60 replies to this topic

[Iskareot]

Foxfire, on 24 March 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

Unless there is a good wolfpack hunting the boats, of course.

Boy wouldnt that be nice.. imagine if it was a pug group too!!! OMG the world would end.

[Sheraf]

Iskareot, on 24 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

It should have never been that high of a change in the first place. But now... if they do a 3333 concept it might make more sense.

Right now its like 552 ....

5 LRM boats will own any single mech

5 vs 1, no one can survive that

[Josef Nader]

Bah, the change happened too soon. The novelty still hasn't worn off, and with the tournament and everyone wanting to jump on to the new FOTM, they're adjusting them way to quickly to get any decent data out of it.
I would have waited till April, at least, but whatevs. I just really hope that LRMs can stay competitive with PPCs and ACs. I've really appreciated the fresh change of pace that LRMs have brought.

[Abivard]

Does anyone truly believe he spent the weekend working?

[Risen]

there are more interesting variables to change on LRMs instead of the missile flight speed

lowering the lock-on time of (advanced) target decay might help but lower the initial lock-on time for missiles (re-lock time for volleys which are already in air should not be changed)

since firing the launchers in chain-fire-mode makes the most sense due to constant damage and ghost heat an increase of reload time to LRMs might make sense

[East Indy]

Eh, no reason to get angry. I would've preferred a turn of the damage knob, or waiting until 3/3/3/3, but a 33% increase is still a significant improvement.

[Bhael Fire]

eh...they still will be way more useful than they were before.

[Foxfire]

Iskareot, on 24 March 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

Boy wouldnt that be nice.. imagine if it was a pug group too!!! OMG the world would end.

Which is why the operative word is good.

[Solahma]

Maybe they should make LRM flight speed weapon modules

[DocBach]

Abivard, on 24 March 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Does anyone truly believe he spent the weekend working?

Doesn't Canada have laws against working on weekends, or something?

[stjobe]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Doesn't Canada have laws against working on weekends, or something?

As my boss likes to say: "Working on weekends is voluntary"

[Sandpit]

Paul "We needed at least a week of data so now we've made the decision to nerf LRMs"
Me *checks calendar* "Uhm..... 6 days isn't a week"

Paul "LRM usage was big at first and started trailing off"
Me "Uhm..... don't you think it MIGHT be a good idea to wait until it levels off to review a better data sample set to make a balancing decision?"

Paul "High level Elo players didn't adapt well. Low Elo players adapted well"
Me "Uhm........ so players who aren't as "good" did fine but the "good" players couldn't adapt. Ok.... wait, isn't the "good" high elo population less than 1% according to YOUR data?"

Ok sooooooooooooooooo

They're basing their decision on 6 days of selective game review and observation (1 day less than their "least" amount of time REQUIRED to make a good decision)
Basing it on the fact that 1% of the player population couldn't adapt
AND
Basing it on a false trend because they were being used much more frequently but began trailing off as the "new toy" factor wore off.

Is noone else concerned about this? Forget personal opinions of the nerf, buff, balance overall, this is HORRIBLE data collection and decision making processes....

[Thorqemada]

A speed adjustment does not change the fact that LRM boats can spam Missiles on any target for 12 to 14 minutes of a match and that is the real problem!
Ammo needs doubled Slot Rquirements (Missile + Ballistic Ammo) and they suddenly can not spam mindless shots any more.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Is noone else concerned about this? Forget personal opinions of the nerf, buff, balance overall, this is HORRIBLE data collection and decision making processes....

About the fact that after 6 days of observation they decided to change the LRM buff from 46% speed increase to a 33% speed increase. No, I'm not worried about that one bit.

And maybe next week they will make another change. Still not worried.

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 24 March 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

About the fact that after 6 days of observation they decided to change the LRM buff from 46% speed increase to a 33% speed increase. No, I'm not worried about that one bit.

And maybe next week they will make another change. Still not worried.

I'm not talking specifically about LRMs

This is NOT how you collect, review, and interpret data.....
It's how you make bad decisions on false assertions though....

[Asmudius Heng]

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

I'm not talking specifically about LRMs

This is NOT how you collect, review, and interpret data.....
It's how you make bad decisions on false assertions though....

The stats probably do not show one very important fact ... how much damnage was done via indirect fire vs direct LoS fire for LRMs.

This is where the key imbalance is. All direct fire mechs either take thier shots when they can, but to have a concentrated fire on a single mech you need to have a lot of very good co-ordination or the enemy is clearly on thier own in the open and doomed anyway.

Co-ordinating fire with LRMs is easy enough, you do not need to position for LoS, you need to position well with an LRM mechs it is true but you can be hull down the entire time and shooting without risk of return fire.

