104 replies to this topic

[Adiuvo]

Sephlock, on 21 June 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

snip

LRMs are support weapons. They are auto-aim. They are not (and should not be) able to go toe-to-toe with directly fired, aimed, weaponry. They're meant to enhance the damage on a target that your friendly's are currently engaged with, which they do just fine at the moment.

This isn't going to go anywhere if you exaggerate. I never said that LRMs shouldn't cause some visual distraction. It should be annoying. It shouldn't be crippling. The entire screen was filled with LRM explosions and the crosshair was jittered up and down to the point where it's pointless for actual aiming. Together these prevent any fighting back at all except for blindly alpha-striking in the red square's general direction.

[Satan n stuff]

Sephlock, on 21 June 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

Does this look smart to you?

No, but it's a good way to go.

[Sephlock]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

LRMs are support weapons. They are auto-aim. They are not (and should not be) able to go toe-to-toe with directly fired, aimed, weaponry. They're meant to enhance the damage on a target that your friendly's are currently engaged with, which they do just fine at the moment.

I'll leave it to one of the military veterans on the forums to explain to you why "support weapon" =/= long distance featherduster, and hopefully there will be a WW2 buff to explain to you that even artillery and anti aircraft guns can be leveled and used to devastating effect against armor.

Quote

This isn't going to go anywhere if you exaggerate. I never said that LRMs shouldn't cause some visual distraction. It should be annoying. It shouldn't be crippling.

You're the one that's exaggerating.

Quote

The entire screen was filled with LRM explosions and the crosshair was jittered up and down to the point where it's pointless for actual aiming. Together these prevent any fighting back at all except for blindly alpha-striking in the red square's general direction.

Use the center of your screen, the fact that you know where the enemy mechs are and where they should be, the red targetting boxes and "magic doritos", the fact that the crosshairs turn red, THE FACT THAT YOUR MECH CAN STILL MOVE, your radar, and... I don't know.. piloting ability?

Yes, it can be disorienting when you get caught flat footed and LURM bukkaked.

If LRMs are to fit into your idea of a 'support weapon" why is that a bad thing? Your ideal role seems to be more akin to the current role of the flamer (yes it technically raises enemy heat, but not to any appreciable degree, enemies can just ignore it and shoot back at you).

[Adiuvo]

Sephlock, on 21 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

snip

I don't care about what military veterans say about how support weapons should be. This is a video game.

If I'm the one exaggerating you wouldn't feel the need to put words in my mouth.

What you're suggesting is alpha'ing them in the face. Very useful. Due to the degree of visual distractions LRMs produce you have no idea of the orientation of the enemy mechs, if they're shielding, what side is present to you, how much to lead, etc.. 'Piloting skill' doesn't fix this. You need vision of the enemy to make these assessments.

That's not my ideal role for LRMs nor have I ever gave any indication of that (this is what I mean by you exaggerating). I already said that they fulfill the support fire role quite well in terms of damage. The only problem I have with them is the shake and the explosion visuals. Scale these back and I would have zero complaints besides that the targeting mechanic takes zero skill, but that's not likely to be changed anytime soon.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Satan n stuff, on 21 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

No, but it's a good way to go.

Royal Family, the palace, the entire defense force, all the ammo, hangars, salvaged mechs

in exchange for a few LRM launchers and a Nova Cat arm. The Vulture pilot killed off maybe 3 tons of armor?

I dont think that was a good way to go lol.

[Wolfways]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

LRMs are support weapons.

No they aren't. Well i guess they are in MWO but in BT they aren't, and if PGI is going to do that to them they are invalidating stock mechs like the Mad Dog.

[Khobai]

LRM impulse needs to be lowered to around .11

Simple as that.

[Aresye]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don't care about what military veterans say about how support weapons should be. This is a video game.

If I'm the one exaggerating you wouldn't feel the need to put words in my mouth.

What you're suggesting is alpha'ing them in the face. Very useful. Due to the degree of visual distractions LRMs produce you have no idea of the orientation of the enemy mechs, if they're shielding, what side is present to you, how much to lead, etc.. 'Piloting skill' doesn't fix this. You need vision of the enemy to make these assessments.

That's not my ideal role for LRMs nor have I ever gave any indication of that (this is what I mean by you exaggerating). I already said that they fulfill the support fire role quite well in terms of damage. The only problem I have with them is the shake and the explosion visuals. Scale these back and I would have zero complaints besides that the targeting mechanic takes zero skill, but that's not likely to be changed anytime soon.

It's all or nothing in my eyes.

Right now missiles are the only weapons that cause motion blur when hit, in addition to the fire/smoke effects.

ACs and PPCs cause shake, but there's no blur, allowing people to fight back at least to some degree.

