93 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Smoke artillery rounds, module that will impede LOS for X seconds over a certain area.

[MadcatX]

We need light IS mech pilots with some common sense to go after the easiest target on the field: A lazy LRM boat pilot behind enemy lines. Worst case scenario is that you attract enemy attention, but then again, that's less mechs that are concentrating on your main force and maybe get a few heavy/assaults to play "chase the light mech". Mind you this is easier said then done, no question about that.

Damn shame that, although they exist, good light pilots are in short supply.

[Jakob Knight]

Carrioncrows, on 20 August 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Until LRM's are reworked then it's a required system.

Look at how many counters ECM has, that's how you know it's over powered.

Look at how many counters LRM's have and (we still need more!) that's how you know they are over powered.

As mentioned numerous times they have painted themselves into a corner on missiles and ECM systems. So until they get the time to rework the system and they aren't going to get that time considering their engineers are going to be tied up for the next Year+ trying to get Community Warfare to us.

So yeah, when they redo missiles and ECM, then we can address the chaff module at that time.

Until then it's needed.

Besides i don't use Artillery or airstrikes, I play this game for "MECH" combat.

You are quite incorrect, and your comparison between LRMs and ECM is flawed. LRMs are a weapon system requiring quite alot of tonnage, generates heat when used, and with a limited combat lifespan (ammunition). Further, they require pilot skill and a second game mechanic (lock-on) that can be blocked to be used. As well, LRMs have suffered 'adjustments' that have at times left them incapable of being effective weapons. ECM, by contrast, is a team-support system requiring next to no tonnage, no heat when used, infinite combat lifespan, requires no pilot skill nor any other game mechanic to be used. As well, ECM has -never- been altered, let alone in such a way as to be incapable.

Further, you allude we need more LRM counters than we already have. Aside from this being a personal opinion, it is also logically wrong. No other weapon in the game as -any- counters beyond simply avoiding line-of-sight. LRMs not only have this restrictions now (with the Radar Deprivation module), but a host of others that have already been noted. To say that we need more for this one weapons system would infer that we need more counters for -all- weapons in the game, as it is clear LRMs are no more deadly and quite a bit less than other weapons in the game.

Also, if you are basing your determination of what is overpowered on how many counters are in a game to a system, you are clearly using a flawed system. By your logic, multiple AC/20s, ERPPC/Gauss combos, and having 24 MGs on a mech would only be 'slightly' or 'not' overpowered at all because there are few or no more restrictions on these than any other weapons in the game. Yet, it is clear these have been considered far, far more OP than LRMs every have been. An objective evaluation of LRMs, in fact, proves them to be, if anything, underpowered weapons. To illustrate, set your mech on a hill in sight of three Dire Wolves with LRM loadouts. Have them begin firing. Count up the number of hits and the time it takes to kill you. Then, do the same thing with those same Dire Wolves armed with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s, ERPPCs, or ERLLs. If the time to kill you is greater with LRMs, then you know the LRMs are not OP, but in fact, underperforming.

All weapons have their abilities. Direct fire weapons have their pinpoint damage, flexibility in being long,medium,and short-ranged, accuracy, and speed of damage, while LRMs have indirect fire ability and....well, that's it, really. The requirement to hold a lock counterbalances the help the game gives the firer in keeping the rounds on target (though if a person can't aim with direct-fire weapons, they won't be able to keep the crosshairs on target to maintain lock, either), and the huge minimum range wherein LRMs become dead weight certainly counters any other perceived advantages, not to mention that they remain the only weapon with counter-equipment purposely-put in to stop or reduce their effectiveness.

So, no. Until we get Reflective Armor and Rubber Armor that gives immunity to Lasers and Projectile weapons in the same way ECM+AMS+Radar Deprivation does to LRMs, we do -not- need more counters. If anything, any reasonable person would say LRMs are where they should be, or need to be buffed.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 21 August 2014 - 02:51 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Jakob Knight, on 21 August 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

You are quite incorrect, and your comparison between LRMs and ECM is flawed. LRMs are a weapon system requiring quite alot of tonnage, generates heat when used, and with a limited combat lifespan (ammunition). Further, they require pilot skill and a second game mechanic (lock-on) that can be blocked to be used. As well, LRMs have suffered 'adjustments' that have at times left them incapable of being effective weapons. ECM, by contrast, is a team-support system requiring next to no tonnage, no heat when used, infinite combat lifespan, requires no pilot skill nor any other game mechanic to be used. As well, ECM has -never- been altered, let alone in such a way as to be incapable.

