775 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

I'd love to know where these places without cover are (not counting a lot of Alpine and the upper level of Canyon). I never use ECM or AMS, my slowest mech moves at about 53kph, and i never have to worry about indirect-fire. LRM's do not go over most terrain that you are close to.

Besides, if you get hit by indirect-fire LRM's from multiple enemy mechs you were simply outplayed.

[wanderer]

Quote

I have grown so very tired of dealing with the cowardly riff-raff that populate these forums and in-game servers. No one has a code of honor anymore... lrm boating is the pinnacle of cowardice, as you rely on others to take the risk of exposure and sit safely within your lines firing away to take the glory, not even seeing the target.

So let's see. You're saying to nerf LRMs based on honor. That somehow,not seeing your target implies cowardice. Moreover, that for some reason "honor" is a measure of weapons balance?

Did you escape from the age of white knights and King Arthur? Or perhaps simply an institute devoted to the restoration of mental health? That for some weird reason, "glory" is involved in me putting down your collection of pixels with mine?

Are you really, REALLY trying to balance a sci-fi game based on 1980's+ weaponry on some kind of antiquated version of chivalry?

If so, seek professional counseling. This is akin to telling people to nerf rogues in WoW because backstabbing is for cads.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 07 April 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

So let's see. You're saying to nerf LRMs based on honor. That somehow,not seeing your target implies cowardice. Moreover, that for some reason "honor" is a measure of weapons balance?

Did you escape from the age of white knights and King Arthur? Or perhaps simply an institute devoted to the restoration of mental health? That for some weird reason, "glory" is involved in me putting down your collection of pixels with mine?

Are you really, REALLY trying to balance a sci-fi game based on 1980's+ weaponry on some kind of antiquated version of chivalry?

If so, seek professional counseling. This is akin to telling people to nerf rogues in WoW because backstabbing is for cads.

catapults and Trebuchets were used during those times so he cannot be an escapee of the period you reference.
Greek

Asia

Present day

indirect fire has been happening in combat for a very
very long time...
Without calling into question ones manhood and bravery.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 April 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

indirect fire has been happening in combat for a very
very long time...
Without calling into question ones manhood and bravery.

The enemy's indirect fire is cowardly and cheap - ours is brave and manly.

[Kjudoon]

LRMs are the true field artillery of MWO. If we are going to argue on the side of 'honor' and 'glory', take heed of those who fought with, along side or commanded with artillery:


"Artillerymen believe the world consist of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets."
- Unknown

"Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl"
- Frederick the Great, king of Germany, 1740 to 1786

Ultima ratio regum. (The final argument of kings)
- Inscription on french cannons, on order of Louis XIV

"The artillery was my strongest tool. Often it was my only reserve .... I repeatedly said it was more a matter of the infantry supporting the artillery than the artillery supporting the infantry.... I wish I knew the countless times that positions were taken or held due solely to TOT's ...."
Major General R. 0. Barton
Commanding US 4th Infantry Division World War II
(Reminiscing with his division artillery commander)

"Too much praise cannot be bestowed on those who managed my artillery"
- General Andrew Jackson after the Battle of New Orleans, 1815

The best generals are those who have served in the artillery.
Napoleon Bonaparte

"If, -after the battle is over, your infantry don't like you, you are a poor artilleryman."
Captain Henry Reilly The Field Artillery Journal, September-October 1940

Renown awaits the commander who first restores artillery to its prime importance on the battlefield.
Winston Churchill

And lastly:


The harder the fighting and the longer the war, the more the infantry, and in fact all the arms, lean on the gunners.
Field Marshal Montgomery

[Ordellus]

Bigbacon, on 24 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

or higher....

Make the LRMs what they are "Long range" if you want to get into close range battles with a missile system, equip a different missile system. I'm talking make minimum range like 400-500m.

Make the boats gets their targets from teammates and get their defense from teammates. LRM boat should never be an offensive player which least in my little time playing, they seem to do a lot.

Maybe they should increase their range to 2000 to go along with it....

