245 replies to this topic

[AlmightyAeng]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm not going to apologize for personally disliking indirect fire weapons, either, if that's what you were hoping for. As long as the weapons require neither skill nor precision to be effective, they should NOT be held to the same standards of performance and functionality as those that do.

Introduce a skill mechanic, and then it'll be different.

Out of curiosity, let's say they DO implement a change that makes LRM's more difficult to use.

Would you have preferred that they made them harder first, so they were difficult AND underpowered? Or buff them first, and THEN introduce a level of difficulty?

'Cause we know PGI isn't patching that kinda thing in pairs.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 20 March 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Balance is doomed. The whining from the last MG buff got it nerfed back down. Too many bads? We can't say for sure.

Let that sink in, one of the worst weapons in the game got a buff that made it useable in pairs, was nerfed because people wandered into their 120M range, to deal a single DPS, which you had to face the target the ENTIRE time to deal, and it had a cone of fire on top of that.



I'm fairly certain PGI will end up caving with the LRM buff, same tale as the machine guns. But I'll enjoy them while they last. Something other than dakka that's effective is very good to keep the game fresh, especially considering how stale the meta was.

gonna have to disagree with you on the machine guns. I feel they are in a really good place right now. They were kinda ridiculous with the most recent change for abit there.

[Master Maniac]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Out of curiosity, let's say they DO implement a change that makes LRM's more difficult to use.

Would you have preferred that they made them harder first, so they were difficult AND underpowered? Or buff them first, and THEN introduce a level of difficulty?

'Cause we know PGI isn't patching that kinda thing in pairs.

I already explicitly said that I'm all for breaking "canon" and making LRMs damaging, even powerful weapons. That's fine with me. I'll still dislike them, because I abhor indirect fire tactics, but it'd be A-OK. LRMs are and should be a part of the game. That is not the question.

Make them do some good damage, let them fly straight and true - just make it so that players have to work for their tone. At a basic, fundamental level, I would be perfectly fine with that. As it is now, a barely-functioning simian could use LRMs as intended, and it's UNBELIEVABLY infuriating to be slapped by ridiculously accurate LRM fire the instant I step out of cover.

"PGI doesn't patch in pairs"

Don't be pedantic.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Maniac, it should be obvious from looking at the Likes in this thread that you are in fact in the minority.

[Master Maniac]

Rebas Kradd, on 20 March 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

Maniac, it should be obvious from looking at the Likes in this thread that you are in fact in the minority.

And that bothers me how, kid? Would you like a pat on the back?

[Roland]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Out of curiosity, let's say they DO implement a change that makes LRM's more difficult to use.

Would you have preferred that they made them harder first, so they were difficult AND underpowered? Or buff them first, and THEN introduce a level of difficulty?

'Cause we know PGI isn't patching that kinda thing in pairs.

You actually COULD do it as a single change.

Back in MW4, missiles actually didn't just track a whole mech. They were actually affected by where your reticle was when you fired them. Certain pilots (Valk from CDS comes to mind as the single best LRM using pilot I knew of) were far more effective with missiles than others. Missiles actually did have some degree of skill in that game.

For MWO, what you could do would be something like this:
1) When you fire missiles, they will track the target regardless of whether you hold lock. They would be fire and forget, as they were back in earlier beta. (this would be a buff)
2) You could then increase the spread of missiles, such that normally when fired like this, they spread quite a lot... You'll always get some damage on a mech (unless they actually get behind cover), and rarely just waste whole volleys, but the damage would be sparse and spread over the whole mech. (This would be a nerf, but combined with the prior fire and forget aspect, would balance out.. and also make them more consistently fun to use.. because there are few things as frustrating as trying to use LRM's with pugs who can't hold a lock for more than 5 seconds)
3) Make it such that when you actually hold a lock, the missiles focus on where your reticle actually IS. Thus, this would give pilots the ability to control where their missiles hit somewhat, similar to how they function with Artemis... but NOT just automatically tracking the CT. This would give missiles a SKILL BASED buff.

Thus, with this kind of system, missiles would be turned into a weapon which can function as a passable support weapon, where they can do some damage always.... Making it less likely that they would be rendered totally useless in a match, while also making them not overpowered in situations where the enemy can't even return fire on the shooter.

But what it would also do is make it such that missiles could be used in a much stronger, more primary mode, in cases where the shooter is actually exposed to return fire.. And in these cases, the LRM shooter's effectiveness would actually be dependent upon his aiming ability. People with better gunnery skills would be more effective, if they were able to hold the reticle in a position smaller than just "giant red box that is bigger than the whole target mech".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 20 March 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

You actually COULD do it as a single change.

