910 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I'm glad you don't have a problem with it, but a large majority of people seem to.

That's not entirely true from what I've seen. We have dozens of posts on this but if you look carefully? It's the same people posting the same thing for the most part. Their thread dies off, gets moved, etc. so they pop up and post a "new" thread on the same old subject and start the "conversation" all over again.

I DO like the pinpoint. The ONLY exception (and I know at least ONE person out there will take this and run with it and say "See Sand finally agreed with us! but I digress) would be when a mech is moving at above 50% speed (IE what would be considered running in TT) then the gyro has a slightly harder time helping the targeting system track (which is still a far stretch for me since the computer would be capable of compensating for this just like real world jets moving at mach1 compensate for that kind of speed) enemy positions so just like in some other FPS when you're running your reticle and accuracy suffer a bit more than if you stop and pull your sights up. BUT I'd also let the gyro module reduce that as a bonus to that module

[Cimarb]

Zyllos, on 26 November 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

I 100% agree with you. Pin point accuracy is in need of a fix. But this is an LRM thread, so that is why I mentioned nothing about it.

This isn't an attempt to make LRMs better/worse, it's an attempt to make LRMs act like how they should be acting. Right now, larger launchers act completely different than smaller launchers, hence why many players utilize smaller launchers.

You can't adjust the balance of one weapon system without taking into account the other weapon systems balanced with it.

An LRM5 works exactly like an LRM20. The spread is wider, yes, but it is a linear change, not "acting completely different". An LRM5 is a small spread, but still a spread. An LRM10 is a slightly larger spread, on up to an LRM20, which is a spread about as wide as an average mechs shoulders. This spread, for all LRM sizes, can be shrunk by use of Artemis, NARC and/or TAG, with bigger benefits for larger initial spreads. That is why an LRM5 boat does not need Artemis, since the spread is already about as small as it will get, but Artemis becomes much more important the larger the launcher.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

That's not entirely true from what I've seen. We have dozens of posts on this but if you look carefully? It's the same people posting the same thing for the most part. Their thread dies off, gets moved, etc. so they pop up and post a "new" thread on the same old subject and start the "conversation" all over again.

I DO like the pinpoint. The ONLY exception (and I know at least ONE person out there will take this and run with it and say "See Sand finally agreed with us! but I digress) would be when a mech is moving at above 50% speed (IE what would be considered running in TT) then the gyro has a slightly harder time helping the targeting system track (which is still a far stretch for me since the computer would be capable of compensating for this just like real world jets moving at mach1 compensate for that kind of speed) enemy positions so just like in some other FPS when you're running your reticle and accuracy suffer a bit more than if you stop and pull your sights up. BUT I'd also let the gyro module reduce that as a bonus to that module

The armor and internals buff was due to pinpoint damage. Ghost heat was due to pinpoint damage. If pinpoint damage (not convergence) was fixed as I am suggesting, those two systems/adjustments would not be needed.

I'm not sure what you mean about what you like about pinpoint in your second paragraph. Are you talking about convergence, maybe? I am talking about pinpoint being 100% of a weapons damage being applied to one spot at one time (ACs, Gauss, and PPCs, currently) as opposed to damage over time (lasers, flamers and MGs) and spread weapons (missiles and LBX).

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

I am talking about pinpoint being 100% of a weapons damage being applied to one spot at one time (ACs, Gauss, and PPCs, currently)

That's the general consensus on what pinpoint damage is....

I like it, I think it works the way it should.

[Zyllos]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

You can't adjust the balance of one weapon system without taking into account the other weapon systems balanced with it.

An LRM5 works exactly like an LRM20. The spread is wider, yes, but it is a linear change, not "acting completely different". An LRM5 is a small spread, but still a spread. An LRM10 is a slightly larger spread, on up to an LRM20, which is a spread about as wide as an average mechs shoulders. This spread, for all LRM sizes, can be shrunk by use of Artemis, NARC and/or TAG, with bigger benefits for larger initial spreads. That is why an LRM5 boat does not need Artemis, since the spread is already about as small as it will get, but Artemis becomes much more important the larger the launcher.

Artemis IV shouldn't have different effects on launcher size.
The LRM/5 will place more damage onto the CT than the LRM/20.
The LRM/5 shouldn't have less percentage of misses than the LRM/20.

These are the things that need fixing between LRM launcher types. This is why I suggest that "swarms" of 5 LRMs should act just like any others, leading to larger launchers performing exactly the same as smaller launchers.

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

That's the general consensus on what pinpoint damage is....

I like it, I think it works the way it should.

Then why are we currently still using the armor system from CBT, that assumes damage is randomly distributed?

