103 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

IceSerpent, on 26 May 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Two questions:

1. Why do you want LRMs (or any other weapon for that matter) to not be a first pick weapon system?

2. If they only annoy and "slightly soften" the enemy, why would that enemy feel compelled to "either take cover or have to advance from another route"?

Just curious

This is an amazing set of questions. I wonder is anyone will answer.

[Sephlock]

And yet people are still lying about LRMs because taking cover is oh so very hard.

[jeffsw6]

I think there is actually something new that is wrong with LRMs. It has probably been wrong for a week, but was masked by splash damage being over-powered.

I'm not an ***** or a bad player. I tried them out in a 4-man that was basically 3 LRM boats plus a brawler right after the hotfix. These other guys are not idiots or bad either. We won our matches, but it took all three of us firing volley after volley into some opponent mechs, with clear LOS and no cover, to kill them. Other mechs went down easily. It doesn't really make sense.

This isn't going to get addressed until some player makes a video.

[Nightcrept]

I'm honestly starting to wonder if they can fix missiles at all?

[I am]

LRMs are the most "low-skill" weapon in MWO. They should not reward a skill-less auto aiming weapon's users with higher than normal damage scores. If anything, they should be lower. LRM spam, is the easy win button.

[sarkun]

There are no support weapons in this game. With teams and maps so small, there is no point in taking any weapon system except the one that will allow you to kill your opponent faster than he kills you. If a weapon can't do that, it's not "support" - it's useless.

[Tesfurdo]

IceSerpent, on 26 May 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Two questions:

1. Why do you want LRMs (or any other weapon for that matter) to not be a first pick weapon system?

2. If they only annoy and "slightly soften" the enemy, why would that enemy feel compelled to "either take cover or have to advance from another route"?

Just curious

Not trying to be an ***... but

1. I'm presuming he means some weapons are never going to be first pick... but still have a use... like mg and flamers perhaps.

2. You answered your question within your question. I don't want to be "softened up" even slightly! XD

Just sayin!

sarkun, on 27 May 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

There are no support weapons in this game. With teams and maps so small, there is no point in taking any weapon system except the one that will allow you to kill your opponent faster than he kills you. If a weapon can't do that, it's not "support" - it's useless.

Agreed. Map sizes make "tactic" and support weapons choices obsolete. It's the only thing I have been seriously disappointed about since day 1... stupidly small maps.

[Sephlock]

I am, on 27 May 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

LRMs are the most "low-skill" weapon in MWO. They should not reward a skill-less auto aiming weapon's users with higher than normal damage scores. If anything, they should be lower. LRM spam, is the easy win button.

That explains why they do so little damage and require you to stand there in the open like an ***** as they slowly make their way towards your target- if you dare look away, your precious shots will be wasted. Its like the instant you hit the fire button you turn into Mario



And heaven help you if an enemy starts attacking you while you are waiting for the missiles to arrive:

Edited by Sephlock, 27 May 2013 - 12:59 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

390 missiles are about 6.5 Dual LRM15 launches, with a weapon weight of 14.
How many shots with a single AC/20 do I need to core a Cataphract?

[Galenit]

JSparrowist, on 26 May 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

LRM should not have amazing damage or be a first pick weapon system. They should be for annoying the enemy, slightly softening them up while making them either take cover or have to advance from another route. LRM IMHO should NEVER be a first choice weapon system for any mech.

Flame away LRMers.. Have fun!

You should look at the Catapults, they are designed around the "NEVER be a first choice weapon", like some other mechs.

Medium laser are the filler weapon you talk about, not a multitonupgradeableammoconsuming weapon. Why is there tag, same space and weight as a mediumlaser, no damage, only purpose is to make the "Never be a first choice weapon" better?
Why is there NARC, a multiton no damage ammoconsuming thing, thats only purpose is to make lrms better?
Why is there ams, its only purpose is to reduce damage of the "Never be a first choice weapon?

I am, on 27 May 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

LRMs are the most "low-skill" weapon in MWO. They should not reward a skill-less auto aiming weapon's users with higher than normal damage scores. If anything, they should be lower. LRM spam, is the easy win button.

Try to train an ape at a computergame. What do you think he will learn first?

A: Try to catch a banana with a green cycle and then press a button to get his reward.
or
B: Try to hold a green cycle over the moving banana, press button when cycle turns red, hold the cycle over the moving banana for a nother 2-8 seconds and then getting the reward.

Edited by Galenit, 27 May 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Appogee]

Q: What's worse than being an LRM spammer...?
A: Being a bad LRM spammer

I see a lot of people (myself included) getting finished off by LRMs sailing in from a distance by guys using other people's target locks. I assume it's because LRMs are still splashing to CT, which of course is where people who actually aim their weapons are inflicting most damage.

So any kill from guided munitions sent from behind cover across half the map at no risk to themselves should be considered a very welcome bonus by the person lobbing them in.