I kinda miss MW4 where even lasers caused some sort of impulse. After all, you're losing slabs of armor plating which unbalances the mech, and it's very common in lore for even mechs to fall over after losing too much armor at once when the gyro fails to stabilize the mech. Not saying MWO should take it that far, but at least some form of impulse for lasers would be nice so poptarts don't go, "LOL laser fire."

But the motion blur...yeah.

Either add motion blur for every weapon with an impulse, or take it out of the game entirely. It makes no sense that a single LRM5 causes your pilot's vision to blur, yet an AC20 doesn't, despite the cockpit shake being more severe.

[Adiuvo]

Wolfways, on 21 June 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

No they aren't. Well i guess they are in MWO but in BT they aren't, and if PGI is going to do that to them they are invalidating stock mechs like the Mad Dog.

The lock on mechanic kind of necessitates it though.

It'd be cool if they ditched lock on entirely without stuff like NARC and instead put in some kind of ground targeter and sped up the missiles, but I doubt that will ever happen.

[Sephlock]

Khobai, on 21 June 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

LRM impulse needs to be lowered to around .11

Simple as that.

First they came for the LRMs, but you didn't say anything because you didn't like them.

Then they came for the Autocannons, but you didn't say anything because you hate fun.

Then they came for the PPCs, and there was no one left to say anything because you ruined the game and everyone left.

[Hillslam]

Khobai, on 21 June 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

LRM impulse needs to be lowered to around .11

Simple as that.

Yup. Simple. No BS. This.

[Wolfways]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

The lock on mechanic kind of necessitates it though.

It'd be cool if they ditched lock on entirely without stuff like NARC and instead put in some kind of ground targeter and sped up the missiles, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Like permanent dumb firing? That would suck lol
With the speed mechs move it isn't feasible to use such a slow speed projectile without a lock system, unless the weapon is very short ranged and it's easy to hit the target (AC20, SRM)

[Koniks]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

The lock on mechanic kind of necessitates it though.

It'd be cool if they ditched lock on entirely without stuff like NARC and instead put in some kind of ground targeter and sped up the missiles, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I'd be satisfied if lock could be achieved only with LOS, TAG, or NARC. Indirect launches without those should be deadfire and require manual aim. I think Koniving posted a video of how this works with mortars in another game.

They could include a visual aiming aid, if necessary. Something like what the X-Com reboot uses for grenades and rockets.

[Sephlock]

Hillslam, on 21 June 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Yup. Simple. No BS. This.

Flamers also need to generate less heat.

[KGB GRU]

Lyoto Machida, on 21 June 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

The fact that LRMs were even hitting you means you already made a mistake prior to that.

Ugh people like you. Ill agree OP that the screen flash is a bit excessive on that second one.

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

No he's not. Look at his arrow. He was attempting to retreat during that.

What probably happened was that there was the normal corner fight taking place with Jun at the front, and eventually the enemy team pushed over.

In any case this doesn't really matter. It's that he was effectively unable to fight back during that engagement due to the explosions and cockpit shake. He wasn't extremely out of position or anything, just in a situation where the enemy team pushed which happens to everyone. That kind of 'mistake' doesn't warrant having your mech perma-stunned from one LRM boat.

If only we had smoke modules:

[Mystere]

Sephlock, on 21 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'll leave it to one of the military veterans on the forums to explain to you why "support weapon" =/= long distance featherduster, and hopefully there will be a WW2 buff to explain to you that even artillery and anti aircraft guns can be leveled and used to devastating effect against armor.

Did someone just ask about the German 8.8cm Flak gun?

Sephlock, on 21 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Yes, it can be disorienting when you get caught flat footed and LURM bukkaked.

Tsk! Tsk! There's that word again. Should I show you another picture?

Adiuvo, on 21 June 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don't care about what military veterans say about how support weapons should be. This is a video game.

What is so wrong about including a bit of combat realism in a video game about -- ahem -- combat?

Edited by Mystere, 21 June 2014 - 12:42 PM.

[Sephlock]

Mystere, on 21 June 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Did someone just ask about the German 8.8cm Flak gun?

YES!

Quote

Tsk! Tsk! There's that word again. Should I show you another picture?

YES!

Quote

What is so wrong about including a bit of combat realism in a video game about -- ahem -- combat?

The point is not to establish a logical chain, but rather for him to get what he wants at the expense of everyone else (including himself, although he doesn't realize it).

[Shakespeare]

Koniving, on 21 June 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

You haven't seen the earthquake simulator.

incidentally, that brawl looked way more fun than what I'm used to now.

I wonder what moved us away from that sort of furball? Was it the jumping assaults? The working PPCs? ECM? Seismic?

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 21 June 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Either add motion blur for every weapon with an impulse ...

I would be ecstatic when that happens, and the resulting QQ would be