[Corvus Antaka]

skill needed for direct fire guns - point and click. hit space.

skill needed for LRMS - get lock, probably need TAG due to ECM. hold visual without getting pounded while enemy finds the source of LRM fire (Which they can see and follow much easier than direct fire) take a BAP. have a scout. hope your scouts are good. hope enemy hasnt stacked multiple ECM. if so, longer lockon times.

deal with little guys rushing you and your guns being useless, much mroe useless than gauss or even PPC usually.

LRMS need way more skill than point and click guns. This game requires less "Skill" for putting any ballistic or laser on target reasonably efficiently vs any other shooter, and LRMS suffer many drawbacks that the other guns never have to contend with, like 12 AMS shooting all your missiles down.

[Sandpit]

Zyllos, on 26 November 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Then why are we currently still using the armor system from CBT, that assumes damage is randomly distributed?

we aren't. We're using double armor

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 November 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

skill needed for direct fire guns - point and click. hit space.

skill needed for LRMS - get lock, probably need TAG due to ECM. hold visual without getting pounded while enemy finds the source of LRM fire (Which they can see and follow much easier than direct fire) take a BAP. have a scout. hope your scouts are good. hope enemy hasnt stacked multiple ECM. if so, longer lockon times.

deal with little guys rushing you and your guns being useless, much mroe useless than gauss or even PPC usually.

LRMS need way more skill than point and click guns. This game requires less "Skill" for putting any ballistic or laser on target reasonably efficiently vs any other shooter, and LRMS suffer many drawbacks that the other guns never have to contend with, like 12 AMS shooting all your missiles down.

Lasers take like NO skill. That's why I use them. (For real, I'm not being sarcastic here)

Miss that initial shot? Hey no problem, just walk it in and hit that enemy mech regardless. round a corner into 5 mechs? No problem, fire off a couple and rake across all 5 for auto-assist on like the entire enemy team.

[Ngamok]

Victor Morson, on 21 November 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

Anyone who says LRMs take no skill to use effectively is a full of themselves newbie wanting to take it out on the mean LRM boats for shaking their screen.

LRMs require the most pre-planning and positioning of any weapon in the game. Most guns are "Aim at dude and pull trigger" with the only other factors being range & heat.

I've been over this before in the thread but LRM users have about a dozen factors at any given time.

Completely agree. What happens when you are playing Frozen City and you are sitting back over the Jumpship laughing and shooting your LRMs and no one tells you to stop because you are hitting the buildings instead of the enemy? You think, yea, look at all this damage I am doing and I will go post this on the forums. But at the end you do like 200 damage or less because of said buildings. LRMs don't hit me in places like Frozen City because when I see them coming, I back away or hug a building. When I charge over the hill I'll get hit with a few volleys.

[Ngamok]

Mystere, on 24 November 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

I don't know about you folks, but I sometimes like to carry a single LRM5 for recon purposes -- fire in the direction of terrain cover and see how many AMS tracers I get. It sure is very effective in exposing enemy formations under both ECM and AMS cover.

You are lying, no one uses AMS, Myth !!

I know a few people who do this if they have lots of ammo to spare.

Edited by Ngamok, 26 November 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[Ngamok]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Yea I rarely run through a full ton unless i'm facing off against 5+ lrm boats that are coordinated

And at that point you should just rush the LRM boats. Happened last night. Told my friends that it looked like 2 Catapults with LRMs, a BLR-1S, and something else. Then I told the entire team in chat and we rushed over the side. We were also up by 2 at that point due to killing 2 linghts trying to spot for them.

[Hellen Wheels]

Mystere, on 25 November 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Mass firing Katyusha rockets is both beautiful and terrifying, especially if you realize they're heading towards you.

Indeed, this flick has some great sounds of DFA incoming:

[Joseph Mallan]

Hellen Wheels, on 26 November 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Indeed, this flick has some great sounds of DFA incoming:

A good example of cowardice in action I would guess some players will say!!! Thanks for linking that!

[Sandpit]

Hellen Wheels, on 26 November 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Indeed, this flick has some great sounds of DFA incoming:

those newbs. They should have used TAG, had a spotter, and loaded up artemis. They're not even chain firing.

[Cimarb]

Zyllos, on 26 November 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Artemis IV shouldn't have different effects on launcher size.
The LRM/5 will place more damage onto the CT than the LRM/20.
The LRM/5 shouldn't have less percentage of misses than the LRM/20.

These are the things that need fixing between LRM launcher types. This is why I suggest that "swarms" of 5 LRMs should act just like any others, leading to larger launchers performing exactly the same as smaller launchers.

