111 replies to this topic

[Apnu]

Merrick, on 19 May 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

I am all for a less toxic forum, but asking modern society to not be cynical is like trying to explain space flight to a 4th century catholic, it's just going to end badly.

Its not cynicism, its plain trolling most of the time. PGI haters aren't interested in discussion. They want to complain and will only accept others who complain as they do and agree with their complaints 100%. Everybody else gets scorn and derision. Its comedy when two haters start flaming each other.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Dymlos2003, on 19 May 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

You just need to stop being so hostile and negative everywhere you go. Abnu and I were having a nice convo about things.

I don't even care about LRMS I use them and know how to use them. C3 is a piece of equipment in BT lore so trying to find a way to add it in to MWO. Adds customization options while hindering boating. Win win to me.

Actually, it adds another tax to use LRMs, and hurts single launchers just as much as boating. If not more so.

Are you expecting everyone to run around with C3 computers on the off shot chance someone has LRMs?

Are you expecting just the LRM boat to run the C3 which enables anything? Basically making it another tax like BAP and TAG?

Have you thought this through at all?

Apnu, on 19 May 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Its not cynicism, its plain trolling most of the time. PGI haters aren't interested in discussion. They want to complain and will only accept others who complain as they do and agree with their complaints 100%. Everybody else gets scorn and derision. Its comedy when two haters start flaming each other.

Uh no, it's very much cynicism, you can go read every single post I've made on these LRM threads. I am more than happy to explain how to deal with LRMs to people who want to learn.

Unfortunately that is NOT what most of the threads are. They are calls for nerfs and a lot of whining. And even when some nice soul does try to help them, they continue to whine because it's just too damn hard for them.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Corbon Zackery, on 19 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

The easy way to some what fix it is to split of missile hard points between SRM and LRM. Also limit the amount of ammo that is stored to 4 tons or less.

So using a Stalker as a example.
2 SRM missile hard points
2 LRM Hard points.


Same with theBLR-1s

A1 would have:
4 LRM hardpoints
2 SRM hardpoints

This diversities the build more and forces LRM boats to use the heavy LRM 20. Rather than Spam shooting 6 LRM 5 link fired.

I would also add a mode selector for direct and indirect fire.

The missile angles are also screwed up when spotted by a light. Downward slop of the missiles ignores most terrain.

People freak out about my Shadow Hawk with 3 LRM 10's. If I had one LRM 5, they would still freak out.

I can be the only person with LRMs on my team, and it never fails at least once per match "OH GOD LRMS ARE SO OVERPOWERED", when I maybe landed one shot on that person right at the end.

It's all psychological, people need to get over it and learn how to play the game.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 19 May 2014 - 01:11 PM.

[Apnu]

Corbon Zackery, on 19 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

The easy way to some what fix it is to split of missile hard points between SRM and LRM. Also limit the amount of ammo that is stored to 4 tons or less.

So using a Stalker as a example.
2 SRM missile hard points
2 LRM Hard points.


Same with theBLR-1s

A1 would have:
4 LRM hardpoints
2 SRM hardpoints

This diversities the build more and forces LRM boats to use the heavy LRM 20. Rather than Spam shooting 6 LRM 5 link fired.

I would also add a mode selector for direct and indirect fire.

The missile angles are also screwed up when spotted by a light. Downward slop of the missiles ignores most terrain.

This is interesting. It would bring some build balance to the game which I'm all for. But I don't think PGI will go for it. They've stated many times and have been very consistent that they want people to be able to customize the heck out of mechs. Which means to me, there will be players who will put all their eggs in one weapons system basket.

That's not how I run my mechs. I've always got a backup weapon system that's viable for when I run out of ammo. But that's the reality of what PGI wants to allow us players to have, a pretty wacky customization job.

Personally, I'd love a game of stock mechs. I really would. I enjoy working in those kinds of limitations.

[Apnu]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Uh no, it's very much cynicism, you can go read every single post I've made on these LRM threads. I am more than happy to explain how to deal with LRMs to people who want to learn.

Unfortunately that is NOT what most of the threads are. They are calls for nerfs and a lot of whining. And even when some nice soul does try to help them, they continue to whine because it's just too damn hard for them.