This means teams stacked with LRMs can rain down a huge load of damage and now they can actually HIT.

If they did this by getting direct LoS they would be taking fire back and it would be a very different game.

Indirect fire needs to be less effective and like a sandblaster to push enemies form positions and cause moderate damage over time because they face little risk to themself.

Direct fire with LRMs should be a hammer.

The problem is they keep balancing just one set of stats and so if indirect is balanced your direct fire sucks. If your direct fire is balanced and good your indirect is too powerful

They need to make the spread of indirect firing pretty bad so that firing indirect is not a hammer like the direct fire is. Only once the indirect vs direct dilemma is solves will we see some balance in LRMs overall.

It is my personal belief that this is the main cruz of the issue. I like the speed changes but stakcing LRM boats now means indirect firepower is damaging, and leading to an over emphasis when shaping the battlefield.

It is not LRMageddon by ANY stretch but if they keep dialing back changes we will be back at useless LRMs too.

[Sandpit]

Asmudius Heng, on 24 March 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

The stats probably do not show one very important fact ... how much damnage was done via indirect fire vs direct LoS fire for LRMs.

This is where the key imbalance is. All direct fire mechs either take thier shots when they can, but to have a concentrated fire on a single mech you need to have a lot of very good co-ordination or the enemy is clearly on thier own in the open and doomed anyway.

Co-ordinating fire with LRMs is easy enough, you do not need to position for LoS, you need to position well with an LRM mechs it is true but you can be hull down the entire time and shooting without risk of return fire.

This means teams stacked with LRMs can rain down a huge load of damage and now they can actually HIT.

If they did this by getting direct LoS they would be taking fire back and it would be a very different game.

Indirect fire needs to be less effective and like a sandblaster to push enemies form positions and cause moderate damage over time because they face little risk to themself.

Direct fire with LRMs should be a hammer.

The problem is they keep balancing just one set of stats and so if indirect is balanced your direct fire sucks. If your direct fire is balanced and good your indirect is too powerful

They need to make the spread of indirect firing pretty bad so that firing indirect is not a hammer like the direct fire is. Only once the indirect vs direct dilemma is solves will we see some balance in LRMs overall.

It is my personal belief that this is the main cruz of the issue. I like the speed changes but stakcing LRM boats now means indirect firepower is damaging, and leading to an over emphasis when shaping the battlefield.

It is not LRMageddon by ANY stretch but if they keep dialing back changes we will be back at useless LRMs too.

That stats don't show a LOT of things. You also cannot collect accurate data when you openly admit that you stopped collecting that data before things "settled down" and noticed that LRM usage was already trailing off. You can't. Not credible and reliable data anyhow...

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Paul "We needed at least a week of data so now we've made the decision to nerf LRMs"
Me *checks calendar* "Uhm..... 6 days isn't a week"

Paul "LRM usage was big at first and started trailing off"
Me "Uhm..... don't you think it MIGHT be a good idea to wait until it levels off to review a better data sample set to make a balancing decision?"

Paul "High level Elo players didn't adapt well. Low Elo players adapted well"
Me "Uhm........ so players who aren't as "good" did fine but the "good" players couldn't adapt. Ok.... wait, isn't the "good" high elo population less than 1% according to YOUR data?"

Ok sooooooooooooooooo

They're basing their decision on 6 days of selective game review and observation (1 day less than their "least" amount of time REQUIRED to make a good decision)
Basing it on the fact that 1% of the player population couldn't adapt
AND
Basing it on a false trend because they were being used much more frequently but began trailing off as the "new toy" factor wore off.

Is noone else concerned about this? Forget personal opinions of the nerf, buff, balance overall, this is HORRIBLE data collection and decision making processes....

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

That stats don't show a LOT of things. You also cannot collect accurate data when you openly admit that you stopped collecting that data before things "settled down" and noticed that LRM usage was already trailing off. You can't. Not credible and reliable data anyhow...

You do realize that these are the same people that called 1 week of 3PV "enough data for retention numbers".

I only agree with Paul in that LRMs needs to be slower, but how he got to said conclusion is no less flawed than so many other "impulse decisions and analysis".

Edited by Deathlike, 24 March 2014 - 04:36 PM.

[Novakaine]

"Dear PGI it's the user not the weapon system."
Can you please stop with the nerfs and let players learn how to deal with the meta.
Players stop all the damn whining and learn how to play, try using a few neurons for a change.
Just deal with it!

Edited by Novakaine, 24 March 2014 - 04:44 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Novakaine, on 24 March 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

"Dear PGI it's the user not the weapon system."
Can you please stop with the nerfs and let players learn how to deal with the meta.
Players stop all the damn whining and learn how to play, try using a few neurons for a change.
Just deal with it!

I try, but it doesn't help my SRMs.