Free Allegiance Forums

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 25 2014, 10:48 AM) The problem is I don't think I can make my point without vitriol because I've said the same thing three times without vitriol and people still don't seem to understand the point at all.

I see a real flaw in the way you are presenting your argument.

Your central complaint is that there is no "skill check" with hunter once it is launched. All you can do is chaff and pray.

If that was true, that would be an argument to remove hunters completely, as just a fundamentally broken mechanic. But that's not what you're proposing. You're just advocating a damage nerf.

The truth is, there is a skill check against SF. It is, and has always been since day 1, sig management and cross nanning. Chaffing hunters is not the primary intended counter to tac. I don't see why you're so focused on it. It's just a little extra something to help. Few would have a problem, I think, with a hypothetical tech that reduces 50% of hunter damage 100% of the time; I don't see that as being very different from a tech that reduces 100% of hunter damage 50% of the time.

Instead of saying there is no skill check when flying SFs, you should be saying that the traditional skill checks are not working as well as they should be (due in part to recent perks to missle damage and nerf in the cost of PPs, but also tac has always been this way).

You downplay sig management as a solution for reasons I don't fully grasp.

Couple things you should include if you're going to bring up sig management as a skill check:

SF scan range for all tiers
Scout scan range for all tiers
Signiture values for the above mentioned for both with and without shields on scouts for all tiers

Then do a mathematical analysis on whether your argument makes any sense.

You did none of that and on top of that you missed the point completely on P1's post. Well done cashto.

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Nov 25 2014, 12:13 PM) The truth is, there is a skill check against SF. It is, and has always been since day 1, sig management and cross nanning. Chaffing hunters is not the primary intended counter to tac. I don't see why you're so focused on it. It's just a little extra something to help. Few would have a problem, I think, with a hypothetical tech that reduces 50% of hunter damage 100% of the time; I don't see that as being very different from a tech that reduces 100% of hunter damage 50% of the time.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 24 2014, 07:46 PM) Hunter 3 deals 144 damage. Scouts have 180 hp. BUT with 2 damage upgrades hunter 3 deals 174 damage.

How the hell do you propose to crossnan when a single bloody missile takes you from 180 hp to 0 hp for anyone with a KB > 10?

And I don't know how you don't see "tech that reduces 50% of hunter damage 100% of the time" as different from "tech that reduces 100% of hunter damage 50% of the time." I just explained it. It's about consistent behavior.

If you have a thing that does 100 damage per hit and you fire it three times and someone has a tech that reduces that damage by 50%, the amount of damage you've dealt is 150 damage.

If you have a thing that does 100 damage per hit and you fire it three times and someone has a tech that reduces that damage by 100% 50% of the time, the amount of damage you have dealt is either 0 damage, 100 damage, 200 damage, or 300 damage with a statistical distribution between the four of them.

If you think those are the same thing then there's literally no helping you, I'm sorry. I'm not Clay_Pidgeon: I don't teach high school math.

vogue wrote:QUOTE (vogue @ Nov 25 2014, 12:33 PM) Then do a mathematical analysis on whether your argument makes any sense.

You did none of that and on top of that you missed the point completely on P1's post. Well done cashto.

You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. In fact I am not sure what you think my argument was?

My fault, I can hardly follow the ramblings of a complete retard

P1: Hunt3 damage is too high to xnan.
Cashto: But you forgot about xnan.
Vogue: Ban plz.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 25 2014, 12:50 PM) How the hell do you propose to crossnan when a single bloody missile takes you from 180 hp to 0 hp for anyone with a KB > 10?

You're missing my point. I'm not saying hunters shouldn't be nerfed. I'm saying that your proposal to nerf them is getting conflated with, and buried in this rant about how countermeasures suck, which is a whole separate issue, and is a complaint you are presenting NO REMEDY for. I'm saying that the WAY you are presenting your argument (that hunters should be nerfed) can be improved by dropping that bit, not that your argument is fundamentally wrong. Do you understand?

QUOTE And I don't know how you don't see "tech that reduces 50% of hunter damage 100% of the time" as different from "tech that reduces 100% of hunter damage 50% of the time." I just explained it. It's about consistent behavior.[/quote]

I didn't see your intervening post before I replied to your earlier one. Yes, you are right that there is more randomness involved, and that detracts from playability. I disagree it's a completely fatal flaw, and again, I ask you what your suggested remedy is here, because it's a SEPERATE ISSUE from the cross-nanning thing?

BTW let's chat about "sig management" for a second.

A hunt 3 mounted SF with sig 3 active has a signature of about 46%. A scout's scan range is 2400m meaning that the scout can see the SF who has hunt3 mounted at about 1100m range.

Fun fact: the range of hunter3 is ~2040m.

Fun fact the second: AC1 range is 1500m.

Fun fact the third: if we had adv/hvy scouts, we'd be seeing this SF (who has their hunters mounted) at 1360m.

I mean I guess if by "sig management" you mean "not shooting your guns or mounting shields on SFs and remembering to cloak" then sure that skill is very important in this situation.

vogue wrote:QUOTE (vogue @ Nov 25 2014, 08:17 PM) I don't mind intelligent discussion from any member of the community, but intelligent is the keyword there. When you go spouting off about how tier 2 missle damage only gives 10% extra damage your credibility is effectively gone and you should probably leave well enough alone.

granted phantom is probably smart enough (I think) to sift through the noise himself but no reason to flood these forums with it.

Honestly I'm reading this thread when I want a break from my project and need a laugh.

I've already stated what I will try to do with tac. I think I've also stated what I will do if I do not manage the former in a satisfying way, but just in case I didn't, its a bit of both what drizzo and p1 said. This pointless arguing is just amusing me for now, though it may start annoying me if personal attacks continue because as mod of this forum I would have to intervene.

So tone down the attacks, argue the point back and forth all you want (tip: it likely won't make a difference, as I already have some plans), I'll keep working on my project now so I'll be done on the 4th and can work on this instead instead of sinking in depression because I failed.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 25 2014, 04:09 PM) BTW let's chat about "sig management" for a second.

A hunt 3 mounted SF with sig 3 active has a signature of about 46%. A scout's scan range is 2400m meaning that the scout can see the SF who has hunt3 mounted at about 1100m range.

Fun fact: the range of hunter3 is ~2040m.

Fun fact the second: AC1 range is 1500m.

Fun fact the third: if we had adv/hvy scouts, we'd be seeing this SF (who has their hunters mounted) at 1360m.

I mean I guess if by "sig management" you mean "not shooting your guns or mounting shields on SFs and remembering to cloak" then sure that skill is very important in this situation.

And this is what I mean when I say your suggestions should include mathematical analysis. Was pretty sure your statement was @#(! but didn't know the numbers exactly to denounce it - but here you have it. Could've easily been avoided if you just did the work before, once again, commenting on topics you're grossly underprepared for