If you want to try and make in-universe sense of it, I could easily imagine that the same piece of equipment has two firing modes and can function as either a jammer or an e/marat depending on what settings you use. That being said, the old trigger switch and the new parabolic projector are very aesthetic and functionally different and I don’t think you can meaningfully insist that they must be the same thing unless you can find labeled illustrations in 2e C:P or similar. At this point we’re getting severely off-topic and into the realm of “HMG Aquila has a Panzerfaust”.
Read the fluff bit that @Robock posted above. Somebody didn't do their homework and the error's been propagating through the system for years. Like the ITS documents.
No you're missing his point. He's since clarified what he meant when he said "Nobody complained". What he actually meant was: "Nobody complained in a way that @psychoticstorm didn't assume was either a hyperbole, discussing LGLs in general or at a volume that constitutes a true Scotsman complaint." It was, truly, my bad and I should apologise for implying that our moderator was ignorant when in reality he was just making a bad faith argument.
I'll just say f*ck it and embrace the jank. I mean, QK has yuans, decent camo, spec ops holo bs for jammering, and also linakble druze em-LGL (a bit shy of emily, but hey). Hmm....maybe we just all need to abuse abusable stuff to prompt fixes, since complaints on here don't qualify as complaints valid enough to cause a change, as evidenced by this discussion?
@inane.imp You may say that, but it is not disingenuous at all, a threshold needs to be established in feedback and complaining is not always the best indicator. How intense, widespread and the longevity of complaining are indicators as are the hotspots and then all these indicators must be filtered and evaluated. LGLs and guided ammo are really low on the complains side in comparison to other examples. In any case what I did say is that LGLs are not that easy of a solution to get rid of Jammers as suggested, because LGLs are not that effective in wiping out out of sight models.
I didn't make the point that the presence or absence of complaints was a useful standard of measurement: you did by saying 'and nobody complained'. I merely pointed out that you'd need to be ignorant to not realise that by most reasonable standards StarCo's LGL spam has been complained about. The question has never been whether or not LGL spam is an actual issue, just whether people have complained about it or not. Changing that argument mid-stride is arguing in bad faith. Nor did I make a point about the viability or otherwise of LGLs as a strategy to counter Jammers. I simply pointed out that your response was completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. You singularly failed to actually engage with the complaint that had been made (linked Jammers are so bad that one of the more prevalent strategies to deal with them is suboptimal).
I did and said the experience of the Jammers importance is based on local meta and familiarity and the responses on this thread support this. Are Specops raising issues in general? Linked Jammers been one of them? yes, since their introduction, should the game be balanced on an optional modifier? I do not think so.
I'd argue that 'Should an optional modifier be balanced?' is a better question. Also, nice deflection.
I think that if you search my posting history on the subject, or look at this thread, you will find that I am not in favour of Specops in the regular ITS environment for a variety of reasons balance in general been one. My personal opinion aside that does not mean the player base in general does not enjoy playing with that modifier, again its popularity is subjective since most ITS tournaments do not include them, because TO believe the modifier is disruptive.
I mean to an extent spec ops are pretty rare. I think the upcoming ITS X tournament I'm going to is my fifth or sixth this season and it's the only spec ops one so far. It's certainly not a common thing.
That's part of the issue though: literally every regular TO I know has looked at the new Spec Ops rules and gone 'yeah, nah'. My local meta will probably run the updated campaign with both Spec Ops and Soldiers of Fortune rules sometime this year but with an explicit acknowledgement up front that 'this will be broken as fuck'. We'll accept that and play it for the Lols. Also 4 x STR2 Uberfalls makes up for having to deal with SSL2 Jammers. It's annoying because Spec Ops fails at being appealing as a fun choice while simultaneously being awfully balanced.
Interplanetario is at the end of the day one tournament. It was Limited Insertion last year and you don't see them often at all either.
I find Spec-Ops to be a lot of fun. I love to tweak and build a fun character profile. Their balance alone is enough to ruin them. You're right, but unfortunately not everyone is going to want to purchase mini's and play their games using a faction they don't like simply to prove a point. So all we can really do is complain about it. If anything, I could see a trend emerging where players avoid these factions. Which CB might notice and to make them more popular... think they need to be stronger lol.
This is the crux of the issue I have. We have @psychoticstorm basically saying we didn't complain loud enough for things to warrant effort from the development/patch side. Are we to take that to mean "if you want change, please be louder about it"? Because that very much translates for me as "Yeeees, we shall tell them to whine harder so we can BAN them for whining...then order will be restored to the Empire...erm, forums" Since as you say @Ginrei, it's not like an online game where people can switch factions and prove a point via the winrates being grossly out of proportion given the physical buy-ins (that and the unwillingness of CB to show ITS stats).