Further, you allude we need more LRM counters than we already have. Aside from this being a personal opinion, it is also logically wrong. No other weapon in the game as -any- counters beyond simply avoiding line-of-sight. LRMs not only have this restrictions now (with the Radar Deprivation module), but a host of others that have already been noted. To say that we need more for this one weapons system would infer that we need more counters for -all- weapons in the game, as it is clear LRMs are no more deadly and quite a bit less than other weapons in the game.

Also, if you are basing your determination of what is overpowered on how many counters are in a game to a system, you are clearly using a flawed system. By your logic, multiple AC/20s, ERPPC/Gauss combos, and having 24 MGs on a mech would only be 'slightly' or 'not' overpowered at all because there are few or no more restrictions on these than any other weapons in the game. Yet, it is clear these have been considered far, far more OP than LRMs every have been. An objective evaluation of LRMs, in fact, proves them to be, if anything, underpowered weapons. To illustrate, set your mech on a hill in sight of three Dire Wolves with LRM loadouts. Have them begin firing. Count up the number of hits and the time it takes to kill you. Then, do the same thing with those same Dire Wolves armed with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s, ERPPCs, or ERLLs. If the time to kill you is greater with LRMs, then you know the LRMs are not OP, but in fact, underperforming.

All weapons have their abilities. Direct fire weapons have their pinpoint damage, flexibility in being long,medium,and short-ranged, accuracy, and speed of damage, while LRMs have indirect fire ability and....well, that's it, really. The requirement to hold a lock counterbalances the help the game gives the firer in keeping the rounds on target (though if a person can't aim with direct-fire weapons, they won't be able to keep the crosshairs on target to maintain lock, either), and the huge minimum range wherein LRMs become dead weight certainly counters any other perceived advantages, not to mention that they remain the only weapon with counter-equipment purposely-put in to stop or reduce their effectiveness.

So, no. Until we get Reflective Armor and Rubber Armor that gives immunity to Lasers and Projectile weapons in the same way ECM+AMS+Radar Deprivation does to LRMs, we do -not- need more counters. If anything, any reasonable person would say LRMs are where they should be, or need to be buffed.

As stupid as the entire premise of this thread is, it was worth it to have a good post like this.

[o0Marduk0o]

Carrioncrows, on 19 August 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

Because the Chaff is a module that lasts for 5-6 seconds and during those 5-6 seconds I certainly don't want to have to worry about "ALL lock on missile weapons" It buys me a window.

Not a big window but a window of opportunity to escape, press the charge or just plain ol not get nailed by a XXXX ton of LRM's for a few seconds.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Chaff wasn't meant to be used while moving. It was planned as a static effect.

[Carrioncrows]

Jakob Knight, on 21 August 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

You are quite incorrect, and your comparison between LRMs and ECM is flawed. LRMs are a weapon system requiring quite alot of tonnage, generates heat when used, and with a limited combat lifespan (ammunition). Further, they require pilot skill and a second game mechanic (lock-on) that can be blocked to be used. As well, LRMs have suffered 'adjustments' that have at times left them incapable of being effective weapons. ECM, by contrast, is a team-support system requiring next to no tonnage, no heat when used, infinite combat lifespan, requires no pilot skill nor any other game mechanic to be used. As well, ECM has -never- been altered, let alone in such a way as to be incapable.

Further, you allude we need more LRM counters than we already have. Aside from this being a personal opinion, it is also logically wrong. No other weapon in the game as -any- counters beyond simply avoiding line-of-sight. LRMs not only have this restrictions now (with the Radar Deprivation module), but a host of others that have already been noted. To say that we need more for this one weapons system would infer that we need more counters for -all- weapons in the game, as it is clear LRMs are no more deadly and quite a bit less than other weapons in the game.

Also, if you are basing your determination of what is overpowered on how many counters are in a game to a system, you are clearly using a flawed system. By your logic, multiple AC/20s, ERPPC/Gauss combos, and having 24 MGs on a mech would only be 'slightly' or 'not' overpowered at all because there are few or no more restrictions on these than any other weapons in the game. Yet, it is clear these have been considered far, far more OP than LRMs every have been. An objective evaluation of LRMs, in fact, proves them to be, if anything, underpowered weapons. To illustrate, set your mech on a hill in sight of three Dire Wolves with LRM loadouts. Have them begin firing. Count up the number of hits and the time it takes to kill you. Then, do the same thing with those same Dire Wolves armed with Gauss Rifles, UAC/20s, ERPPCs, or ERLLs. If the time to kill you is greater with LRMs, then you know the LRMs are not OP, but in fact, underperforming.

