373 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Prezimonto, on 04 April 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

To be fair, the skill isn't just a in clicking a button, but in the fine motor control needed to line up snap shots AND click the button without disturbing aim.

This is a single very specific skill that's highly prized by eSports players who play in highly contrived environments with low random variables. Until the game provides a method of dealing with recoil, windage, the ability to crouch, crawl, stabilize a weapon, or any number of realistic variables an actual machine of war needs to account for to achieve success, there's not much different between ANY weapon the game for overall skill needed.

DFW need the afforementioned twitch, while LRM's need a larger dose of situation awareness, but less fine motor control.

Streaks are perhaps the lowest skill weapon the game as they remove the need for greater situation awareness without adding in fine motor control. As a compensation they now suck for most uses, at least until we Clan streak packs again. I'm just waiting for the crying about them then. I'd much prefer if streaks and SRM's could both be fired off a lock, but only travel in about a 30° arc off the centerline of fire and bone target. SRM's would be slow, and could be fired without targeting for terrible spread, SSRM's should do less damage and travel at least 2x as fast to the target, but can't be fired without a lock. The weapons shouldn't heat seek and still only hit if you've got a target that stays right in front of you.

Combat is nothing if not a whole lot of variables! This is a combat game. Thus variables are needed for it to be a better game.

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 April 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Combat is nothing if not a whole lot of variables! This is a combat game. Thus variables are needed for it to be a better game.

I couldn't agree more.

I used to hate even the mention of CoF mechanics, but now that I've see a game without them I really believe something is needed to add in a much larger skill gap/slower time to perfect convergence. The opposite is to totally rework the armor/internal values of the game or add in a much larger set of potential defensive options.

Edited by Prezimonto, 07 April 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[Roadkill]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

I still think, even as a support weapon, the preferred method should still be LoS, get your own locks, ESPECIALLY with CLAN LRMS. In fact, with them, due to their honor code, as part of the balance for their half weight launchers and no minimum range, I would say remove their indirect fire capability entirely and make them a LoS duelling version of the Inner Sphere LRM. In fact, removing the telemetry feeds and extra computers and such might help explain the lighter weight.

This is a really good idea. Me likey.

[SethAbercromby]

Corwin Vickers, on 06 April 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

Who said that LRMs should take no "skill" to use? I said they should be CHANGED.

Not really, you just had the same "LRMs suck because they are slow and everyone who boats them is an idiot" stance like everyone else. LRMs are a support-class, indirect fire weapon designed to suppress enemy movement and soften them up for the ones using direct-fire weapons that have to expose themselves to potential enemy fire. I'd even go as far to suggest increasing the missile speed to about 200 m/s but increasing the height of the firing arc and maybe a bit smarter in dodging obstacles on their ascent so I don't lose half of them to a hill because the target wasn't far enough away to launch them in a (about) 45° instead of the shorter range (about) 35°.

[Lykaon]

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

A weapon system that requires lots of users on your team using it to be effective, support mechs with NARC and TAG helping get locks, and that can be countered into uselessness by AMS and ECM is a useless system.

Any valid points you may have need to based off this above statement.

The current ECM mechanics are at the heart of the issue.It's near unto idiocy to just put in a few LRMs on a mixed utility build or for that matter why mixed utility builds don't really exist.

ECM is an LRM off switch for 1.5 tons 2 crits and require zero resources beyond that to use. No heat,no ammo no aiming it's magical anti missile goodness for the brainless with a 360m across umbrella.

If you put any LRMS on a mech you now need to pay the ECM tax.

A beagle proble is pretty mandatory or a light mech with ECM can park within 180m of you and turn those LRMs off.

But a beagle proble isn't much use against your targets if they are under ECM because that BAP won't be canceling an ECM that's actually within LRM effective range (180m-1000m)

So you need a TAG now as well.Now you can cancel one enemy ECM that gets within 120m of you and you can now fire directly at an ECM covered target if you TAG it and it's within 750m of you (reducing your range from 1000 to 750).

BAP and a TAG are pretty much mandatory costs of using LRMs because of the ECM mechanics.This means to even consider using LRMs you must have 2.5 tons 3 crits and a free energy hardpoint in addition to the actual LRM system and it's ammo.

