Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

General topics, questions, suggestions, bugs, or anything Star Wars Commander related.
Boog
Admiral
Posts: 545

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#21 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:00 pm

The tough bases with hails and crabs get the vehicles out onto walls. Air doesn't matter at that point.


darthdoodie
Commodore
Posts: 137

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#22 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:25 pm

I share you feelings on "poor argumentation and their expectation of being validated, regardless of merit. "

YourFather wrote:
I was going to let this die but it occurred to me the reason why I get pulled into so many arguments with people on here is due to my disdain for poor argumentation and their expectation of being validated, regardless of merit. Let's use your argument as an example;

Piper139"... Let's see...what else. Vans are equal to snipers...

nobody said that lol. Plagueis said "Gr Snipers shouldn't be compared to GR Vans." If you disagree with that point, say so but don't make stuff up.

You must have missed a number of posts a little while back by Imps trying to compare Van and Snipers in damage output, or justifying Vans usefulness in hitting a pack of Jumps thus trying to legitimise Vans as a useful GR, similar to snipers?

Piper139...Elite at te is better than elite at at. Ok ... mine is l1. It rocks. At dying...

You invalidated your own opinion on something. You've immediately lost half of anyone reading your message.

e At-te requires frags to be levelled, therefore would be more difficult to reach the same level as e At-at. There would be a minority with level X e At-te, hence not being as good. The same argument is used by Plagueis re kessen usage for Imps via astromed.


Piper139...Kessen is better for rebs. Bullshit. My primary hero for both...

This only proves you're stuck using the same tactics for both of your accounts. Are you tactically lazy or are you withholding information to clarify your argument?

This comment proves nothing other than an Imp attacker has found usefulness in Kessen.

Piper139 Hfds vs mhcs on hoth...holy shit. Have you seen the death star ray mhcs shoot?...

What you basically just said was; "nuh-uh, MHCs are better than hails because they're super strong!" OK, let's construct a real argument here;
Cold-weather hails are beautifully efficient. They deal just enough damage to be deadly and players who use them proficiently on defense design their bases so that each of their 5 hails get stuck in different places under shields. It's a brutally effective tactic because it will divide the attackers air support once the shields are down.

With MHCs, yes they are stronger. They also have a considerably higher UC which limits the amount a defender can put into their SC. So since the rebel attacker only needs to airstrike 3 MHCS (FYI, 1 airstrike kills an MHC or hail equally) they're dealt with more quickly. The extra damage dealt by MHCs is moot anyway as most of it is overkill.

Countered above already. I have level 5 fangs and they don't take out SC CW MHCs


Piper139"...Only legit complaint you bunch of pansies might have is the difference between buffed jets and jumps. Still, if you wusses would learn to use kessen, they never appear....

Only pansies snipe the SC. Real players bait and lure.
-See how easy it is to make generalizations? What's worse, you're make a very poor generalization as a counter point to what even you admit to being a strong argument. That, for me, was what truly urged me to respond to your post. You begin your post complaining about how Imperials aren't willing to acknowledge points made by rebel players. Well, if you guys actually took the time to form a constructive argument, I would be more than happy to hear from your side!

All I hear right now is "GR snipers are OP because look at the leaderboard!" "GR Snipers are op because I feel they are!" "We don't have any real evidence of GR snipers being OP but I'm sure something will come out in another 20 page exodus thread!" "Imperials who have even one page talking about their opinions which conflict with that of rebels are forming a circle jerk!"

Come on Piper, I've read your posts since the playdom forum and I know you're capable of much more than you're giving.


You too make generalisations on those with views differing your own (as per my earlier post) . I have yet to see a "strong argument" for needing to equalise jet/jump buffs, but that opinion is thrown around just as much as the GR sniper OP rubbish. In regards to your second reference to a 20 page exodus thread recently, that would have been much shorter had a few Imps kept their arrogant posting out of it, and it died its natural death months earlier. Finally, Piper can clarify, but I suspect his post was in response to Plagueis' list, and your additions. A list that was designed to "piss off" rebels.


Plagueis
Admiral
Posts: 981

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#23 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:32 pm

I’m just happy I was mentioned and wasn’t basically called an idiot for having an opinion.


DarkRebel
Major General
Posts: 489

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#24 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:39 pm

Plagueis wrote:The same wiki page that shows fang fighter’s total damage 66,080 to vehicles also shows that imp and rebel RFTs are identical in stats. If the dude is losing SC mhcs on hoth to single fang fighters, maybe that modifier info on the wiki is inaccurate. More testing must be done to confirm.