Back in MW4, missiles actually didn't just track a whole mech. They were actually affected by where your reticle was when you fired them. Certain pilots (Valk from CDS comes to mind as the single best LRM using pilot I knew of) were far more effective with missiles than others. Missiles actually did have some degree of skill in that game.

For MWO, what you could do would be something like this:
1) When you fire missiles, they will track the target regardless of whether you hold lock. They would be fire and forget, as they were back in earlier beta. (this would be a buff)
2) You could then increase the spread of missiles, such that normally when fired like this, they spread quite a lot... You'll always get some damage on a mech (unless they actually get behind cover), and rarely just waste whole volleys, but the damage would be sparse and spread over the whole mech. (This would be a nerf, but combined with the prior fire and forget aspect, would balance out.. and also make them more consistently fun to use.. because there are few things as frustrating as trying to use LRM's with pugs who can't hold a lock for more than 5 seconds)
3) Make it such that when you actually hold a lock, the missiles focus on where your reticle actually IS. Thus, this would give pilots the ability to control where their missiles hit somewhat, similar to how they function with Artemis... but NOT just automatically tracking the CT. This would give missiles a SKILL BASED buff.

Thus, with this kind of system, missiles would be turned into a weapon which can function as a passable support weapon, where they can do some damage always.... Making it less likely that they would be rendered totally useless in a match, while also making them not overpowered in situations where the enemy can't even return fire on the shooter.

But what it would also do is make it such that missiles could be used in a much stronger, more primary mode, in cases where the shooter is actually exposed to return fire.. And in these cases, the LRM shooter's effectiveness would actually be dependent upon his aiming ability. People with better gunnery skills would be more effective, if they were able to hold the reticle in a position smaller than just "giant red box that is bigger than the whole target mech".

While lovely, and I'd be great with it. Won't happen. PGI doesn't have the ability to pull it off.

[Master Maniac]

Roland, on 20 March 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

You actually COULD do it as a single change.

Back in MW4, missiles actually didn't just track a whole mech. They were actually affected by where your reticle was when you fired them. Certain pilots (Valk from CDS comes to mind as the single best LRM using pilot I knew of) were far more effective with missiles than others. Missiles actually did have some degree of skill in that game.

For MWO, what you could do would be something like this:
1) When you fire missiles, they will track the target regardless of whether you hold lock. They would be fire and forget, as they were back in earlier beta. (this would be a buff)
2) You could then increase the spread of missiles, such that normally when fired like this, they spread quite a lot... You'll always get some damage on a mech (unless they actually get behind cover), and rarely just waste whole volleys, but the damage would be sparse and spread over the whole mech. (This would be a nerf, but combined with the prior fire and forget aspect, would balance out.. and also make them more consistently fun to use.. because there are few things as frustrating as trying to use LRM's with pugs who can't hold a lock for more than 5 seconds)
3) Make it such that when you actually hold a lock, the missiles focus on where your reticle actually IS. Thus, this would give pilots the ability to control where their missiles hit somewhat, similar to how they function with Artemis... but NOT just automatically tracking the CT. This would give missiles a SKILL BASED buff.

Thus, with this kind of system, missiles would be turned into a weapon which can function as a passable support weapon, where they can do some damage always.... Making it less likely that they would be rendered totally useless in a match, while also making them not overpowered in situations where the enemy can't even return fire on the shooter.

But what it would also do is make it such that missiles could be used in a much stronger, more primary mode, in cases where the shooter is actually exposed to return fire.. And in these cases, the LRM shooter's effectiveness would actually be dependent upon his aiming ability. People with better gunnery skills would be more effective, if they were able to hold the reticle in a position smaller than just "giant red box that is bigger than the whole target mech".

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

While lovely, and I'd be great with it. Won't happen. PGI doesn't have the ability to pull it off.

That is quite unfair. Hmm. Unless, of course, this is reverse psychology.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[Appogee]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

And, yes, ballistics are "choked by heat." They're already pretty darn hot for what they are. Given my experience in previous Mechwarrior games (and that's what counts because I couldn't possibly care less about TT - it's NOT relevant beyond establishing basic guidelines), ballistics are minimal to low heat weapons. That was their chief advantage, offset by their massive tonnage requirements and heavy, explosive ammunition. Now, a single AC/20 can cause as much as a twenty to thirty percent heat spike, depending on build/environmental factors. Pair 'em up and BOOM, Ghost Heat. So, yes, don't be silly - ballistics are NOT heat free.