But,what if the enemy has 2 ECM that get within 180m of you? Well ya screwed the BAP only cancels one ECM.

But...(they say)

you could slap on a NARC and cancel every ECM carrier that you can hit that gets close enough to disrupt you (and in the process spend the entire game chasing light mechs with a very slow missile that must hit them to briefly shut down the ECM so this is actually a laughable suggestion for an LRM carrier to even consider)

Under these circumstances we can at best counter the effects of 1 ECM with 120m of us (you may notice that the enemy ECM does retain 60m of effective jamming range even with a BAP installed as a countermeasure)

And we can target one ECM covered enemy if we can maintain a TAG marker (elliminating the indirect fire functionality of LRMs and requiring long term exsposure to attain locks)

Or we can only ever play in a premade that includes a dedicated LRM spotter and E-war mech and forgo the TAG but keep the BAP.

This is a pretty massive disparity between weapons systems.

So,I would go with looking at ECM alterations as a means of "buffing" LRMs by reducing the number of restrictions on the LRM weapon systems.

Edited by Lykaon, 10 April 2014 - 02:17 AM.

[SethAbercromby]

Lykaon, on 10 April 2014 - 02:14 AM, said:

So,I would go with looking at ECM alterations as a means of "buffing" LRMs by reducing the number of restrictions on the LRM weapon systems.

True. ECM has for a long time carried the benefits of about 4 modules for none of the drawbacks. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed for proper balance because ECM 'Mechs pretty much rule the battlefield right now because of their effectiveness.

[Corwin Vickers]

SethAbercromby, on 09 April 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

LRMs are a support-class, indirect fire weapon designed to suppress enemy movement and soften them up for the ones using direct-fire weapons that have to expose themselves to potential enemy fire.

Please supply evidence for the "support class weapon" other than the borked implementation in MWO which I am saying should be changed to the weapon system from the books and board game which was NOT a support weapon.

[SethAbercromby]

Corwin Vickers, on 11 April 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:

Please supply evidence for the "support class weapon" other than the borked implementation in MWO which I am saying should be changed to the weapon system from the books and board game which was NOT a support weapon.

A long range weapon that has indirect fire and hits instantly is kinda difficult to implement as a true support weapon but in actual real time combat, these missiles are the equivalent of mobile artillery which is by all means an purposes a support weapon.

[Joseph Mallan]

SethAbercromby, on 09 April 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Not really, you just had the same "LRMs suck because they are slow and everyone who boats them is an idiot" stance like everyone else. LRMs are a support-class, indirect fire weapon designed to suppress enemy movement and soften them up for the ones using direct-fire weapons that have to expose themselves to potential enemy fire. I'd even go as far to suggest increasing the missile speed to about 200 m/s but increasing the height of the firing arc and maybe a bit smarter in dodging obstacles on their ascent so I don't lose half of them to a hill because the target wasn't far enough away to launch them in a (about) 45° instead of the shorter range (about) 35°.

You mean like Artillery and Missile batteries are support class weapons??? Snipers are a supplement to a front line battalion are they Less effective killing that a grunt?

[SethAbercromby]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 April 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

You mean like Artillery and Missile batteries are support class weapons??? Snipers are a supplement to a front line battalion are they Less effective killing that a grunt?

A sniper is a direct-fire support, that is supposed to be effective at killing grunts. That's like comparing a AA to a howitzer and asking why it's less effective at destroying tanks. Mobile artillery are designed for suppressive fire, LRMs are the equivalent of mobile artillery in MWO and are unsurprisingly filling the same role. If you want to go somewhere with that sniper comparison, you are thinking of a PPC or Gauss which fill a different role compared to LRMs.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 11 April 2014 - 05:03 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

And suppressive fire is meant to kill those folks who don't take cover... which can be a lot of people if it is timed right.

Sniping is more effective killing leaders than grunts, it is a precision shot Grunts die by the dozen and a side can still win. kill the head and the fight folds.

[Khobai]

Quote

kill the head and the fight folds.

tell that to a hydra

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Can't tell anything to a Hydra, it lacks comprehension.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 April 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

Can't tell anything to a Hydra, it lacks comprehension.

Are we talking Hydra mythical beast? Or Hydra the villainous organization from Marvel Comics?

