82 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Terror Teddy, on 21 March 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Are you nuts....no minimum range.

great. lets just rename them to Streak LRM's and remove SSRM's from the game. THINK before you post. also, no minimum range is clan tech lrms.

I would like to see:
-faster missiles
-no fire arc when shooting at targets in LOS - missiles go in a straight line in these cases instead like ssrm's.

I too dislike the idea of removing their minimum range; my citing of it was just pointing out that it's a huge drawback.

I think faster missiles is a great start to making them competitively solid weapons. I'd argue they actually need more indirect arc, given right now indirect fire seems completely terrible on many maps (outside of Alpine.)

[Arcadian Xero]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

[Redacted]

Nerfing LRMs is a joke, and any experienced unit is going to tell you the same thing: LRMs already have so many serious drawbacks, they are simply not worth using in any remotely competitive setting. For a while they had a small niche on fast mediums to support lights, but it was so borderline this nerf pretty much killed even that role for them outright.

[Redacted] ANY good player, or even small groups of good players, effectively destroy LRMs with a combination of ECM and simply swarming them up close. Direct fire is entirely superior across the board. Any weapon with this many drawbacks - including being entirely disabled by being anywhere near ECM - simply cannot be considered unless it deals damage to scale with those.

Before you answer with your own ancedotes, quite frankly, if you're not involved in organized play it might be better to stay out of the thread. You'll probably start citing things like the 100 LRM Stalker, which can work in a gimmick sucker punch, but again no serious unit would field this thing. Any competent light team would render it dead weight before it could even begin to do effective damage.

I'm mostly angry that because PGI is listening to what amounts to basically a misinformed lynch mob, they've taken one of my favorite class of weapons and thrown it ENTIRELY into the trash pile. There's not even a niche for these things anymore in real games.

Unless PGI plans on getting rid of all the other drawbacks to the LRM (LOS Artemis, ECM preventing locks without TAG, TAG range being 750m, Minimum Range, bad firing arcs that render indirect fire terribly ineffective, etc., they badly need to up it.

But again, this is about more than the LRM. It's about weapon balance going into the future. Please, poll the RHOD teams more for weapon feedback. That's where you'll get serious balance information, not forum posts of people screaming to nerf something that was already so easy to hard counter it's on the very bottom tier of weapon classes already.

If we keep this up, we're just going to be doing this in a giant circle, gun class to gun class. Whatever replaces LRMs as the new favorite will be next, instead of a more subtle tweak and adjustment. There's a reason when Blizzard patches Starcraft, they increase or decrease things by, at most, 2-5% after polling their top players because over reactive patches are poison.

(ED: I am positively not speaking of the broken LRMs from Tuesday, but in comparison to the previous major patch. Even a slight nerf to an already nearly trash weapon is enough to push it over the edge.)

Don't waste your breath. This isn't a widely popular game like starcraft, and it doesn't have a big enough competitve player base to warrant them balancing an entire game around us.

First and foremost they need MONEY. And ultimately that's what this all comes down to. They would much rather have all the competitve players quit, and dumb the game down into an arcadey pile of crap that feeds them money with a huge player base.

As much as I would LOVE to see this game grow into what we ALL hoped it would be, it won't.

Edited by Egomane, 22 March 2013 - 03:46 AM.
Quote cleanup

[Pater Mors]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

You do cater to PUGs, in terms of making things simple to use and such. You do not listen to them for weapon balance. They simply have no idea what is happening except "OMG I saw missiles then I died OOOOOPPPPPPP" instead of learning how to effectively shut them down.

Also, as I said very clearly in the OP that LRMs have been BORDERLINE viable in past patches and entirely non-viable in the latest. Nobody in a serious setting would ever take them nor were they "1 shotting Atlas" with them. Those kinds of builds look impressive but are terrible. TERRIBLE. 2 Raven pilots of moderate competence could shut down an entire lance of the things. They're a huge liability (including an XL engine), given the odds of them getting the necessary damage out before they're shutdown by ECM and swarmed is next to none.