I didn't mean you specifically, I was talking in general about the trolls that hang out here. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

[Dymlos2003]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Actually, it adds another tax to use LRMs, and hurts single launchers just as much as boating. If not more so.

Are you expecting everyone to run around with C3 computers on the off shot chance someone has LRMs?

Are you expecting just the LRM boat to run the C3 which enables anything? Basically making it another tax like BAP and TAG?

Have you thought this through at all?

See the hostility in your posts? Jeez no wonder no one takes you seriously. You can still direct lock on without C3. Without the triangles on the HUD people would have to actually have to be aware of their surroundings and look at their Radar to see if there are any enemies nearby. If people want to share info then C3 is kinda required yes?
No I haven't thought it out because it was an idea that literally popped into my head when reading this thread.

Apnu, on 19 May 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

This is interesting. It would bring some build balance to the game which I'm all for. But I don't think PGI will go for it. They've stated many times and have been very consistent that they want people to be able to customize the heck out of mechs. Which means to me, there will be players who will put all their eggs in one weapons system basket.

That's not how I run my mechs. I've always got a backup weapon system that's viable for when I run out of ammo. But that's the reality of what PGI wants to allow us players to have, a pretty wacky customization job.

Personally, I'd love a game of stock mechs. I really would. I enjoy working in those kinds of limitations.

Eh adding missile specific hardpoints would hinder diversity. Same problem with the sized hardpoint idea.

[-Halcyon-]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 May 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

My suggestion? Get your team to grow a pair, hump around the ridge and kill them. LRMboats are notoriously ineffective at CQB.

It's a pug.
That's like herding cats.

[Wolfways]

Dymlos2003, on 19 May 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

You just need to stop being so hostile and negative everywhere you go. Abnu and I were having a nice convo about things.

I don't even care about LRMS I use them and know how to use them. C3 is a piece of equipment in BT lore so trying to find a way to add it in to MWO. Adds customization options while hindering boating. Win win to me.

PGI don't care about lore. If they did we'd have Guardian ECM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Halcyon201, on 19 May 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Remove linked target data for locking.
That means only lasing and NARCs will let LRMs target and track without line of sight.

Getting red triangles popping up every 5 seconds from friendly targeting when no lasing is being used is pointless if a TAG is also in the game.

It's frustrating when you're taking cover from LRM spam and a light runs around you with no TAG and yet missiles are hitting you from 800m away with no line of sight.
This isn't balanced.

Flaming oblivion, on 19 May 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

If this were to happen they'd have to make it so ecm didn't lose lock.

I'd like to have LRMs where locking isn't required.

[Dymlos2003]

Praetor Shepard, on 19 May 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

I'd like to have LRMs where locking isn't required.

You can dumb fire them you know

[Bishop Steiner]

Halcyon201, on 19 May 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

It's a pug.
That's like herding cats.

I PUG the vast majority of the time. I watch them pucker up and turtle as much as the next guy. Carry harder. LRMs are only OP because people let them be. Not the Devs fault the majority of people refuse to even remotely try to coordinate (yes, I know, VOIP, blah blah blah.... most people who won't try to work together now, won't try with VOIP either, they'll just whine cry and make excuses over VOIP instead of typing them). Sorry you can't "balance" a game around PUG behavior.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Dymlos2003, on 19 May 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

You can dumb fire them you know

Indeed, but with the slow speed that's a waste on a moving target.

[n r g]

Halcyon201, on 19 May 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Remove linked target data for locking.
That means only lasing and NARCs will let LRMs target and track without line of sight.

Getting red triangles popping up every 5 seconds from friendly targeting when no lasing is being used is pointless if a TAG is also in the game.

It's frustrating when you're taking cover from LRM spam and a light runs around you with no TAG and yet missiles are hitting you from 800m away with no line of sight.
This isn't balanced.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dymlos2003, on 19 May 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Eh adding missile specific hardpoints would hinder diversity. Same problem with the sized hardpoint idea.

You say that like it's a bad thing. And yet, universally, in every instance, the very "variety" people want, is the number one barrier to weapon balancing and role warfare. Has been since MW2. Was epitomized in MW3. Because a weapon that is perfectly balanced when in 1-2, becomes Meta when boated. No one, and I mean no one, could have claimed that the mechs running around with a single PPC was OP. Add 4 of them, though and BAM. Problem.