If we go too far down the ''death from afar'' route we will replicate MW3, which at some stages was just a game of people standing behind cover and shooting LRMs at targets they couldn't see. It got deathly dull very quick.

Edited by Appogee, 27 May 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[Reith Dynamis]

I am, on 27 May 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

LRMs are the most "low-skill" weapon in MWO. They should not reward a skill-less auto aiming weapon's users with higher than normal damage scores. If anything, they should be lower. LRM spam, is the easy win button.

LOL your hilarious. lets go through the list of what a lrm pilot has to go through.

Is your weapon going to make the distance?

Is it too close?

Is the target going to reach cover before the volley gets there?

does the target have ecm?

does the target have AMS?

Once I'm spotted how soon will I get rushed.

Will those rushers have ECM?

Did i bring BAP?

Do i have friends around me that can support me?


The ease to which one pulls the trigger does not correlate between ease of use or lack of skill. You want people to forget how easy it is to find cover in this game? thats crazy when most of the damage any lrm mech will do will consistently blocked.

It doesn't take much skill to avoid lrms you mean, I mean if you cant do that then you have no business talking on these forums. If you don't have the skills to know how to stick to cover thats your low skill noob ideology. You shouldn't build yourself up as good pilot if you can't even follow that.

And you also an imbecile, its a lock on weapon, not auto-aim. auto-aim would cause you to hit every time. lrms don't do this cause of the chance to lose lock, which happens alot more then you will ever wish to point out cause of your biased opinion.

But because you want us to forget that without BAP/TAG and if a mech is further out then 180 and has ECM the weapon line is useless. So many restriction but a noob weapon all the same.... mmmm. You don't know what your talking about.

you couldn't be any further from the truth. I'll be waiting for your rebuttal and hopefully its not filled with more excuses from someone who couldn't use the multitude of penalties from lrm to his advantage. Low skill weapon? sound more like this is coming from a low skill pilot who is too lazy to develop a strategy around lrms.

You really are the kind of creep who want lrms removed from the game simply because of your disdain for them. Go find another game to where you can complain about its different fundamentals.

[Klaus]

Reith Dynamis, on 26 May 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

and a second lrms mech at base all targeting one mech. It took 390 of my LRM to moderately damage a Muromets CTF-IM Cataphract. It still was not killed until a third mech stepped in.

Artemis? check.
Line of sight? check.
Target in the open like a ding bat? check.
Did lrm volley land? check.
Did the target lack AMS? check.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The stars couldn't have lined up more perfectly, yet a trebuchet with 2 Artemis 15's won't ever do anything viable if lrms remain the way they are.

LRMs are for people who can't aim anyway!

[Reith Dynamis]

Appogee, on 27 May 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Q: What's worse than being an LRM spammer...?
A: Being a bad LRM spammer

I see a lot of people (myself included) getting finished off by LRMs sailing in from a distance by guys using other people's target locks. I assume it's because LRMs are still splashing to CT, which of course is where people who actually aim their weapons are inflicting most damage.

So any kill from guided munitions sent from behind cover across half the map at no risk to themselves should be considered a very welcome bonus by the person lobbing them in.

If we go too far down the ''death from afar'' route we will replicate MW3, which at some stages was just a game of people standing behind cover and shooting LRMs at targets they couldn't see. It got deathly dull very quick.

0.0

....... you never played mw 3 online!!!!

The long range game was flawed. Everyone knows the lag and bugs when it came to MW3 if you played in a league. that game was nothing but short range engagements filled with AC 20, medium range laser, and streaks!

That was an outright lie. people in these forums have no shame.

[stjobe]

Nightcrept, on 26 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

I'm honestly starting to wonder if they can fix missiles at all?

Not while the current missile code is still in-game, they can't.

Problems:
* (Excessive) splash damage
* Missile clustering bias towards CT

The first problem means some 'mechs will take more damage from missiles than others, purely by how their hit-boxes are arranged. The only solution to this problem is to remove splash damage altogether.

The second problem needs to be solved as well, and I'm afraid it's going to take a complete re-write of the missile code to do so.

However, once these two problems are solved, missiles can then be balanced by their per-missile damage (which needs to be around 1 for LRMs, and 2 for SRMs). Flight pathing and missile clustering should take care of spreading the damage over the target, so there's no need for splash damage.

Remember, in BT it was a dice roll that determined how many of a LRM-20 volley that hit; 6, 9, 12, 16, or 20 missiles, with only a roll of 11 or 12 meaning all 20 missiles hit. Damage was then allocated in groups of five: 5+1, 5+4, 5+5+2, 5+5+5+1, or 5+5+5+5 damage.

Currently, we're still running the old, broken, missile code. They've said they're working on a replacement, but they haven't gotten that into the game yet. One can only hope that they'll get it done soon, and that the new code has no splash damage and proper grouping (not biased towards the CT). If so, there's still hope for missiles.