The only "nerf" LRMs needed was a proper training video explaining to newbies how to exploit their weaknesses.



They should. And it's for your benefit in the end, even though it might not sound like that.

Let me put it this way: I could bring up ANY hot balance issue in the game among PUGs and you would hear 50 opinions, including 50 rants. I could bring up LRMs being underpowered and terrible to every pro team in the game, and they would all agree, across the board.

That's because group B has an understanding and insight that group A, an angry mob going by what they saw (and not the subtle stuff they didn't see). I think you can see why going with group A is a terrible idea, even for group A.

Or to give a practical example, would you rather read a review for a product by professional critics or a bunch of youtube comment boards? Which do you think might offer you more insight into the matter? Would you rather future studio productions be based on critical feedback or those same youtube comments?

Trying... so... hard.... not... to... call... you.... a.... self...inflated... douchenozzle.... trying... really.... really... hard....

[DevilJade]

Yeah, don't balance a F2P game with any thought towards the players who aren't already established in competitive play. Just ignore them.

I hope you don't try to start your own business, OP.

[Victor Morson]

Hammer Hands, on 21 March 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

Well, it's a good thing you don't take entire lances and you run a lance with support for the LRMs who in turn supports his dropmates. This is a team game after all and when I say in 4 and 8 mans I make very viable use of them its because I have spent enough time playing them to counter the counters and I ALWAYS have the support of good team members backing me up. It's all in tactics brother and if you play solid tactics an LRM boat can bring some VERY serious supressing fire and damage to a team when needed.

We even use the LRMs as a bait to bring the lights to us in most cases. My role in most 8 mans is either the LRM boat, or as the Medium light killer to protect our flanks and LRM support.

Plus all of my LRM boats move at at the very least 60kph which means I can shoot and scoot to better points to bring the rain.

I have always loved LRMs because I love playing support.

As for your video suggestion, Make one. :-D

I love LRMs too, and that's why I'd like them to be worth taking.

I mean absolutely no offense (and sorry if I've come off that way) but I have to ask: Have you taken this tactic into any serious league battles, and what were the results? Simply put I can't think of a single serious league drop that would could be won with a setup like that, but I do think it would be effective at crushing random teams.

Effectiveness at crushing random teams, however, is a very bad benchmark. We have crushed random teams with flamers and AC/2s, pre-buff to either. With just a little coordination and a couple recon 'mechs, this just isn't viable, even if you try to split up to cover each other. You'll likely end up with a bunch of LRM 'mechs staring at each other unable to take shots.

[Hammer Hands]

Pater Mors, on 21 March 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

douchenozzle.... trying... really.... really... hard....

Failed, but made me giggle!

[armyof1]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

They should. And it's for your benefit in the end, even though it might not sound like that.

Let me put it this way: I could bring up ANY hot balance issue in the game among PUGs and you would hear 50 opinions, including 50 rants. I could bring up LRMs being underpowered and terrible to every pro team in the game, and they would all agree, across the board.

That's because group B has an understanding and insight that group A, an angry mob going by what they saw (and not the subtle stuff they didn't see). I think you can see why going with group A is a terrible idea, even for group A.

Or to give a practical example, would you rather read a review for a product by professional critics or a bunch of youtube comment boards? Which do you think might offer you more insight into the matter? Would you rather future studio productions be based on critical feedback or those same youtube comments?

The thing you don't see here is that organized 8-mans and pug games are too different, that what you'd consider be perfectly balanced in 8-mans could be a total disaster in a pug game, as there is no pre-organized mech setups that can help you counter for example powerful LRMS. As the state the game is in currently where you can't set your own parameters for the match, you have to find a balance between casual and serious gamers. Besides there are already organized players in this thread that don't agree so fully with your opinion, so your point in how organized players have the same point of view is pretty moot. And frankly I find your references to mobs quite offensive

Edited by armyof1, 21 March 2013 - 09:57 PM.