Then they can reduce the range of all ballistics weapons by 1/2.... and add some bullet drop so that they actually require some skill.....

Then they can add hardpoint restrictions so we don't have lights leading the team in damage on a regular basis.....

Oh wait, this is MWO

Edited by Ordellus, 07 April 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Greek

Actually,that's a modern picture. Here's the unabridged version:

[Max Genius]

Yup just finished a game where it was 0-7 in first 6 minutes all death by lrm. They had a good spider spotter that would just pop tart with his tag and the lrmageddons was able to hit targets that were only being tagged for a second. then they decided to skirmish being 7 mechs up. getting really boring.

don't know why devs keep rewarding lrm spammers that dont even see their enemies. game ended with the spider only getting a match score of 38 when he was the one that won the game. 4-5 mechs had 70-80 points for just clicking. smh...

i don't know why anyone thinks lrm spamming is a skill...it's so easy everyones doing it. o well back to titanfall, i actually have to aim to hit my opponents.

Edited by Max Genius, 08 April 2014 - 08:28 PM.

[Revorn]

Max Genius, on 08 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

i don't know why anyone thinks lrm spamming is a skill.

Maybe you give LRMs a try, to see, that playing an LRM-Boat isnt as easy as you maybe think.

Edited by Revorn, 08 April 2014 - 10:55 PM.

[ShinVector]

Max Genius, on 08 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

i don't know why anyone thinks lrm spamming is a skill...it's so easy everyones doing it. o well back to titanfall, i actually have to aim to hit my opponents.

Not with the Smart Pistol you don't ! But at least need a few seconds and get in really close to get the aimbot to work in that game. Still combined with 'Ghost Squad' LOLz...

[Wolfways]

Max Genius, on 08 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

Yup just finished a game where it was 0-7 in first 6 minutes all death by lrm. They had a good spider spotter that would just pop tart with his tag and the lrmageddons was able to hit targets that were only being tagged for a second. then they decided to skirmish being 7 mechs up. getting really boring.

don't know why devs keep rewarding lrm spammers that dont even see their enemies. game ended with the spider only getting a match score of 38 when he was the one that won the game. 4-5 mechs had 70-80 points for just clicking. smh...

i don't know why anyone thinks lrm spamming is a skill...it's so easy everyones doing it. o well back to titanfall, i actually have to aim to hit my opponents.

If the LRM's were all coming from the same direction then your team didn't use cover.
If the LRM's were all coming from different directions then your team was outplayed.
Either way you can't blame LRM's for you having a bad team.

[Cavendish]

Max Genius, on 08 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

They had a good spider spotter that would just pop tart with his tag and the lrmageddons was able to hit targets that were only being tagged for a second. then they decided to skirmish being 7 mechs up. getting really boring

So in short, your team was too stupid to stay on the move, listened to the "Warning Missiles!" message thinking it was meant for someone else then got slaughtered eyes wide in suprise?

Im so sick of this "LRMs is for people without skills!", its more of a "LRM is there to destroy people who are too stupid to move and use the terrain to their advantage" state of affairs except on one single map, and even there you CAN use hills on both edges of the map for cover if you stop to think about it. This droning on about how silly LRMs are while praising the rediculously easy-to-use-direct-damage weapons like PPC and ACs is frankly showing a lack of understanding of how to survive on a multi-layer battlefield.

They had a good scout, your team did not take steps needed to eradicate the threat nor adopt a tactic negating the incomming fire but somehow this is the weaponsystems fault.

[Kjudoon]

Wolfways, on 08 April 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

If the LRM's were all coming from the same direction then your team didn't use cover.
If the LRM's were all coming from different directions then your team was outplayed.
Either way you can't blame LRM's for you having a bad team.

LRMhatorz gonna hate. They're not interested in silly reality clouding their hate. They wanna go full brawltard and nothing short of eliminating all guided weaponry and indirect fire will satisfy them.

[Kjudoon]

Cavendish, on 08 April 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

So in short, your team was too stupid to stay on the move, listened to the "Warning Missiles!" message thinking it was meant for someone else then got slaughtered eyes wide in suprise?

