• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    192d 10h 21m 55s

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Pyronymer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

76 profile views
  1. I cut down on the waffling and passive aggressive border line insults to avoid quote bloat. 1) But a very important minority will not be blocked, this very dramatically changes "how to use what you have". 2) Only as an offensive option, in defense and for closer range unit delivery it certainly is nice to block MSV2 as well. You know better even, even if it blocks your own MSV2. Even for Pan-O. 3) Yeah I don't know if I would call an increase in maximum range limit a wash with a +3 at very limited range. That's a big versatility increase. And success rates are more than a matter of just BS/Ph when you are getting to make these eclipse shots free* every time you activate a powerful BS 15 shooting unit. 4) Oh this thing is now about warbands? I find it hard to even grasp what you are trying to say here, are you seriously claiming that extreme impetuous is better than G:Synchronized for efficient use of orders? A single additional limited and dangerous order is better than a basically free* action whenever something else activates? Or are you pretending that order efficiency is only about the raw number you bring to the field rather than the number (let alone quality) of actions you get from them? Are you conflating smoke and eclipse again and comparing the eclipse auxbot and friend to mere cheap smoke warbands instead of the notably more expensive and rarer eclipse warbands? *nothing is entirely free
  2. I'm not looking for internet points, I'm looking for a grounding in reality. AVA 1 on eclipse is better than the AVA 0 eclipse for more than half the factions and sectorials in the game. AVA 4 on eclipse is better AVA than eclipse AVA for all the factions/sectorials in the game with one single faction exception. Pretty sure no other faction in the game gets eclipse as anything other than hand thrown. So the launcher is note worthy. Definitely sure no one else gets it on a auxbot attached to a powerful shooter for significant order efficiency while you are using the other model to shoot anyway. And if you want to talk about "how to use what you have" you had perhaps better stop conflating eclipse and smoke, as they have a very notable difference, and maybe acknowledge that having an eclipse launcher on that auxbot in that pair is actually kind of good because the reasons that it is kinda good are tightly tied into how you would productively use it.
  3. Extremely limited compared to what? Access to one auxbot with a light launcher eclipse is better than what half the factions/sectorials in the game get. A sectorial with access to four of those is almost competing to be some of the very best access to eclipse grenades in the entire game. I know, I just checked because I was off counting these things to confirm whether my earlier impression on how limited access to various smokes really is across the board and how that limited access relates to trade offs like access to MSV 2+ and variations on impetuous. After doing a run through. Pan-O is not looking hard done by at all in that respect.
  4. Lets be clear here. You stepped in to supposedly throw your evidence out there and all you had was a large number of empty words and vague references to nothing you could bring yourself to point clearly at. Why do I suspect that if I pried a link to these supposedly bulletproof prior arguments from your reluctant hands or a forum search (which you KNOW is going to get a million hits if I put in anything related to Pan-O players complaining about Pan-O) their content would be equally unimpressive?
  5. What? Like the Kamau "solution" these forums put forward in that laughable believe in magic thread I couldn't parody if I tried that just makes them cheap and gives them every god damn option in the game in order to "solve" a relatively cheap unit that is actually pretty OK? Look once again you just went and repeated your claims without providing information you clarified by means of "but you can't ignore... stuff that was said somewhere!" I mean your list actually consisted of... "lots of profiles are bad and could be better, no details to be pinned down on, they just are whichever ones they supposedly are in such large numbers!" "I'm going to really beat up this no smoke thing because I want everything everyone else has" "I'm going to repeat the hampered by faction limitations like no other thing only in different words and without details despite the fact it is clearly total bollocks" "I want large discounts on MSV for basically no good reason because I'm STILL crying about no smoke as if it matters far more than it really does, I guess I just don't like having a weakness of any kind ever" "Specialists lack delivery mechanisms! I mean we have a list full of hardy specialists with defensive abilities, camo and TO and infiltration and mechanised deployment and... look basically delivery mechanisms and quality hardy profiles are invisble to me!" "Total AVA auxbots with some more sprinkled on top are not widely available enough" "Warbands! Look, hardy in your face profiles with a wide range of delivery mechanisms and the option to link (which is another delivery mechanism and more) are invisible to me unless I ALSO get to have cheaper weaker versions of the same thing!" You want to claim there is a real compelling argument that already exists on this? Why can't you make it?