All weapons have their abilities. Direct fire weapons have their pinpoint damage, flexibility in being long,medium,and short-ranged, accuracy, and speed of damage, while LRMs have indirect fire ability and....well, that's it, really. The requirement to hold a lock counterbalances the help the game gives the firer in keeping the rounds on target (though if a person can't aim with direct-fire weapons, they won't be able to keep the crosshairs on target to maintain lock, either), and the huge minimum range wherein LRMs become dead weight certainly counters any other perceived advantages, not to mention that they remain the only weapon with counter-equipment purposely-put in to stop or reduce their effectiveness.

So, no. Until we get Reflective Armor and Rubber Armor that gives immunity to Lasers and Projectile weapons in the same way ECM+AMS+Radar Deprivation does to LRMs, we do -not- need more counters. If anything, any reasonable person would say LRMs are where they should be, or need to be buffed.

If you know anything about me there is one thing that I have always said when it comes to LRM's

LRM's are individually on the weak side, they are getting there but on a weapon per weapon basis they are a little weak compared to AC' and energy.

However on a team basis they are incredible strong. Their power grows exponentially the more people that have LRM's equipped. And they do not require LOS.

Which means if one of those 12 people has a target lock on you all 11 other targets can hit you with LRM's. That is extremely overpowered.

The point I have always stressed was to limit the indirect fire of this weapon to a more cause and effect action that promotes role warfare. in other words - Tag, Narc, UAV. We already see this sort of play beginning to come into play but it has never been a requirement for LRM boats to be successful and deal lots of damage, only that one of the 12 has LOS and lock to a target.

Indirect fire does need to be removed, unless that target is getting hit by a Tag, narc or UAV. Once that is done what we can then do is "INCREASE" the effectiveness of the LRM weapon on an individual basis without entirely breaking the game due to the silly indirect fire rules.

Now if the small laser had the range and could be indirect fired I would be advocating the removal of that. Because there should never be an instance in a game that allows one player to hit another unless they have causality or direct LOS.

Why? Because it's good game play.

It gives the player a course of action to avoid getting nailed by LRMs from someone they can't see.

If they are getting hit by Tag they can at least fire back at the Tagging unit and force them to seek cover making them break lock.
If they are under a UAV they can shoot the UAV down or at least get out of range of the UAV

Narcing doesn't change all that much but at least it rewards the narcing player for getting in close and allows the defending player a chance to dodge or avoid the Narc.

I hope you understand what I am getting at.

Until then the above changes are made the Chaff module is needed.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

^^^ You suck

Just needed to be said.

[Tynan]

Frankly, I just wish the spread was wider on IDF. That would solve most of the "stacking" problems that happen with every LRMer on a team being able to attack the same target regardless of position.

Leave the LOS grouping the way it is, but make IDF a more secondary, higher-risk option, like it should be.

[Carrioncrows]

Tynan, on 21 August 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Frankly, I just wish the spread was wider on IDF. That would solve most of the "stacking" problems that happen with every LRMer on a team being able to attack the same target regardless of position.

Leave the LOS grouping the way it is, but make IDF a more secondary, higher-risk option, like it should be.

That would be one of the patchwork fixes for LRM's until they can be completely reworked.

The LRM spread between IDF and DF is nearly the same.

[Jakob Knight]

Carrioncrows, on 21 August 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

If you know anything about me there is one thing that I have always said when it comes to LRM's

LRM's are individually on the weak side, they are getting there but on a weapon per weapon basis they are a little weak compared to AC' and energy.

However on a team basis they are incredible strong. Their power grows exponentially the more people that have LRM's equipped. And they do not require LOS.

Which means if one of those 12 people has a target lock on you all 11 other targets can hit you with LRM's. That is extremely overpowered.

The point I have always stressed was to limit the indirect fire of this weapon to a more cause and effect action that promotes role warfare. in other words - Tag, Narc, UAV. We already see this sort of play beginning to come into play but it has never been a requirement for LRM boats to be successful and deal lots of damage, only that one of the 12 has LOS and lock to a target.

Indirect fire does need to be removed, unless that target is getting hit by a Tag, narc or UAV. Once that is done what we can then do is "INCREASE" the effectiveness of the LRM weapon on an individual basis without entirely breaking the game due to the silly indirect fire rules.

Now if the small laser had the range and could be indirect fired I would be advocating the removal of that. Because there should never be an instance in a game that allows one player to hit another unless they have causality or direct LOS.

Why? Because it's good game play.

It gives the player a course of action to avoid getting nailed by LRMs from someone they can't see.