Edited by stjobe, 27 May 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[Reith Dynamis]

stjobe, on 27 May 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

Not while the current missile code is still in-game, they can't.

Problems:
* (Excessive) splash damage
* Missile clustering bias towards CT

The first problem means some 'mechs will take more damage from missiles than others, purely by how their hit-boxes are arranged. The only solution to this problem is to remove splash damage altogether.

The second problem needs to be solved as well, and I'm afraid it's going to take a complete re-write of the missile code to do so.

However, once these two problems are solved, missiles can then be balanced by their per-missile damage (which needs to be around 1 for LRMs, and 2 for SRMs). Flight pathing and missile clustering should take care of spreading the damage over the target, so there's no need for splash damage.

Remember, in BT it was a dice roll that determined how many of a LRM-20 volley that hit; 6, 9, 12, 16, or 20 missiles, with only a roll of 11 or 12 meaning all 20 missiles hit. Damage was then allocated in groups of five: 5+1, 5+4, 5+5+2, 5+5+5+1, or 5+5+5+5 damage.

Currently, we're still running the old, broken, missile code. They've said they're working on a replacement, but they haven't gotten that into the game yet. One can only hope that they'll get it done soon, and that the new code has no splash damage and proper grouping (not biased towards the CT). If so, there's still hope for missiles.

If we want to match lrms iteration with TT I'm fine with that, as long as all the weapon in the game does the same so its chance to hit are also coupled with random hit locations.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Reith Dynamis, on 27 May 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

If we want to match lrms iteration with TT I'm fine with that, as long as all the weapon in the game does the same so its chance to hit are also coupled with random hit locations.

Except if we are matching TT, then we need to look at upping LRM damage due to doubled armor.

PPC's have pinpoint accuracy, no random location hits like in TT.

If LRM's are randomly hitting, then you need to have them do more damage.

[Appogee]

Reith Dynamis, on 27 May 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

LOL your hilarious. lets go through the list of what a lrm pilot has to go through.
Is your weapon going to make the distance?
Is it too close?
Is the target going to reach cover before the volley gets there?
does the target have ecm?
does the target have AMS?
Once I'm spotted how soon will I get rushed.
Will those rushers have ECM?
Did i bring BAP?
Do i have friends around me that can support me?

Hilarious. Now let's go through the actual LRM decision making process...

Am I far enough away from the fight to be not be noticed?

Is this rock/wall/hill/building completely hiding me?

Did my team lock targets for me? Or do I actually have to spot a target in the distance myself?

Is my target going to reach cover before the volley gets there? (Meh, may as well launch anyway.)

Does the target have ECM? (Meh, thankfully my team has BAP so I can launch anyway.)

Does the target have AMS? (Meh, some missiles will get through, may as well launch anyway.)

Will someone else defend me if the enemy spots me? (Meh, probably, may as well launch anyway.)

Did i bring enough missiles to last the entire game?


Yes, difficult decisions. And clearly, unique skills are required. That is why I would support unique point scores be awarded for damage scored through indirect fire.

Edited by Appogee, 27 May 2013 - 07:09 AM.

[Reith Dynamis]

Well what i meant was that all weapons should have random hit locations like TT unless you have a targeting computer. I mean if people dont want lrms to hit the biggest area of a mech and hit all location like TT then direct fire weapons should follow the TT iteration as well.

[Reith Dynamis]

Appogee, on 27 May 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

Hilarious. Now let's go through the actual LRM decision making process?

Am I far enough away from the fight to be not be noticed?
Is this rock/wall/hill/building completely hiding me?
Did my team respond to my begging to lock targets? Or might I actually have to spot one in the distance myself?
Is my target going to reach cover before the volley gets there? (Meh, may as well launch anyway.)
Does the target have ECM? (Meh, thankfully my team has BAP so I can launch anyway.)
Does the target have AMS? (Meh, may as well launch anyway.)
Will someone else defend me if the enemy spots me?
Did i bring enough missiles to last the entire game without having to get within range of the enemy?

Such difficult decisions. So much skill required!

lets see a flight of lrm 5 or lrm 10 get through AMS.

Or even if you have a clear line of sight that the enemy wont find cover nearby. actual pilots try to judge the a shot before firing.

Why would anyone waist ammo if that will occur? that makes no since unless even if you were an assault with ridiculous amounts of ammo. I wish your thought process was a little more serous cause you really gave no thought to them.

Anyone who blindly shoots from cover isn't really doing the party any good. just because you get a enemy launch warning from an enemy in cover usually ends up in the signal being lossed and never being hit.

I guess your going to pretend that you get hit every time by lrms from cover? I want to see that video so i can speak to that dude!

Yours ideas of how lrms pilots think come from someone who has never used lrms. try again when you have some experience.

Edited by Reith Dynamis, 27 May 2013 - 07:13 AM.