Im so sick of this "LRMs is for people without skills!", its more of a "LRM is there to destroy people who are too stupid to move and use the terrain to their advantage" state of affairs except on one single map, and even there you CAN use hills on both edges of the map for cover if you stop to think about it. This droning on about how silly LRMs are while praising the rediculously easy-to-use-direct-damage weapons like PPC and ACs is frankly showing a lack of understanding of how to survive on a multi-layer battlefield.

They had a good scout, your team did not take steps needed to eradicate the threat nor adopt a tactic negating the incomming fire but somehow this is the weaponsystems fault.

For me, the only time I die to LRMs is when I either do something really stupid, or the other team does something very smart. But maybe my Elo level's too high for LRMs, which I primarily run, to be a no-skill weapon, because I'm constantly looking for clear shots and locks about as much as any direct fire guy. Darn those good players knowing how to use cover, ECM and counterfire to prevent me from getting locks and ducking for cover of my own.

At least direct fire doesn't have to worry about overhead cover and ECM eliminating their shots.

No skill my eye.

Edited by Kjudoon, 08 April 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

There is no reasoning with these people, and it's always the same group that clings to the promised land that is 15 min cover hump games caused by "balanced" lrms. Artillery is used in real life because it is effective, because wars don't really follow any honor code (aside from certain inhumane weaponry being banned by the geneva convention). You think the people going into battle want a good balanced fight where both sides lose most of their troops before it is over? Hell no, they want to win with as few casualties as possible (well allied casualties mostly) and the more effective your indirect fire is, the more you can kill without fear of losing your own troops.

Anyone trying to compare real-life battle to a video game like this needs their head examined. THE GOAL OF TACTICS IN A WAR IS TO SKEW THE BATTLE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO YOUR FAVOR. "Stomps" in favor of your team is the most preferred way a battle can go. This is in direct contrast to the goal of a video game- to create a environment that gives it's players a fun and interesting experience, aka. THE OBJECTIVE OF A GAME IS TO HAVE FUN. This means you want stomps to be as rare as possible because the most desirable outcome is a close, hard-fought battle where both team suffer similar/equal losses. You know what is exactly ZERO fun to play against for the majority of players? indirect-fire! Being killed quickly and easily without having an equal chance to fight back is a wholly undesirable experience in any game, and is exactly what strong indirect fire promotes. This applies to high-alpha builds/pop tarts too, as they are examples of minimizing risk and maximizing reward.

Min/Max ing in all it's forms directly competes against the enjoyment of the other team aka. 50% of the people playing the match. This is why I never look up mech builds or jump on the band-wagon meta mechs, I play what I enjoy. Right now most of my favorite mechs wield LPLs, and I love the LPL MG combo in the jager DD. I also do pretty well with them despite their limitations and the current meta of long-range combat.

I wish they would add polls to the login screen or via email to all registered users and just ask people some of these balance questions so they can get statistics. I would really love to have some hard statistics to show more people enjoy pre-patch lrms vs the lrmsrains of late march by a wide margin.

[Cavendish]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 09 April 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

There is no reasoning with these people, and it's always the same group that clings to the promised land that is 15 min cover hump games caused by "balanced" lrms. Artillery is used in real life because it is effective, because wars don't really follow any honor code (aside from certain inhumane weaponry being banned by the geneva convention). You think the people going into battle want a good balanced fight where both sides lose most of their troops before it is over? Hell no, they want to win with as few casualties as possible (well allied casualties mostly) and the more effective your indirect fire is, the more you can kill without fear of losing your own troops.

