 man Platoon maximum. Make a game mode, or just have it within regular MM for 3v3, 4v4 and 5v5. You should look at the stats on this, which group makes up a larger portion of your player base? The current meta is not good, but if you want it at least put a little more thought into it and give some solo players the tools to do something about it. This isn't rocket science.
    I am in favor of limiting platoons to 3 people, or at the very least tweaking the matchmaker so that platoons of 4 or 5 people will only ever be matched with another platoon of similar size.
    Playing against a platoon of up to 3 people leaves you with a fighting chance. You can win if you outskill your opponents. 4 or 5 people is a steamroll.

  2. #12
    One energy bar is enough to deal vs. one player, assuming you hit most of your shots.
    Ok, so I'm not talking about lower level play. Sure if you are flying down the middle of the map with no cover to cancel the stack, and take no evasive maneuvers, yes the Flak is awesome for 1 player. I'm not sure why I have to explain that. But, if you want to debate this particular point I would be happy to, in great depth.

    Flak's trigger altitude is already as low as it can be
    So hiding behind a pillar or a broken down reactor, or on top of a crashed ship is 'ground' (while flying, aka not touching the ground)? What is altitude a measurement of?

    Hide behind the hill meta is a legitimate strategy. How is it any different from a mech or a spider doing the exact same thing?
    Must I explain this? I will if you need me to.

    Rank up system has no favors.
    It works purely on the amount of damage you deal with those weapons, and the amount of energy required is based on weapon's tier and CPU usage.
    Naturally something like a T5 rail is going to score damage faster and in higher numbers than a T5 flak.

    It's actually you who is asking the rank up system to show favors to "not so good weapons".
    Lol, debate club, but I digress. So, bad weapons, defined as not as useful in battle
    , good weapons defined as very useful in battle, should take longer to level up their power? Reminding you that when you level up power of a weapon, they become more useful. I mean if you are accusing me of wanting a better balanced weapon power level up system, then I guess I am guilty.

    Rank up system has no favors.
    My point.
    Maybe I used the wrong words.

    Playing against a platoon of up to 3 people leaves you with a fighting chance
    Pre update RC, yes I agree. As the game is right now, and by this I mean everything including MM, no. Weapon power level rank up changes a lot in favor of the Platoon, thusly I went from suggesting 3 man max Platoon vs Randoms to 2 man Platoon max. vs Randoms. I'm talking about upper level gameplay again. I would much prefer some reasonable argument, or debate on the topic of Platoons from someone. You are providing no reasonable point at all, about much. I will say the increasing energy of the Flak depending on how many Flyers there are is a big stretch, but it is born out of the fact that the AA weapon in the game is the worst AA in the game, drastic problems need drastic fixes.




    It would be better for the Game (I capitalized the word Game so as to draw attention to it) for MM to do these things, which could be open for discussion.

    1) 2 person platoon, no changes in MM

    2) 3 person Platoon on one team. Minimum other team, two person Platoon, if so no MM changes.

    3) 4 and 5 Platoon should have some mix of opposing team Platoons, example the minimum for vs a 5 man Platoon would be 4 man Platoon, then a combination of 2+2 or 2+3, and the like. Same for a 4 man Platoon. We can discuss why Platoons are strong vs random players if you like as well, and it goes without saying one can't say 'all' Platoons as this isn't true, I am referring to t4 and t5 gameplay where there are competent players involved.

    I am making a big assumption here, I am assuming you are not one of the players who enjoy being on the Platoon side of things where a 15-0,1,2 or3 is a GG.
    Last edited by elarma; 03-14-2019 at 02:35 PM. Reason: re writing Platoon stuff

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    Ok, so I'm not talking about lower level play. Sure if you are flying down the middle of the map with no cover to cancel the stack, and take no evasive maneuvers, yes the Flak is awesome for 1 player.
    My experience comes from leveling a T5 flak in T5 BA matches vs properly build T5 bots piloted by experienced people.
    I don't need to kill my enemy with flak to accomplish the main gameplay loop goals. Keeping them suppressed behind a hill, forcing them to retreat, or facetank the shots to rush the point and lose 80% of their health is enough to prevent them from capturing my point or stopping theirs from being captured.

    Towards that end, Flak works pretty well. If you want to hardcounter multiple flying bots at the same time by simply by putting on a single 300CPU gun on your bot then no, Flak won't do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    So hiding behind a pillar or a broken down reactor, or on top of a crashed ship is 'ground' (while flying, aka not touching the ground)? What is altitude a measurement of?
    In this game's design terms, proximity to surfaces that "ground bots" can move on. That includes hugging vertical cliffs. The exact same rules are used as a trigger for disallowing flak itself as well as mortar from firing because they are no longer "on the ground".

    If you redefine altitude as a measurement of vertical distance from the bot's CoM to the "ground" directly below it, you would need to significantly raise flak detonation height/off the ground trigger because going down hills and such not going to work in your favor. This in turn might make jumping bots be not high enough to be shot with flak, which isn't working in your favor either.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    So, bad weapons, defined as not as useful in battle
    , good weapons defined as very useful in battle, should take longer to level up their power? Reminding you that when you level up power of a weapon, they become more useful. I mean if you are accusing me of wanting a better balanced weapon power level up system, then I guess I am guilty.
    And here is the first issue when it comes to the definition of useful. You don't consider flak to be useful, I do. Should we both level the gun at different rates?