[Moromillas]

Well said.

It does seem like a lot of the feedback is biased towards their own style of play, and wanting LRM's easier to deal with, rather than genuine honest feedback in favor of balance.

As to weather the bias is from inexperience, who can say.

[Victor Morson]

DevilJade, on 21 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Yeah, don't balance a F2P game with any thought towards the players who aren't already established in competitive play. Just ignore them.

I hope you don't try to start your own business, OP.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, this is just as much for the PUG gamer's benefit.

Do you want your chef to base his cooking on food critics, or Yelp reviews?
Do you base your going to movies based on critics, or youtube comments?
Do you want your guns balance dedicated by people who fully understand how they work, or ones that have no clue?

By having top level gamers polled primarily for weapon feedback, you, the non-top level player, gets a better overall experience in the end. Things like "faster LRMs" that have come up in this thread might have been something great to see, and again, would benefit you as much as anyone else.

There is a reason other studios do this too. It's standard practice. You get your top 5% to help tune things and we all benefit. I'm not saying I should be one of them, but I am saying that I would feel WAY WAY more confident in having the top 3 RHOD teams at the end of the season have a say in weapon balance opposed to mass forum complaining.

Reactionary balance changes simply encourages people to continue bad behavior instead of learning about more depth within the game and nerfing weapons that are in bad need of buffs is as sure a sign of madness as any.

Edited by Victor Morson, 21 March 2013 - 10:00 PM.

[Hammer Hands]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

.

I mean absolutely no offense (and sorry if I've come off that way) but I have to ask: Have you taken this tactic into any serious league battles, and what were the results? Simply put I can't think of a single serious league drop that would could be won with a setup like that, but I do think it would be effective at crushing random teams.

What do you consider serious league battles? 8 Mans staged against other clans? Yep, done it and pounded them into scrap. It's not a one shot win, it adds to the overall strategy and tactics of the unit using them. It forces the enemy to do what you want and can easily be used to direct them the path you want because you block avenues they would try to use. Granted it's better on some maps than others. River City is just a *****. Right now, though in the upper battles its all about the ECM. Which is a whole other room of killer bees to bring up.

Though your replies to my posts prove you aren't some addle brained elitist rage screamer.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Crap damage is fine if you can actually FIRE THE GUNS.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ECM ALREADY. Make the user of a BAP ignore ECMs. Then you'd make this device worthwhile and balance that one at the same time! Shocking, I know!

[Victor Morson]

Bluten, on 21 March 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Crap damage is fine if you can actually FIRE THE GUNS.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ECM ALREADY. Make the user of a BAP ignore ECMs. Then you'd make this device worthwhile and balance that one at the same time! Shocking, I know!

I'd be in favor of increasing the TAG range to 1000m. It's an acceptable way to break ECM (BAP actually helps considerably if you combine it with TAG to get locks - the synergy basically means the TAG breaks the ECM and then the BAP gets a far faster lock, allowing you to get shots easily) but 750m is tough. That's why I was utilizing fast medium platforms before the nerf, because it would allow you to stay in the "sweet spot" between minimum and 750 and deliver TAG+Artemis rounds that'd hit for a ton of damage. Indirect fire in the last patch seemed almost like a waste without a gimmick 'mech.

EDIT: Speaking of ECM, I do have a huge problem with the "double dip" advantage against LRMs. Confusing targeting is bad, but also shutting their lock down entirely (not even wire guided) the second ECM is nearby is just plain frustrating and bad. It's also among the biggest drawbacks to LRMs and one more reason they are in the trash pile.

Hammer Hands, on 21 March 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

What do you consider serious league battles? 8 Mans staged against other clans? Yep, done it and pounded them into scrap. It's not a one shot win, it adds to the overall strategy and tactics of the unit using them. It forces the enemy to do what you want and can easily be used to direct them the path you want because you block avenues they would try to use. Granted it's better on some maps than others. River City is just a *****. Right now, though in the upper battles its all about the ECM. Which is a whole other room of killer bees to bring up.