This diversity you talk about never actually EXISTED in Btech, and universally broke MW. (Yes you had rules for making new designs and modifying them in Btech. And you had constraints to limit it, too, that most people conveniently overlooked). What we have in MW is Inner Sphere mechs with MORE diversity than OmniMechs. Diversity is the very thing that made Omnis so powerful. IS mechs, by and large are designed around specific roles, with MINOR modifications, in most cases, based around those roles. Yes, you had some extreme examples (in a universe of rebuilt patchwork mechs, it was to be expected, and hey, you got people who do stuff like cram small block v8s onto motorcycles today. Though it seldom is a good idea, and NEVER practical)

What you don't see is people converting Paladin Self Propelled Artillery to be MBTs. Or taking a Navy SEAL's DPV and mounting a 120mm Rhinemetal smoothbore to it. Yet that is exactly what you got people doing with Mech in MWO.

[Scratx]

Tch. The only time I can remember recently where I was stomped by LRMs mercilessly it was a NARC Jenner plus 3 LRM boats in a premade doing it on Forest Colony. And I was in a Battlemaster too far from effective cover once I was tagged by the beacon.

Other than that (happened once), I take some lumps now and then but rarely die due to LRMs (either killed by or largely due to damage from).

[A banana in the tailpipe]

lockwoodx, on 19 May 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

The same thing goes for tarting PPC/AC users.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 May 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

How is this any different than a pre-made of PPC/UAC5 Victors?

If you're going to make a comment about players being derps, it helps if you actually read what you're commenting on first son. Thanks for providing a perfect example of a "thick-skulled" reader I referred to in the opening to my original post. I kinda feel sorry for the people who liked your post now. It's like watching the blind leading the blind.

Edited by lockwoodx, 19 May 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[Juice-Box Hero]

I rarely play an lrm boat because I get bored easily. I would like to say as another person already replied, if you are complaining about lrms and you are getting wrecked by lrms all the time.

You need to make your movements on the battlefield with this threat in mind. As far as I'm concerned, they are working as intended and they are a necessary part of the battlefield to keep things interesting. Please do not change a thing.

On a different note, I would like to see NARC cancel the ECM effect for the NARC'd mech only. The ecm is a powerful tool and right now has no counter other than another ecm or death. The NARC should be the countermeasure against the ECM. As it stands, I can't even tell if I've hit or missed a target under ECM protection.

[Captain Stiffy]

I am struggling to evaluate LRM's in the current meta. On one hand an LRM 50 is not that hard to mount and will blast almost anyone apart especially if you have TAG and advanced target decay. On the other hand the weapon is completely useless in many scenarios and losing your team or positioning badly as a slow LRM boat can easily spell your demise.

The speed and damage seem to be in a decent place but I've always felt like it's going to be REALLY hard to balance due to the additive nature of LRM rack damage. They removed the AWESOME AND BAD ASS twisty Artemis core-you-instantly missiles which was totally necessary and totally a shame at the same time.

Some players are always going to hate LRM's and want them nerfed. They don't use them, they don't do well in the initial exchange when it gets missile heavy, they don't understand how bad it really sucks to not have an ECM on your team and how to appropriately strategize, they aren't good at taking cover, and of the above or maybe none of them.

Many other steps have been taken to bring LRM's in line such as the launchers themselves... the ONLY mech I know of that can mount an LRM 20 and fire all 20 missiles from that launcher at once is the Banshee. Everything else spurts out blasts of missiles now. Even the A1 which was a staple LRM boat for a long time can't do it anymore.

The fact is that long range missiles are a staple of BattleTech. IT GETS WAY WORSE TRUST ME. If they ever add long toms or ARROW the QQ is going to be curious, magnificent, epic and special.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 19 May 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Praetor Shepard, on 19 May 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Indeed, but with the slow speed that's a waste on a moving target.

It's pretty decent for choke points such as Terra Therma's core if you're on the outside.

[Tincan Nightmare]

I wouldn't mind seeing Indirect fire get limited to just using TAG or NARC, but only if it came with a rework to ECM (long overdue), and a buff to LRM's to make them competitive against PPC's and ballistics.