    Who gets to define which is more useful than the other thing? Are nanos more useful than a shotgun? What about the next balance patch where numbers change and suddenly a shredder becomes the DPS king? Who is going to be bothered to, and can claim to be able to, provide a balanced "usefulness" rating across all weapons base on which, as per your proposal, weapon leveling rate should be based on?

    Current leveling rate is based on logic while your definitions are arbitrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    Pre update RC, yes I agree. As the game is right now, and by this I mean everything including MM, no. Weapon power level rank up changes a lot in favor of the Platoon, thusly I went from suggesting 3 man max Platoon vs Randoms to 2 man Platoon max. vs Randoms. I'm talking about upper level gameplay again. I would much prefer some reasonable argument, or debate on the topic of Platoons from someone. You are providing no reasonable point at all, about much.
    Here I was agreeing with you and you found even that not to your linking.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    It would be better for the Game (I capitalized the word Game so as to draw attention to it) for MM to do these things, which could be open for discussion.

    1) 2 person platoon, no changes in MM

    2) 3 person Platoon on one team. Minimum other team, two person Platoon, if so no MM changes.

    3) 4 and 5 Platoon should have some mix of opposing team Platoons, example the minimum for vs a 5 man Platoon would be 4 man Platoon, then a combination of 2+2 or 2+3, and the like. Same for a 4 man Platoon. We can discuss why Platoons are strong vs random players if you like as well, and it goes without saying one can't say 'all' Platoons as this isn't true, I am referring to t4 and t5 gameplay where there are competent players involved.
    That's exactly what i said, except with more words.

    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    I will say the increasing energy of the Flak depending on how many Flyers there are is a big stretch, but it is born out of the fact that the AA weapon in the game is the worst AA in the game, drastic problems need drastic fixes.
    Worst AA weapons in the game based on what criteria though? Maybe tweaking that would make more sense rather than introducing another arbitrary, poorly defined system?
    Last edited by VintageGriffin; 03-14-2019 at 05:42 PM.

  4. #14
    Derp, sorry, was a bit sarcastic. Where do you agree with my comment on 2 man Platoon? I'm just saying, 2 is not 3.
    Last edited by elarma; 03-14-2019 at 07:53 PM.

  5. #15
    i don't agree with increasing the amount of energy flack has by the amount of "Flyers"
    i do agree with reducing the amount of energy flack consumes.

    all other arguments here i would like to stay out of...

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    You say, In reply to what I said, which is So in your world, where Flak is useful against competent players in T5, 2 also means 3? Let me chew on this for a bit, this may take some time for me to gather my thoughts and prepare for a debate, as I was prepared for a reasonable discussion.
    I presented you with my arguments as to why i think Flak is doing okay. Your arguments in responses to my posts essentially amount to repeating "NO U" over and over again. I don't think I'm the one being unreasonable here.

    Someone disagreed with your opinion on the internet. Someone might also be better in this game than you. Get over it and don't make a spectacle out of yourself behaving like some sort of authority of indisputable truth the mere questioning of which is a laughable foolish blasphemy.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by VintageGriffin View Post
    I presented you with my arguments as to why i think Flak is doing okay. Your arguments in responses to my posts essentially amount to repeating "NO U" over and over again. I don't think I'm the one being unreasonable here.

    Someone disagreed with your opinion on the internet. Someone might also be better in this game than you. Get over it and don't make a spectacle out of yourself behaving like some sort of authority of indisputable truth the mere questioning of which is a laughable foolish blasphemy.
    Sure, so is 2 the same as three? But at least disagree with some kind of foundation. It really sounds like you are just defending Platoons and bad Flak. Are you considering comparing Mech Legs and Spider Legs to all thing's Air? You literally have provided no substance in your argument.
    Last edited by elarma; 03-14-2019 at 08:15 PM.

  8. #18
    Give the flak a bigger explosion radius and decrease rate of fire a bit, flak feels more like a useless laser

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    Sure, so is 2 the same as three? But at least disagree with some kind of foundation.
    I agreed with you on the same basic principals. The finer details should not matter, but you got to have it exactly your way.
    I seriously question your ability to rationally process other people's posts. Let me repeat: I agree with you on that particular point.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    It really sounds like you are just defending Platoons and bad Flak.
    I'm one of the most anti-platoon minded players in the game.

    Also I'm not defending bad flak because I don't consider flak to be bad in general.

    It's not as effective as a megarail, megasmg or even just regular smgs at killing air bots, but it excels at bringing them down to ground level by taking away the thing that keeps them in the air, by the virtue of how it works. It also good at airspace denial, taking away the primary advantage of airborne loml and plasma. Once on the ground, or hugging the ground, those bots can be more easily dispatched with a wider variety of weapons than when they are in the air. Which diversifies the gameplay.

    You seem to be stuck with a mindset that if you run with a flak you should be swatting things out of the sky before they even hit the ground. Multiples at a time even. You're better off using megarails with a power mod for that. If you can aim.


    Quote Originally Posted by elarma View Post
    Are you considering comparing Mech Legs and Spider Legs to all thing's Air? You literally have provided no substance in your argument.
    Last edited by VintageGriffin; 03-14-2019 at 09:10 PM.

  10. #20
    There is no bait in truth, you compared Mechs and Spider legs to Air by saying if spider legs can do it why not Air. To see this, I'm talking about the meta you are talking about Spider legs, who is baiting who. Is 2 the same as 3 ? We have to start somewhere and nobody else seems to think Flak is 'good', so far that is.

    After that we can discuss if Flak is useful or not and what defines useful in terms of weapon purpose, size and cup cost vs results.
    Last edited by elarma; 03-14-2019 at 09:19 PM.