  6. What? Pointing out you are making vague subjective statements without any verifiable evidence or rational argument to back them up is personal? It's nearly the opposite. Or was it the "Uninteresting rare fun" thing, because I thought that was a very insightful way to contrast the contradictory opinions you seem to hold and state from one sentence to the next. That's... not true. My statement that when you compare units with special abilities, and less interesting ones without them across factions you will find very similar numbers of them isn't a purely subjective opinion only I can hold and understand. It might be wrong, but it is at least potentially a verifiable objective fact, you can go look and try it out and see if it's true. We can sit down and tally special abilities and equipment etc or lack there-of. It's not even particularly hard. When you talk about having "fun" with them while also simultaneously finding them "uninteresting" that very much is a subjective opinion (and a not especially consistent one) that we cannot readily share, understand or verify objectively. You don't just get to decide absolutely everything everyone says is subjective opinion and therefore of equal value. That's not how the term works or how you can ever even have a constructive conversation. "Picking Apart" your opinion is how you communicate if you can manage to define and explain why you feel the subjective things you do in a rational verifiable way you have presented an argument that can alter the opinions of others, or at the very least inform them of some tangential or useful information in the attempt. If all you can do is say "well I just feel this for no reason and I also feel everything you have to say is just feelings too" then you aren't really communicating anything meaningful. Other than your feelings. And since you apparently don't like getting personal that's just another contradiction.
  7. "Hampered by factional limitations like no other" is still a declaration of massive competitive inadequacy. Whatever you think the limitations are And those limitations you list... don't seem particularly remarkable. In fact, only "no smoke" is even a remotely meaningful complaint (seriously, chain rifles? With a list packed with so many other templates you really care? warbands compared to what seems like half a dozen unique linkable HI that can fit a similar roles? Really?) and no smoke alone is far from "hampered like no other". While again, directly contradictory, even pretending it isn't that is essentially a vague non-argument. If you cannot put some very firm and specifically stated reasons behind why you find them to be, er, "uninteresting rare fun" it's a highly subjective and deeply non-specific opinion. Though again. "Uninteresting rare fun" hey? That's a doozy.
  8. Dull mechanically? On what basis? Have you ever even tried a simple comparison of interesting special abilities and units side by side to other factions, news flash Pan-O is FULL of interesting fun abilities and units. Other factions would happilly loot easily half or more of Pan-O's list, not because they need it, but because it's full of interesting fun stuff. Is it also laced with some dull options, well yes, but again have you counted the dull units in other factions, everyone has them, and Pan-O is no worse off than anyone else. And "hampered by factional weakness like no other" while SIMULTANEOUSLY saying "no one is complaining that PanOceania is bad" that is pure mental dissonance. Those are contradictory positions, ones entertainingly worded in such a way as to make both of them wrong, the second one because of the first one!
  9. So basically people not living in the past for no explicable reason. A past that, considering the people living in it are clearly disconnected from the current reality, I have no trust is an actual previous reality being represented in a remotely accurate manner. "Pan-O is hard done by" now is inaccurate so why the heck should I believe "Trust me, Pan-O WAS hard done" to be true coming from basically the same sources? A source in this case still moaning on about bolts like they are anything other than perfectly acceptable for what they are, how they are priced, and in the case of this complaint about a starter expansion, where they are found. Why should I buy into and pointlessly perpetuate some sort of claimed legacy of being "hard done by" from a source like that? CSU exclusivity is a non-loss, a non-issue, a wailing and gnashing beat up. From my perspective, just like pretty much all (and yes in the very short span I have been reading the forums there have been rather a few) over hyped Pan-O complaints I've seen.