Anyone trying to compare real-life battle to a video game like this needs their head examined. THE GOAL OF TACTICS IN A WAR IS TO SKEW THE BATTLE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO YOUR FAVOR. "Stomps" in favor of your team is the most preferred way a battle can go. This is in direct contrast to the goal of a video game- to create a environment that gives it's players a fun and interesting experience, aka. THE OBJECTIVE OF A GAME IS TO HAVE FUN. This means you want stomps to be as rare as possible because the most desirable outcome is a close, hard-fought battle where both team suffer similar/equal losses. You know what is exactly ZERO fun to play against for the majority of players? indirect-fire! Being killed quickly and easily without having an equal chance to fight back is a wholly undesirable experience in any game, and is exactly what strong indirect fire promotes. This applies to high-alpha builds/pop tarts too, as they are examples of minimizing risk and maximizing reward.

Min/Max ing in all it's forms directly competes against the enjoyment of the other team aka. 50% of the people playing the match. This is why I never look up mech builds or jump on the band-wagon meta mechs, I play what I enjoy. Right now most of my favorite mechs wield LPLs, and I love the LPL MG combo in the jager DD. I also do pretty well with them despite their limitations and the current meta of long-range combat.

I wish they would add polls to the login screen or via email to all registered users and just ask people some of these balance questions so they can get statistics. I would really love to have some hard statistics to show more people enjoy pre-patch lrms vs the lrmsrains of late march by a wide margin.

I agree to some of your points, mostly that people dont want to die in a ball of fire in seconds when playing.

Problem with this is that to provide longer survival time for everyone (including people walking around in the open picking flowers or whatever they are doing there) would require a trippling of the armor values or a radical slash of the damage output for all weapons. Would this be more "fun"? Would having to grind down an Atlas for 5 min be an enjoyable experience? Not to mention it would most likely make anything but assult mechs (who can carry enough weapons to level a city) next to useless.

No, this is not a "real life war" simulator, and it certainly should not aspire to become one.It should, however, aspire to mimic the game its built on which leaves us with alot of the issues we see today. People have suggested everything from diffrent sorts of hardpoints (light/medium/heavy hardpoints, which is an idea I personaly like) to removing the pinpoint accuracy for long range weapons to improve survival time for opponents (but then you sorta remove any sort of skill from the game, rolling D6s to see IF I hit and WHERE I hit is a bit rediculous in a game with a FPS element). There is no perfect solution to it, or if there is we have not seen it yet.

If you stand still in the open and an AC/PPC sniper blasts you into oblivion in 1-2 hits, its really your fault for sitting still or being in a place where the sniper could aim long enough for you to be killed. Keep moving! Never stand still!

If you walk across the valley of death on the Alpine map instead of making your way around the edges of the map or hugging hill-sides towards the middle.. expect a missile rain to keep falling on you! You are standing in the open for Petes sake!

If you charge the middle circle of the "mordor" map guns blazing, dont be suprised if your mech vanishes in an inferno due to crossfire from 2-4 diffrent directions at once! You are the only target that half the enemy team can see and have a LOS to!

Why is it so hard for people to step back and think "oh geeze! I wonder how this happened, what did I do to end up dead like this?" instead of nerd raging about "OMG! I just walked out into the open and got killed by AC/PPC/LRMs in 3 seconds! NERF THE WEAPONS FFS!"

[Wolfways]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 09 April 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

There is no reasoning with these people, and it's always the same group that clings to the promised land that is 15 min cover hump games caused by "balanced" lrms.

Could you explain what you mean by "cover hump games"?
If you mean moving around the map using the available cover (which you should be) then you should have no problem with indirect-fire. If you mean hiding behind a hill/building for a lot of a match then you are doing it wrong.

Quote

Artillery is used in real life because it is effective, because wars don't really follow any honor code (aside from certain inhumane weaponry being banned by the geneva convention). You think the people going into battle want a good balanced fight where both sides lose most of their troops before it is over? Hell no, they want to win with as few casualties as possible (well allied casualties mostly) and the more effective your indirect fire is, the more you can kill without fear of losing your own troops.

Anyone trying to compare real-life battle to a video game like this needs their head examined. THE GOAL OF TACTICS IN A WAR IS TO SKEW THE BATTLE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO YOUR FAVOR. "Stomps" in favor of your team is the most preferred way a battle can go. This is in direct contrast to the goal of a video game- to create a environment that gives it's players a fun and interesting experience, aka. THE OBJECTIVE OF A GAME IS TO HAVE FUN. This means you want stomps to be as rare as possible because the most desirable outcome is a close, hard-fought battle where both team suffer similar/equal losses.