Though your replies to my posts prove you aren't some addle brained elitist rage screamer.

I was thinking more ranked battles in some sort of ladder or league, than a skirmish. I will note that occasionally LRM 'mechs can be an effective sucker punch in the previous patch (probably even in this one), to throw one in being totally out of character for your team and catch them unprepared.
It's still a pretty wild gamble and I don't think most units would be inclined to do that if they had anything on the line, though, aside from just another fight.

ECM is a big reason for it too, though, like you say. ECM causes problems on most maps, really.

PS: Do you still feel your tactics are viable now that LRMs do a notable amount less damage than they did when you used them last?

Edited by Victor Morson, 21 March 2013 - 10:08 PM.

[Chavette]

The OP is all true, but you're still gonna get flak as most here are self entitled pugs, ironic huh.

[alexivy]

Hammer Hands, on 21 March 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

After many testing rounds in the grounds and a few matches I have to agree, they feel 'almost' where they should be.

Am I really expected to take this opinion seriously? The training grounds are an absolute joke. The stationary mechs are more poorly armored than trial mechs. If you believe that you can reliably gauge the effectivness of weapons based soley, or even in part, on obsevations made in the training grounds, you need to open your eyes a little more.

Personally, I think this is the biggest problem the devs are creating for themselves. I believe they have created this flawed testing area, use it to test their fixes out of laziness, and only give things a few "real" matches for QA. How did the JagerMech get realeased with such a bugged hitbox? It only took myself and the guys I play with a handful of real matches to notice that one. I think they're slapping code into the game and forcing it through for us to test. Yes, this is beta. Where the **** is ALPHA?

[Hammer Hands]

Victor Morson, on 21 March 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

PS: Do you still feel your tactics are viable now that LRMs do a notable amount less damage than they did when you used them last?

The decline in serious damage means they get moved back even further into the support and herding role. I think it's all about finding the tactics that will work with them. Whenever I take a LRM boat in a team we always have a fast medium and lights anyways so their secondary role is to watch the LRM boat incase the enemy sends someone to 'get em'. Has many times rewarded us with removing the enemy scouting team from the mix.

Are they something you 'have' to take? Nope. Can you do without them? Very easily. Do they add another level of strategy and complexity to a match? Yep.

[armyof1]

Chavette, on 21 March 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

The OP is all true, but you're still gonna get flak as most here are self entitled pugs, ironic huh.

Because self entitled "pros" are so much better

[Moromillas]

armyof1, on 21 March 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Because self entitled "pros" are so much better

Well, it does stand to reason that someone with more experience would be more knowledgeable of the games mechanics.

[Hammer Hands]

alexivy, on 21 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Am I really expected to take this opinion seriously? The training grounds are an absolute joke. The stationary mechs are more poorly armored than trial mechs. If you believe that you can reliably gauge the effectivness of weapons based soley, or even in part, on obsevations made in the training grounds, you need to open your eyes a little more.

Actually I could care less if you take me seriously or not. I don't know you, I probably never will and your opinion on my abilities to assess something through observational testing based on my months of using the same weapon system everyone seems to hate, fear, loathe, complain, or find useless is irrelevant.

If used correctly the testing grounds create a perfect TESTING place as it gives you one of the most important aspects of scientific analysis A Control. It removes any external variables and allows you to modify the testing parameters to give you the best results. This of course means you have to actually know how to test things to start with and I have been happily using the testing grounds to get baseline ideas on all type of weapon systems. So if you think I simply slap **** in a mech jump into the testing grounds and go "Ooh, pretty colors and esplosions!", you sir are a nitwit. :-)

[armyof1]

Moromillas, on 21 March 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

Well, it does stand to reason that someone with more experience would be more knowledgeable of the games mechanics.

Which would still make his opinion purely subjective, as another experienced player could have a totally different opinion on the same matter.

[TOPGUN Stinger]

Maverick: Too close for missles nerfed, I'm switching to guns.