I doubled check his math. He was 100 correct.
From the data miner page:
L10 mhc has heath rating of 32400 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/MHC.html)
L1 arctic MHC skin has +105%. So total health for L1 hc is 32400 * 2.05 = 66420 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/eqpE ... icMHC.html)
L10 Fang has damage of 33040 per clip (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/FangFighter.html). For air, as they only hit once so the clip rating is relevant and not the per second rating.
Fang has a modifier against vehicle of 200%. So total damage against MHC is 66080, which takes out 99.5% of a L1 arctic MHC.


Plagueis
Admiral
Posts: 981

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#25 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:03 pm

DarkRebel wrote:
Plagueis wrote:The same wiki page that shows fang fighter’s total damage 66,080 to vehicles also shows that imp and rebel RFTs are identical in stats. If the dude is losing SC mhcs on hoth to single fang fighters, maybe that modifier info on the wiki is inaccurate. More testing must be done to confirm.

I doubled check his math. He was 100 correct.
From the data miner page:
L10 mhc has heath rating of 32400 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/MHC.html)
L1 arctic MHC skin has +105%. So total health for L1 hc is 32400 * 2.05 = 66420 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/eqpE ... icMHC.html)
L10 Fang has damage of 33040 per clip (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/FangFighter.html). For air, as they only hit once so the clip rating is relevant and not the per second rating.
Fang has a modifier against vehicle of 200%. So total damage against MHC is 66080, which takes out 99.5% of a L1 arctic MHC.


I saw the same stats too which would confirm the fang not having the damage to do the job. However, I have to call into question the validity of those wiki stats when multiple people have very vocally told me that RFTs have different stats as opposed to what the wiki says and the fact that someone is claiming to lose mhcs (on hoth I presume) to single fang fighters. Does the data miner page say RFTs are identical as well?


DarkRebel
Major General
Posts: 489

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#26 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Plagueis wrote:
DarkRebel wrote:
Plagueis wrote:The same wiki page that shows fang fighter’s total damage 66,080 to vehicles also shows that imp and rebel RFTs are identical in stats. If the dude is losing SC mhcs on hoth to single fang fighters, maybe that modifier info on the wiki is inaccurate. More testing must be done to confirm.

I doubled check his math. He was 100 correct.
From the data miner page:
L10 mhc has heath rating of 32400 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/MHC.html)
L1 arctic MHC skin has +105%. So total health for L1 hc is 32400 * 2.05 = 66420 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/eqpE ... icMHC.html)
L10 Fang has damage of 33040 per clip (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/FangFighter.html). For air, as they only hit once so the clip rating is relevant and not the per second rating.
Fang has a modifier against vehicle of 200%. So total damage against MHC is 66080, which takes out 99.5% of a L1 arctic MHC.


I saw the same stats too which would confirm the fang not having the damage to do the job. However, I have to call into question the validity of those wiki stats when multiple people have very vocally told me that RFTs have different stats as opposed to what the wiki says and the fact that someone is claiming to lose mhcs (on hoth I presume) to single fang fighters. Does the data miner page say RFTs are identical as well?

The same data miner page says IMP RFT has twice the calculated dps than rebel RFT, 2699 for IMP versus 1351 for rebels


User avatar
YourFather
Commodore
Posts: 205

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#27 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:16 pm

darthdoodie wrote:I share you feelings on "poor argumentation and their expectation of being validated, regardless of merit. "

YourFather wrote:
I was going to let this die but it occurred to me the reason why I get pulled into so many arguments with people on here is due to my disdain for poor argumentation and their expectation of being validated, regardless of merit. Let's use your argument as an example;

Piper139"... Let's see...what else. Vans are equal to snipers...

nobody said that lol. Plagueis said "Gr Snipers shouldn't be compared to GR Vans." If you disagree with that point, say so but don't make stuff up.

You must have missed a number of posts a little while back by Imps trying to compare Van and Snipers in damage output, or justifying Vans usefulness in hitting a pack of Jumps thus trying to legitimise Vans as a useful GR, similar to snipers?

Piper139...Elite at te is better than elite at at. Ok ... mine is l1. It rocks. At dying...

You invalidated your own opinion on something. You've immediately lost half of anyone reading your message.

e At-te requires frags to be levelled, therefore would be more difficult to reach the same level as e At-at. There would be a minority with level X e At-te, hence not being as good. The same argument is used by Plagueis re kessen usage for Imps via astromed.


Piper139...Kessen is better for rebs. Bullshit. My primary hero for both...

This only proves you're stuck using the same tactics for both of your accounts. Are you tactically lazy or are you withholding information to clarify your argument?

This comment proves nothing other than an Imp attacker has found usefulness in Kessen.

Piper139 Hfds vs mhcs on hoth...holy shit. Have you seen the death star ray mhcs shoot?...

What you basically just said was; "nuh-uh, MHCs are better than hails because they're super strong!" OK, let's construct a real argument here;
Cold-weather hails are beautifully efficient. They deal just enough damage to be deadly and players who use them proficiently on defense design their bases so that each of their 5 hails get stuck in different places under shields. It's a brutally effective tactic because it will divide the attackers air support once the shields are down.