Artemis doesn't have less of an affect on different launcher sizes - it reduces the spread of all of them proportionally. The spread is more pronounced the bigger the launcher, though, so it's effect is much less needed on an LRM5 than it is on an LRM20, for instance. Due to the weight increase and extra slot per launcher, that reduced usefulness has a breaking point (for me) between the LRM5 and LRM10 level.

Do you have any actual facts about where each missile system places damage? If so, please share. If not, I call your bluff. With the law of averages and wider spread, LRM20s are much, much more likely to have a higher amount of damage to CTs than LRM5s do, per launcher.

Lastly, if you have a higher percent hit rate with LRM20s (I'm assuming you are basing this off of your own statistics, since I don't know what else it would be based upon), then that probably means you are much more liberal with your trigger when using the smaller launchers, which makes perfect sense. Lots of people use the 5-packs as warning shots and fire suppression, where 20-packs are much more expensive in ammo per salvo, so you will tend to hold your shots longer before committing them.

[Greyboots]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

Your opinion is they need a buff, mine is they are good where they're at. I like where they're at. I'm at no disadvantage against any other weapon or mech out there. I win more than I lose (hence the positive W/L I mentioned earlier) I do great damage, get kills, buffing them is going to make them OP because if players who know how to use them are going to keep using them jsut as effectively as they are now.

Out of idle curiosity,

• what mech and variant do you use to quantify that statement?
  
• And what other mechs do you use and what's your result with those?
  
• And what's your weapon stats and mech stats pages look like (not calling you a liar at all in any way shape for form, I'm just sure I'd interpret it differently than you do)?

Edited by Greyboots, 26 November 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[Sandpit]

I typically run:

STK-5M

BLR-1G

BLR-1D

but I also run my tbolts and Shawks (just don't have those builds handy dandy in smurfy)

I run whatever catches my fancy

I've also got a 2LL AC20 phract

and I'm currently saving for a highlander AC20 mod I'm wanting to try

I do pretty good with AC20 and 10 but not real great with gauss as a sniper. MLs I'm pretty deadly with but I got bored with them to be honest. I'm horrible with LRMs, I'm just not patient enough with them most times

I also run a few Shawk squirrel hunters.


SHD-2D2

SHD-5M

I do alright overall. Most of kdr are positive and I can kill and deal 400+ damage on a regular basis with just about any of my builds
STALKER STK-5M 133 65 68 0.96 97 76 1.28 37,369 97,676 14:25:05

I can never get pretty little pastes from my stats page for some reason

Edited by Sandpit, 26 November 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[KharnZor]

Have we established that lrm flooding is indeed not the flavor of the month yet?

[Roosterfish]

Are the LRM's still flooding?

[OneEyed Jack]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Artemis doesn't have less of an affect on different launcher sizes - it reduces the spread of all of them proportionally. The spread is more pronounced the bigger the launcher

KharnZor, on 26 November 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Have we established that lrm flooding is indeed not the flavor of the month yet?

Honestly, it boggles the mind that this thread has gone on this long. I think it's a direct reflection on how little there is to talk about in MWO these days.... and less people doing the talking, maybe.

I tried to point out that nerfs will never stop the whiners. Now we have people crying about LRM5s and AC5s, match search times getting longer with no commensurate increase in match quality, and so few threads on the boards that this kind of {Scrap} goes on for 17 pages.

[Cimarb]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Artemis doesn't have less of an affect on different launcher sizes - it reduces the spread of all of them proportionally. The spread is more pronounced the bigger the launcher

OneEyed Jack, on 26 November 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

That is a really long clip, and as funny as the movie is, I'm not sure what it meant. Judging by the beginning of the clip, as well as your highlighting of some words in the quote, I'm guessing you think what I said was an oxymoron. If so, you are wrong. Artemis affects every launcher by reducing the spread by a percentage. The larger the spread starts out, the more noticeable the reduction is, but that doesn't make the affect a completely different system between the two launchers. I don't know the exact reduction, but if it is a 10 meter spread for an LRM5, and Artemis reduces it by 10%, that is a 1 meter reduction. If it is a 30 meter spread for an LRM20, that same 10% reduction from Artemis is now a 3 meter reduction. That is probably not even close to the actual numbers, but it illustrates the point: a 10% reduction across the board is more noticeable the larger the starting size.

As another example, are lasers handled under a completely different system when used against lights than assaults? A laser, which does 10 damage, applies that 10 damage to a light and then 10 damage to an assault. When looked at in percentages of health, that 10 damage will be immensely more damaging to the light, who only has a small amount of armor compared to the assault. That doesn't make it a different system affecting the damage - it just means there is less armor to start out with on the light, so he percentage lost is much greater.