775 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

TAG, direct fire with Artemis = maximum concentrated missile strike, and LRM 10's are pretty darn well clustered to start with, and you ran straight at him.

Pretty much a perfect shot..

[Bishop Steiner]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2014 - 02:16 AM, said:

There is no such thing.

ignorance must be bliss.

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:

What if I told you that EVERY other mech has to expose itself in order to do damage EVERY single time it fires. Bring your own TAG and actually be in a fight and you'll have no trouble with locks.



In a team-based game ... yeah, right.



Learn not to shoot any red box you see and you'll be fine. Go and fight with the rest of your team, share the damage taken and you'll share the damage done.

LRMs were more than effective with 120m/s, it just required thinking and actually being in the middle of things. Now its just easy mode spam fire button for the win.



Very short and pretty much spot on.

Lol. Weak counters, and oh BTW, I don't use LRMs but maybe 25% of the matches since the patch, which would be of course, more than I have used them in the last year. Difference is, despite not having a team to protect me, nor ECM or AMS, I have continued to play my Griffins and ShadowHawks and Ember just fine.

Instead of crying when the game changes, I adapt. You should really try it.

[Mawai]

Hi Paul,

Just curious ... but is there any connection between missile velocity and missile spread?

One way of doing missile spread is to use the parallel and perpendicular velocities and time of flight to calculate a spread pattern when they hit the target. A faster missile velocity in this case would tighten up the spread of the missiles increasing their effectiveness beyond the flight time issue.

Even if the missile trajectories are individually calculated - unless the spread is fixed as a function of range - if the missile velocity is increased the spread will decrease for a given range.

However, not knowing how missile spread is implemented makes it impossible to say whether this could be a factor or not.

Edited by Mawai, 25 March 2014 - 05:45 AM.

[Latorque]

Reducing to 150 m/s won't do i'm afraid. No idea how this came to pass. Mothballing my mechs until original LRM speed is back or something else is found to make bralwing halway decent again.

[Wolfways]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

PPCs are ineffective inside 90m ... solution! don't fight inside 90m.
SMRs are ineffective outside 270m ... solution! don't fight outside 270m.
SSRMs are ineffective vs ECM mechs ... solution! bring BAP.
LRMs are ineffective by themselves ... solution! bring your own tag and light spotters.



Indirect fire support.

So players should use TAG with their indirect fire support weapons...

[ShinVector]

Trevor Belmont, on 25 March 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

I was running my Treb 3C last night and surprised how effective LRMs were. I found a Battlemaster 9S out in the open carrying only 4 LRM 10s. I was undamaged, running 132 kph, had AMS and attempted to close 500 open meters with him. I was dead from his LRMs before getting under his minimum range. Meaning I went from untouched to dead in less than 8 seconds/300 meters.

But to the LRM boaters... They love it and thinks it works fine.. Doesn't take a genius to know why.
Unfortunately the only way you probably get close to him is when he is distracted and raining on someone else...

BUT !! They maybe more than one LRM super boat..
Too much effort against someone who just needs a lock-on and click a button.. GRR.... But no no.. They will say this takes 'Skill' and 'Working as intended.'

Edited: typos.

Edited by ShinVector, 25 March 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Wolfways, on 25 March 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

So players should use TAG with their indirect fire support weapons...

If you want to increase your LRMs efficiency, yes, you should use tag. You can still use them as indirect support with lesser efficiency.

[Wolfways]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

If you want to increase your LRMs efficiency, yes, you should use tag. You can still use them as indirect support with lesser efficiency.

And while firing direct you are less efficient than just about every other weapon in the game (except flamers).

[Gyrok]

Wolfways, on 25 March 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

And while firing direct you are less efficient than just about every other weapon in the game (except flamers).

Let's see Flamers, MGs, Gauss, SRMs, and one could argue SSRMs are all less efficent than LRMs in terms of pure DPS.

Flamers and MGs because...well...they're not efficient.

Gauss because it is the lowest DPS weapon in game.

SRMs because hit detection is screwed

SSRMs because they spread and LRMs do not...

What was your point?

Want to complain about LRMs? Try SRMs for a week...come back and talk...

[PhoenixFire55]

Wolfways, on 25 March 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

And while firing direct you are less efficient than just about every other weapon in the game (except flamers).

Laughable. Sheer damage output is better than any other weapon, so is sustained DPS. Exception is AC spam, which is broken even more due to redacted recycle rates.

[Wolfways]

Gyrok, on 25 March 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

Let's see Flamers, MGs, Gauss, SRMs, and one could argue SSRMs are all less efficent than LRMs in terms of pure DPS.

Flamers and MGs because...well...they're not efficient.

Forgot about MG's. I never liked the "crit-seeker" rubbish.

Quote

Gauss because it is the lowest DPS weapon in game.

As it should be. High pinpoint damage, low DPS.

Quote

SRMs because hit detection is screwed

I don't use them much but have never had a problem with them.

Quote

SSRMs because they spread and LRMs do not...

LRM's are spread damage...they don't hit a single component...

Quote

What was your point?

I can step behind cover to completely avoid LRM's (not that i ever really have to) unlike every other weapon you mentioned.

Quote

Want to complain about LRMs? Try SRMs for a week...come back and talk...