I was reflecting on this the other day, too. You're right, in previous Mechwarrior games, ballistics were very low heat. Their balance came from their high tonnaage, ammo limitations, and the need to lead/aim.

I'm not sure why they got so hot in MWO... other than that heat is used as a dominant balancing mechanic in this game, like no other. Seems to me it would have been better in the end to use the tonnage and rate of fire as balancing mechanics.

[Master Maniac]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

I was reflecting on this the other day, too. You're right, in previous Mechwarrior games, ballistics were very low heat. Their balance came from their high tonnaage, ammo limitations, and the need to lead/aim.

I'm not sure why they got so hot in MWO... other than that heat is used as a dominant balancing mechanic in this game, like no other. Seems to me it would have been better in the end to use the tonnage and rate of fire as balancing mechanics.

I'm not particularly against the idea of introducing heat management with ACs, I guess, though it does seem like a silly conceit given that their low heat was their core advantage. They would be better balanced by a recoil mechanic, similar to that seen in MW3. That was pure gold.

Said recoil mechanic could not be a half-hearted single-focus design, either. It would have to be a massive, multi-faceted implementation, but properly executed, it would change the game for the better, IMO.

A ballistic weapon should jump the reticule away from the target, and twist the torso to the side the weapon is installed in. The bigger the gun, the bigger the recoil. If you fire again before the recoil effect is recovered from, the next recoil is harsher than the last. AC/2's REALLY need this, because the game has proven that heat is not nearly enough of a deterrent - and AC/2s should not be nearly that hot anyway.

Recoil effects should be adjusted for each chassis, with bigger, heavier mechs better able to cope with it. Imagine a twin AC/20 Jager discharging both of those massive cannons at the same time - that recoil should have a definite effect on the gyro. Rather than arbitrarily slamming that Jager with a ridiculous phantom heat penalty, the mech could instead be momentarily staggered by the recoil, rendering it briefly immobile and unable to torso twist. If we had a knockdown mechanic, a staggered mech could also be much more vulnerable to being knocked down by heavy impact.

Anyway, yeah. Long story short, ghost heat sucks.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

I was reflecting on this the other day, too. You're right, in previous Mechwarrior games, ballistics were very low heat. Their balance came from their high tonnaage, ammo limitations, and the need to lead/aim.

I'm not sure why they got so hot in MWO... other than that heat is used as a dominant balancing mechanic in this game, like no other. Seems to me it would have been better in the end to use the tonnage and rate of fire as balancing mechanics.

They're hot because they fire 3-20 times their supposed RoF, from TT values but dissipation was kept the same.

Hence, the AC2 is doing AC40 damage while generating half that in heat instead of 2 damage and 1 heat. On the plus side MWO's AC2 isn't useless.

[Appogee]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Out of curiosity, let's say they DO implement a change that makes LRM's more difficult to use.

I can't imagine what that would be...?

From a ''how they work'' point of view I think LRMs are pretty much right as is.

I do think the target retention module is an credulity-stretcher though. And it should be less necessary now that LRMs are flying so much faster to target.

[Appogee]

Roland, on 20 March 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Back in MW4, missiles actually didn't just track a whole mech. They were actually affected by where your reticle was when you fired them.

Really like these ideas... would reward skillful use of LRMs and make them more fun to use, too.

Does (or could) TAG perhaps work with this degree of precision?

[AlmightyAeng]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

I'm not particularly against the idea of introducing heat management with ACs, I guess, though it does seem like a silly conceit given that their low heat was their core advantage. They would be better balanced by a recoil mechanic, similar to that seen in MW3. That was pure gold.

I'd be down for that. Similarly with the 'reticle aim' that missiles had in MW3.

As to how ballistics got so hot? Ghost Heat. 2xAC20 guaranteed an XL, reduced armor, or SLOW speed. It had weaknesses. Now it has more. *shrug*

Make missiles harder to use...sure. That's fine. But they're still not hard to avoid (they're easier to avoid than pinpoint) and that damage they do isn't surpassing what pinpoint can do. It's matching it. (Yeah, I know, anecdotal, anecdotal...but my experience in game shapes my opinions).

Ease of use...go ahead and tinker. Current effect on targets? I'm fine with it.