[Almond Brown]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'm not sure about fire and forget. I actually like that the missile firer has to maintain lock - it really helps differentiate missiles from direct fire weapons. I generally just carry a couple of direct fire weapons on my missile boats and fire those while I'm maintaining lock.

Maybe TAG could allow for fire and forget in order to help make it distinct from Narc?

(And yes, TAG should still break ECM. I only meant for it to drop the increased damage tracking bonus.

Doesn't the TAG bonus require it to stay on target until missile arrival? Having Fire and Forget missiles would make TAG, other than providing the "while on the target" added bonus, superfluous no? Or does the TAG now become a indirect fire option only with bonus only provided the shooter?

Edited by Almond Brown, 11 April 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 April 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

tell that to a hydra

Silly man. KILL the head(torch) not cut it off!

[Almond Brown]

Roadkill, on 05 April 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

I'd actually reverse that. If you have a spotter, then the firer doesn't need to maintain line of sight.

I like that a line of sight missile user has to maintain lock until they land, unlike direct fire weapons which can fire and then twist. It makes missiles more challenging to use well, and helps balance the fact that you can use them relatively easily from the fringes of a brawl without hitting your teammates (much). That poor guy trying to use PPCs from the fringe of the brawl has to watch out or he'll hit his buddies all the time.

Missiles aren't really meant to be primary weapons used 1 vs 1. They're support weapons in the sense that you use them to support teammates in a fight. Lob 'em over everyone's heads at the target. But they should do good damage in that role so that they're worth taking when compared to an AC/5 or PPC.

Agree with the top point. I think the main complaint, outside of ECM, is that a spotter gets a Lock, the shooter fires and if the spotter loses lock, I can pick up his lock for my duration, then the spotter can get it back and on and on until the missile finally arrived and not once during that whole phase of fired to target, did any one Mech keep a constant solo lock.

That is evident as well on the field when you watch a stray rack of missiles arc up, over and then someone gets a new lock on a lost original and the missiles veer back onto the now re-located target.

Fix that and the spotter using indirect lock with Fire and Forget missiles would be OK. But make the Spotter responsible for that Lock the whole way when indirect and the shooter responsible the whole way when using direct.

Edited by Almond Brown, 11 April 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[AdamBaines]

Ok. If anyone ever sees me start a new thread on buffing, nerfing, hitbox change proposals, something being OP, the current meta state or how a current meta needs to be changed/improved, or go on and on and on about how a new change was terrible/great, just put me out of my misery. I have obviously lost my priorities in life. I troll better then whine, and its not good trolling.

[Almond Brown]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 April 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

Can't tell anything to a Hydra, it lacks comprehension.

Does that mean that your average Forumite = Hydra?

Sorry couldn't resist.

AdamBaines, on 11 April 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Ok. If anyone ever sees me start a new thread on buffing, nerfing, hitbox change proposals, something being OP, the current meta state or how a current meta needs to be changed/improved, or go on and on and on about how a new change was terrible/great, just put me out of my misery. I have obviously lost my priorities in life. I troll better then whine, and its not good trolling.

I too am an Almond in a mostly nutty world.

[Lykaon]

SethAbercromby, on 11 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

A sniper is a direct-fire support, that is supposed to be effective at killing grunts. That's like comparing a AA to a howitzer and asking why it's less effective at destroying tanks. Mobile artillery are designed for suppressive fire, LRMs are the equivalent of mobile artillery in MWO and are unsurprisingly filling the same role. If you want to go somewhere with that sniper comparison, you are thinking of a PPC or Gauss which fill a different role compared to LRMs.

Now here is the funny thing about this discussion.

LRMs are excellent as support weapons used as mobile artillery.

Back in closed beta LRM carriers were one of the more reliable ways to suppress the (at the time king of direct fire damage) Gausscats.

A gausskitty would try to find a nice sniping point and land kill after kill to counter this you rain volley after volley of LRMs on them or if you had the luxury of a spotter KILL THEM with LRMs.

LRMs should be excellent at area denial and suppression and should be capable of killing a target as a stand alone weapon system or the threat of area denial is meaningless.

There is a reason mobile artillery doesn't fire jellybeans.

If mobile artillery never produced significant damage it would be ignored and ineffective.LRMs must possess killing capacity to validate their use.