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

Laughable. Sheer damage output is better than any other weapon, so is sustained DPS. Exception is AC spam, which is broken even more due to redacted recycle rates.

Damage means little when you're trying to destroy a mech asap. Pinpoint weapons are always better.

[Wolfways]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Just to let you all know that I've been monitoring the LRM change and their performance on the battlefield. Yes... they are a tad fast... but far from "LRMageddon". Next patch the speed will be reduced by 15m/s. I.e. net change will be from 120 to 160 (instead of 175). I'm also reducing the amount of screenshake caused by LRM explosions slightly. (0.35 instead of 0.4)

Could you please explain why you think they are too fast?
Tbh i don't see how you can judge the performance of a weapon so quickly when everyone brings out their (insert weapon here) mech whenever there's a change. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until players have gone back to their normal playstyle?

[PhoenixFire55]

Wolfways, on 25 March 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

LRM's are spread damage...they don't hit a single component...

Damage means little when you're trying to destroy a mech asap. Pinpoint weapons are always better.

Not quite. ~75% of LRMs will hit CT on most mechs. There are only select few mechs that can spread the damage into sides and arms.

[Ngamok]

MischiefSC, on 24 March 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

At this point I would also go with flattening the trajectory as well - indirect fire is a bit too effective. Especially on maps like Caustic, Frozen City, Tourmaline, Canyon, etc. There are swaths of area where there simply is no way to avoid LRMs indirect fire. Someone spots you and you may as well just power down. No AMS is going to deal with 120 to 150 LRMs raining on you every 3.5 seconds.

Flatten the trajectory some too. It's fast, fast enough that with LOS you can shoot and move now. The need to make them primarily indirect was solved by speeding their travel time up.

If they flatten the trajectory I vote on doing it on a chassis by chassis basis. The Catapults should definately have a higher arc than say over a Battlemaster since it's on the arms.

[Xtrekker]

Paul,

I'm guessing the observed result in my case didn't show that I stopped playing after that first night.

While I think LRMs definitely needed some work, having them fill the sky every game and getting cored over the few seconds it takes to get to cover was a bit much. And of course this community will exploit the hell out of that.

I'll wait a little longer to see the reaction to the 160 change before I venture back in. I agree wholeheartedly that this is something for test servers to sort out.

[Ngamok]

wanderer, on 24 March 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

Funny how that works. The more LRMs there are, the more scouts mount TAG/NARC. The more TAG/NARC, the more LRMs become effective...it's a positive feedback cycle.

Until you get up to higher ELO. Then you watch the teams have ECM, blast scouts into hash, AMS the NARCs (why yes, NARC dies to AMS like any other missile) and calmly proceeds along cover until they can pounce on and devour the LRM boats in a hail of autocannon fire.

I bounce between PUG hell and the higher ELO bucket above it, if my games are any indication, since I have a mildly positive W/L and K/D at this point. LRMs make teaming up on something simple enough that even a PUG can do it. And teamwork makes PUGs melt like snow in front of a blowtorch.

It really isn't the same at the higher ELO brackets. Not at all.



This is what it's like. Note what's doing most of the stomping there? Hint: It isn't missile boats. They don't do so hot against better players. Even now.

I see Vassago is still playing.

[Wrayeth]

My two C-bills:

Paul, I read your post where you said you wanted to give it a week to test the effects before making any changes. That statement makes sense...except for one thing: this is not beta anymore! The game has gone live, which means the bulk of your testing should be done before a patch hits production. This is what test servers are for. It's unethical to force players to do your testing for you in the production environment once the game launches. Please stop. Implement a public test server for people to test your changes before you force everybody to live with them.

Edited by Wrayeth, 25 March 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[SubXulu]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

It was important to watch the speed impact in gameplay for at least a week to see the actual change in overall gameplay.

Thanks for letting us 'test' that out for you at the same time as running the faction challenge, genius timing.

[Rebas Kradd]

Paul,

Why are you walking around with a signature pic saying "Minister of Misinformation"?

Are you mocking our frustration over PGI's poor communication and constant position changes?

[Roadbeer]

Brut4ce, on 24 March 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

So, those 16% left, which are "Group Launches", if translated in terms of "players", it comes out that 56% of players playing the game are in a group. So, more than half the players playin' the game prefer to be in a team, yet, after all this time, the game's "team features" are at an "infant stage" to say it mildly.....

I asked Bryan about this on Twitter (before he blocked me), referring to his AtD 34 statement.

Quote

Naitsirch: Will there be a no-premade / solo-drop mode or not.

A: We’re looking at it. Currently most MWO players actually play in groups.

And his answer:

Quote

that was my assumption based on most matches having at least one group. Turns out I was incorrect.

So, they were either wrong then, or wrong now. Either way, using cagey terms like "launches" instead of "players" only fuels confusion, frustration and misconception. Say what you mean, and provide some data to help us out. For instance, don't say "1st person is sacrosanct", we're all pretty savvy with the English language, and know what sacrosanct REALLY means.

Collecting data over a single week, especially when there is a leader-board event that encourages FOTM usage, does not good data make.

Just like when you inhibit the ability to create groups (or break the social function in your new UI) and act surprised when the data 'shows' most of your 'launches' are solo.