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Really like these ideas... would reward skillful use of LRMs and make them more fun to use, too.

Does (or could) TAG perhaps work with this degree of precision?

If they homed in on where you were pointed when you pulled the trigger, that'd be cool. If they homed in with a tighter grouping on where you kept TAG pointed...that'd be sweet too

[Appogee]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

(ACs) would be better balanced by a recoil mechanic, similar to that seen in MW3. That was pure gold.

Yeah, I wrote a thread once suggesting they add that. It would be a huge balancing opportunity and skill reward if ballistics actually threw your reticle off - proportionate to the size of the ballistic - so you had to keep reaiming between shots.

I remember some people didn't like the idea because they said Mechs in canon have "super-gyros" specifically to offset recoil.

[Master Maniac]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Yeah, I wrote a thread once suggesting they add that. It would be a huge balancing opportunity and skill reward if ballistics actually threw your reticle off - proportionate to the size of the ballistic - so you had to keep reaiming between shots.

I remember some people didn't like the idea because they said Mechs in canon have "super-gyros" specifically to offset recoil.

Mechs certainly do have super-gyros - they must to be able to heft all that massive weight straight up a hill while firing multiple massive smoothbore cannons. :-p

But, anyway, yeah - gyros *offset* recoil, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily completely negate it. I can't imagine a better way to handle ballistics than a refined, modernized variation of MW3's recoil system. It was completely sublime, and made handling combined ballistics/energy 'Mechs both a challenge and a treat.

[AlmightyAeng]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

Mechs certainly do have super-gyros - they must to be able to heft all that massive weight straight up a hill while firing multiple massive smoothbore cannons. :-p

But, anyway, yeah - gyros *offset* recoil, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily completely negate it. I can't imagine a better way to handle ballistics than a refined, modernized variation of MW3's recoil system. It was completely sublime, and made handling combined ballistics/energy 'Mechs both a challenge and a treat.

Tanks have methods of offsetting recoil. ****ers still shake when you start throwing slugs. Ever shot a recoilless rifle? You're holding on for dear life, lol...granted...a lot of that is cause you don't wanna drop it mid-shot

Edited by Ghost Badger, 20 March 2014 - 12:30 PM.

[Daekar]

I would like to second the OP - this is a good change that is making a significant weapon system usable, and is halfway to making a considerable portion of the existing mech variants worth taking. If we can get SRMs improved, then we'll be in a really good place.

Ye Olde Pugging has been very entertaining recently, even as a StreakCat. Yes, I said it. StreakCat. Drop a streak for an LRM15 and the mech is actually playable. I don't think LRMs are worth using on a medium like my CN9-A or -AL, but a mech that has room for a standard laser/ballistic loadout can now shift a bit of tonnage to grab a pair of LRM5s or an LRM10 and not be wasting space.

Welcome to Battletech, whiners - a place with three major weapon categories and not two. You'll get used to it.

Edited by Daekar, 20 March 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[Master Maniac]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Tanks have methods of offsetting recoil. ****ers still shake when you start throwing slugs. Ever shot a recoilless rifle? You're holding on for dear life, lol...granted...a lot of that is cause you don't wanna drop it mid-shot

God, I'm so jealous. Some guys get to have all the fun.

I always get a laugh from the "recoilless" designation - from what I read, it seems a tad misleading. I guess "lessrecoil" just doesn't roll off the tongue so swimmingly.

Daekar, on 20 March 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Welcome to Battletech, whiners - a place with three major weapon categories and not two. You'll get used to it.

Ha ha ha no. This is not Battletech. This is Mechwarrior - an entry in a series that I most likely have invested more time and enthusiasm in than you.

Besides that, your little jab is invalidated. You make it sound as though people have not been utilizing LRMs until this patch, which is positively and hilariously stupid to say.

"OMG this patch MAKES LRMs SO USEFUL BECAUSE NO ONE EVER USED THEM BEFORE. WHAT A GAME CHANGER WOW."

"Don't panic, guise, it's only a little speed buff, it's not a big deal."

Which is it, folks? You can't have it both ways.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

God, I'm so jealous. Some guys get to have all the fun.

I always get a laugh from the "recoilless" designation - from what I read, it seems a tad misleading. I guess "lessrecoil" just doesn't roll off the tongue so swimmingly.

I just wouldn't want to be the test subject that was asked to hold a mortar while it went off to test what a "Recoil-full" rifle felt like...hehehehe...right up there with "Javelin-catcher" in my book.