Ultimatum X, on 19 May 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:
Mostly it's because no issue is black and white.
Coordinated teams and smart players can foil LRM use.
PUG teams are at the mercy of a completely random Matchmaker that might put them not only against a premade lance, but an enemy that has more/all the ECM, all/more LRMs.
At least half of the complaints about LRMs probably come from sheer frustration of two things:
1) When enemies you can't see can target you, so you can't "fight back".
2) Screen blur & cockpit shake is wildly out of wack.
I imagine if they toned down #2 we'd see much fewer complaints overall.
#1 probably requires a total overhaul of indirect fire, artemis, TAG, NARC & ECM mechanics.
True, all valid and true though I will be interested in seeing what happens if a team like A.C.E.S. continues to use LRMs against a more direct fire team like most are currently.
Ultimatum X, on 19 May 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:
You feel bothered that a 70 ton mech can run the loadout of a 50 ton mech?
It's not even an optimal loadout for the Cataphract, and isn't taking advantage of both ballistic slots.
Yep, I do because when one Mech can question taking another and render that Mech non-viable, I think that is a bad deal. Sure, the Cataphract is 20 tons more but has too many benefits compared to the same build on a Hunchback-4G/H.
I could go further with detail if desired, for now I am saving it for a future topic when the Tournament is over but will if asked for
Ultimatum X, on 19 May 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:
Which part are you upset about here, that the AC 5 has as much health as the MLAS or that the MLAS has as much health as the AC 5? (If it's the first one, we disagree. If it's the second one, we agree).
Personally I think weapon health should be based on number of critical slots and/or tonnage of the weapon.
I think a MLAS should have lower health than a LLAS which should have lower health than a LPL/PPC.
Like you the second.
I agree WH should be based on crit slot though there might be a few exceptions like the Gauss, it has the same slots as an AC10 but less WH already.
Sephlock, on 19 May 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:
I agree. They have been nerfed and nerfed and nerfed WAYYYYYY too much.
It should get removed.
Just to be clear because last time I said this it confused people.
I have no idea what part of the game Screen Blur refers to here.
Cockpit Shake can mean two things.
1 - The HUD shake produced when Jumping.
2 - The shake produced when people are hit by certain weapons.
When I say removed, I refer to #2.
Mordin Ashe, on 19 May 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:
You don't like it? I am at top elo bracket with heavy, assaults and light Mechs and this is basicaly all I get in matches. All in all, if ballistics get recoil and PPCs get charging just as gausses do, we will have balance rather fast. Add 3/3/3/3 into the mix and whoa, we may actualy have a balanced game!
EDIT: Anyway, nice and constructive post, +1 well deserved, keep it up!
I don't think PPCs need Gauss charging and I have no idea what this recoil is. Not all that is needed for balance though. The problem I have with 3/3/3/3 is that it offers not other alternatives and is too restrictive, I think doing community tools that allow us to balance our matches would be better.
But over 2 years, I only know 2 things I actually had an affect at making happen.
Aresye, on 19 May 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:
The reason you don't see many LRMs in competitive play is because teams are actually able to organize and prepare for it, which more or less completely voids LRMs as a viable weapon because you KNOW for a fact that any smart team is going to stick together, have plentiful amounts of ECM mechs, and possibly have AMS on every mech.
LRMs are pretty much only viable in the pug scene. They suck as a weapon and only work when you get matched with a random team that doesn't have ECM or plentiful amounts of AMS to defend against it.
Aside from that, LRMs also give your opponent time to react and protect their weak sides, and any damage that is dealt is spread over multiple areas. Very poor choice when you're trying to minimize TTK for each opponent, which is the entire point of competitive drops. Kill as fast as possible to get the advantage in numbers.
LRMs will pretty much never be seen in tournaments like this unless they do a complete overhaul of LRMs, NARC, TAG, ECM, and trajectory.
*EDIT*
It's also worth noting that there will always be a meta. No matter how balanced things can get, there will ALWAYS be a build designed around minimum TTK, and the competitive scene will use it.
Yes, I know I am not top tier.
And yet, somehow, even though I PUG, I have gone up against teams with ECM, AMS, know how to prepare for it and still done consistant damage because there is more to LRM use than I hear people speak about. My LRM Griffins and Hunchback-4J did the same results in Kills, Assists and Damage as the 2 Awesomes used by the A.C.E.S. in the video provided here. Many reasons behind how they work is why I recommend LRM Mediums over Assaults.
But I do agree with some of what you said, there needs to be an overhaul regarding ECM and all its counters.
Karl Streiger, on 19 May 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:
And if you do - you have to rework the indirect fire mode for LRMs. Its to precise. Must be more a kind of areal denial weapon / light artillery weapon - for disturbing not killing.
Because when you nerf LRMs simple - they are even more useless for direct fire.
Its a hard call - and i don't believe that somebody has the guts to make it work
That is Swarm LRMs that come when the Clans come though I do not know if PGI is coding them. I do think the difference between LRMs from MW2 and MWO is very interesting.
Edited by Merchant, 20 May 2014 - 06:10 PM.
6
Would've been really surprised to see the JR7-K in competitive matches. That 4th module slot just doesn't make it a match for the D or F...