I thought the goal for teams was to stomp the enemy as hard and fast as possible whilst taking as few casualties as possible, within the confines of the game rules. Hence the meta.

Quote

You know what is exactly ZERO fun to play against for the majority of players? indirect-fire! Being killed quickly and easily without having an equal chance to fight back is a wholly undesirable experience in any game, and is exactly what strong indirect fire promotes. This applies to high-alpha builds/pop tarts too, as they are examples of minimizing risk and maximizing reward.

So use cover and don't be killed easily...
If others aren't having a problem then obviously the problem is you.

Quote

Min/Max ing in all it's forms directly competes against the enjoyment of the other team aka. 50% of the people playing the match. This is why I never look up mech builds or jump on the band-wagon meta mechs, I play what I enjoy. Right now most of my favorite mechs wield LPLs, and I love the LPL MG combo in the jager DD. I also do pretty well with them despite their limitations and the current meta of long-range combat.

I don't play the meta, never have in any game. I play what i like. In MWO all my mechs have their stock weapons.
One thing i do know is that some players get annoyed when they are killed by anything. I've been called a "LRM noob" when piloting my C1 (which i rarely use), a "PPC noob" when piloting my K2, and a "AC noob" when piloting my Jm6-S, as well as accused of using an aimbot a couple of times lol.
Even so, i've never had a problem with indirect-fire LRM's. They are rarely capable of hitting me and never do much damage.

Quote

I wish they would add polls to the login screen or via email to all registered users and just ask people some of these balance questions so they can get statistics. I would really love to have some hard statistics to show more people enjoy pre-patch lrms vs the lrmsrains of late march by a wide margin.

Even if a poll did show that, so what? You think the game should be balanced for the abilities of those who are new or cannot/won't learn to play.
Sounds like those idiot teachers who believe winners shouldn't get prizes because it will upset the other children

[Dimento Graven]

Revorn, on 08 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

Maybe you give LRMs a try, to see, that playing an LRM-Boat isnt as easy as you maybe think.

Some of us have, and some of us have found it as easy as advertised:

[Ulysses Jacobi]

I have a diverse set of 'mechs including LRNM boats, brawlers, anklebiters, ECM runners, etc.

LRMs plus fast taggers/MG carriers rule this game. Period. Whther that's because only great players use them, or everyone else is stupid (which seems to be a common theme on this forum among pro-LRMers, i.e. if you're not winning against LRM Spam, you suck).. The fact isa fact. With a spotter, not even one with TAG, just seeing you, you can be targeted by a half-dozen 'mechs and killed in seconds from behind cover. That's just a fact. A brawler (the archetypal 'mech in the game is the Atlas, check ou the opening screen), has to cross a beaten zone of LRMs that, in an average drop = death. That's a fact. New players are drawn to that type of 'mech and constantly being handed one's undercarriage in a rain of death does not tend to grow the player base. That fact can be verified in the list of games that failed because the community liked preying on new players rather than helping them. Many of us have played games where a few proficient snipers have ruled the environment, sucking the fun out.

If your argument is "advance under solid cover" find me a map where this is even possible. And find an argument besides "If you're not winning, you suck."

I'm still playing, but my weapon of choice in the current environment is a stalker with a significant loadout of LRMs. Reason? It's more fun to win sometimes than to lose. That's a fact. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't, but saying it's not a problem, and insulting folk who are trying to cope or suggest changes ratrher than engaging in a dialogue will not alter the basic fact. LRMs win,

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ulysses Jacobi, on 09 April 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

With a spotter, not even one with TAG, just seeing you, you can be targeted by a half-dozen 'mechs and killed in seconds from behind cover.

So what is your team doing that the Spotter isn't being killed?

And you do realize if you're getting killed from behind cover..you aren't actually in good cover right?