  10. So... common with newer players not indoctrinated into the toxic "hard done by" memes of the forums? Look. I could give you a full history and full details. I could talk about how a very long time ago I played the very first beta translations of the first infinity rules set, but only in a very isolated gaming community that was never part of the wider infinity community, I can talk about coming back with N3 and the games I've played since, still completely isolated from the wider infinity community. But why bother? You have already decided to dismiss my more recently and independently developed opinions on the very basis that they are more recently and independently developed. You don't get to have it both ways, you either value independent newer opinions or you don't.
  11. Hi, yeah, that's me. My opinion developed in isolation from the wider infinity community in general and the Pan-O player community specifically is that Pan-O is fine, maybe even performing very well, in basically all those respects and the community's over done "hard done by" schtick I've now encountered is baffling if not offensive. Though it does seem to have, as a fluffy thematic problem only, a bit of a rampant crusader knight religious theme taking over and trampling other better less god bothering themes somewhat more than I would like.
  12. No the argument has shifted it's goal posts several times already through no effort of mine. My initial argument was that I personally see the loss of the potential benefits from Frenzy, because I for one see some value in extra orders, as being the tipping point in what I see as the always borderline question of whether or not you should form a link team with something. But then it became an argument against the claim that Riot Grrls are the single best value HI link team in the game you know despite a nearly identical one existing which is better value. And now apparently its an argument that MSV1 of all things is so good it single handedly makes Riot Grrls the best value HI link team in the game. It might even be trying to morph into an argument that a +2 (yes, only +2) to dodge from Hyper dynamics is far better than, well, all the things Domaru&Friends get that Grrls do not, or is the magic small incremental difference from the same generic profile that both Riot Grrls and Domaru are clearly both built from that somehow makes Riot Grrls so dramatically better despite costing more and having their own minor limitations. Personally if it's my turn to change what the argument is about I would rather change it to pointing out how the benefits of Hyper Dynamics is partially undermined by being in a link team because of coherency and ARO dodge movement and use that as another point against Riot Grrls participating in link teams. You know, just to bring it back to something relevant to my original point on Riot Grrls and how they do in fact lose more things from being in a link team than other units do.
  13. And on the basis of that excuse you would not answer my simple question that in your real world experience what proportion of targets have some level of camouflage benefit to bypass? That is disappointing.
  14. Don't pull that unfounded strawman on me. Simple question, of your shots fired with Riot Grrls how many do you actually expect to benefit from MSV1? No "I don't believe you've played with them" excuses, no "But it feels like a powerful ability to me when I play with them!", take a cold hard clinical look at how often it comes up. It isn't very often, even with cammo troopers being relatively common I think I can very safely say they represent less than 1/3rd of potential targets. There is a reason MSV1 is "cost effective", it's because it's just short of free and that in turn is because it isn't actually worth all that much overall. Overall one more point of BS would very likely be worth more. Now you can instead have an argument about how (a very low) average value isn't fully representative of the value of an ability that has a higher value when used in specific correct context, somewhat regardless of the frequency of that context, but at that point MSV1 loses solidly to MSV2. Because that's an argument for the value of a specialist role, and for that you should bring the actual specialist. Which again, a riot girl link team prevents you from having.
  15. Look MSV1 is nice but not all that nice. Are you shooting at anything it applies to in more than 1 in 3 shots? No? Right, so it averages to a +1 or less. Nothing to scoff at... much... you can scoff a little though. Watch me. Scoff scoff... and stop there that's exactly enough scoffing, see? But hey, if you really care that much about MSV, you probably want some MSV2 in your list, since it is like MSV1 only with significantly reduced scoffing. Which means you aren't fielding Riot Grrl link teams since as far as I'm aware the sectorial doesn't have MSV2 on anything at all.