With MHCs, yes they are stronger. They also have a considerably higher UC which limits the amount a defender can put into their SC. So since the rebel attacker only needs to airstrike 3 MHCS (FYI, 1 airstrike kills an MHC or hail equally) they're dealt with more quickly. The extra damage dealt by MHCs is moot anyway as most of it is overkill.

Countered above already. I have level 5 fangs and they don't take out SC CW MHCs


Piper139"...Only legit complaint you bunch of pansies might have is the difference between buffed jets and jumps. Still, if you wusses would learn to use kessen, they never appear....

Only pansies snipe the SC. Real players bait and lure.
-See how easy it is to make generalizations? What's worse, you're make a very poor generalization as a counter point to what even you admit to being a strong argument. That, for me, was what truly urged me to respond to your post. You begin your post complaining about how Imperials aren't willing to acknowledge points made by rebel players. Well, if you guys actually took the time to form a constructive argument, I would be more than happy to hear from your side!

All I hear right now is "GR snipers are OP because look at the leaderboard!" "GR Snipers are op because I feel they are!" "We don't have any real evidence of GR snipers being OP but I'm sure something will come out in another 20 page exodus thread!" "Imperials who have even one page talking about their opinions which conflict with that of rebels are forming a circle jerk!"

Come on Piper, I've read your posts since the playdom forum and I know you're capable of much more than you're giving.


You too make generalisations on those with views differing your own (as per my earlier post) . I have yet to see a "strong argument" for needing to equalise jet/jump buffs, but that opinion is thrown around just as much as the GR sniper OP rubbish. In regards to your second reference to a 20 page exodus thread recently, that would have been much shorter had a few Imps kept their arrogant posting out of it, and it died its natural death months earlier. Finally, Piper can clarify, but I suspect his post was in response to Plagueis' list, and your additions. A list that was designed to "piss off" rebels.



Well, with your arrogant contributions to this thread, perhaps for once the empire can get a 20 page bitch fest :)


Plagueis
Admiral
Posts: 981

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#28 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:37 pm

DarkRebel wrote:
Plagueis wrote:
DarkRebel wrote:I doubled check his math. He was 100 correct.
From the data miner page:
L10 mhc has heath rating of 32400 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/MHC.html)
L1 arctic MHC skin has +105%. So total health for L1 hc is 32400 * 2.05 = 66420 (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/eqpE ... icMHC.html)
L10 Fang has damage of 33040 per clip (https://papajessie.github.io/swcpy/FangFighter.html). For air, as they only hit once so the clip rating is relevant and not the per second rating.
Fang has a modifier against vehicle of 200%. So total damage against MHC is 66080, which takes out 99.5% of a L1 arctic MHC.


I saw the same stats too which would confirm the fang not having the damage to do the job. However, I have to call into question the validity of those wiki stats when multiple people have very vocally told me that RFTs have different stats as opposed to what the wiki says and the fact that someone is claiming to lose mhcs (on hoth I presume) to single fang fighters. Does the data miner page say RFTs are identical as well?

The same data miner page says IMP RFT has twice the calculated dps than rebel RFT, 2699 for IMP versus 1351 for rebels


So are we saying imp RFTs do more damage than burst turrets? This sounds really fishy. I’m curious how this actually stacks up. Anyone want to put a lvl 10 lugga in front of one at a dev base for each faction and count the seconds till death?


darthdoodie
Commodore
Posts: 137

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#29 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:10 am

YourFather wrote:Well, with your arrogant contributions to this thread, perhaps for once the empire can get a 20 page bitch fest :)


Alas you beat me to it

YourFather wrote:I was going to let this die but it occurred to me the reason why I get pulled into so many arguments with people on here is due to my disdain for poor argumentation and their expectation of being validated, regardless of merit.
......
Come on Piper, I've read your posts since the playdom forum and I know you're capable of much more than you're giving.


:oops:


Plagueis
Admiral
Posts: 981

Re: Devs have decided to nerf imps GR snipers again..

Post#30 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:39 am

My list wasn’t “designed” to piss rebels off. It’s merely a list of topics that I’ve talked about that rebels have historically and irrationally freaked out over. Those topics are already out there and have been out there forever. And so you know (since not one of you angry rebels thought of asking me for context before whigging out again, but whatever) it was meant to be taken as a list of what not to talk about to avoid confrontation over topics that rebels will NEVER agree with you on and will call your posts “illogical” and other stupid stuff like that. Notice how I even gave a lighthearted trolling warning right after the OP. Context people.


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ComanderWolfe1, CommonCrawl [Bot], nunovix, Plagueis, Schruaf, shazahm1, Spock, TSQL and 33 guests