If they are getting hit by Tag they can at least fire back at the Tagging unit and force them to seek cover making them break lock.
If they are under a UAV they can shoot the UAV down or at least get out of range of the UAV

Narcing doesn't change all that much but at least it rewards the narcing player for getting in close and allows the defending player a chance to dodge or avoid the Narc.

I hope you understand what I am getting at.

Until then the above changes are made the Chaff module is needed.

I'm afraid we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I happen to think it is good for gameplay to have a weapon that is capable of indirect fire, as it provides a different dynamic beyond the simple 'look and shoot' of direct-fire combat (which all other aspects of the game are). Further, -any- weapon becomes exponentially stronger when used in teams. A single Dire Wolf with two Gauss Rifles is dangerous on its own, but if an entire lance of such mechs is being faced, the danger is far, far beyond that posed by the single mech.

In addition, such weapons work to keep brawlers from simply walking across open terrain with impunity and immunity, forcing these pilots to actually use tactics beyond simply charge-and-kill (which is never a good situation to allow in any game centered around tactical warfare as opposed to mindless arcade-style bashfest play).

Also, please remember that, yes, at least one person on the other team has to have line-of-sight to you for any LRM units to fire on you, and they have to stay in line-of-sight the entire time it takes for those missiles to reach you, or they will miss. That means a single enemy is making themselves an open target for you and the rest of your team, and if the LRM unit is not in with that unit, then your team has a numerical advantage in taking down the spotter. That translates to a better attrition ratio for your team, unless you fail to act to counter the other team's teamwork with your own.

LRMs currently face a number of factors no other weapons system in the game does, as well as one only shared by one other. LRMs require lock-on to be achieved to be fired effectively (and that means someone on the firing team has to have LOS), that lock-on has to be maintained for a significant amount of time after firing for the weapon to do damage, AMS can degrade or completely eliminate the damage from a correctly fired and tracked LRM firing, the target can move to draw the missiles into obstructive cover to stop them from doing damage, ECM blocks LRMs from being used outside of 200m or at all as long as the LRM unit is within the radius of any enemy ECM, a Radar Deprevation module can completely remove an LRM's lock instantly at any time from firing to impact simply by getting most of the target mech into cover, at 180m LRMs become unable to do any damage whatsoever, the damage from LRMs is spread across the target when they do hit, the travel speed of LRMs is the lowest of any weapon in the game (actually allowing a target to avoid an attack that has already been launched), and alone with SRMs, LRMs have a hard absolute range (1000m) beyond which they cannot do damage.

All of that is what LRMs have against them. What do they have for them, EXCEPT indirect fire ability? If anything, LRMs need a host of other advantages to make up for the wall of disadvantages racked up against them. The addition of yet another counter, and one whose only point is to give people a way to disregard LRMs entirely, is entirely unfounded by any rationale at all, and would require massive boosts to the weapon to re-balance it into an effective weapon capable of doing it's job on the battlefield (i.e. destroy enemy mechs at long range before they can get into effective short range).

I have stated the case again in the hope you will see just how baseless your call for a system to render LRMs unable to be effective is. The LRM system is already heavily over-penalized, and you haven't produced a rational reason they should be even more marginalized in gameplay.

Thus, I disagree with you, and think we should simply understand that what you want (immunity to LRM fire while getting under their minimum range) and what I want (LRMs able to kill anything trying to get within their minimum range without smart tactics) will probably never be in agreement.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 21 August 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

Jakob Knight, on 21 August 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

I happen to think it is good for gameplay to have a weapon that is capable of indirect fire, as it provides a different dynamic beyond the simple 'look and shoot' of direct-fire combat (which all other aspects of the game are). Further, -any- weapon becomes exponentially stronger when used in teams. A single Dire Wolf with two Gauss Rifles is dangerous on its own, but if an entire lance of such mechs is being faced, the danger is far, far beyond that posed by the single mech.

And that's your issue.

It is extremely bad gameplay to allow one player to attack another player indirectly without that targeted player having anyway to stop those attacks.

It breeds hate and malcontent.

Now that's not to say you can't have indirect fire at all, If you bothered to read my post you would understand what I suggested. Indirect fire is fine but there also has to be causality.

In other words the only way to be able to indirect fire is to hit your target with a Tag, Narc or be within range of a UAV.

These are all cause and effect instances, player targeted by Tag, narc or UAV - opposing players are able to fire indirectly at that target.

This gives the targeting player a means to defend himself outside of just running for this supposed magical ample "cover". He can force the opposing player tagging him to flinch and turn away, he can get out of range of the UAV or he can attempt to seek cover.

Simply having a target lock an an opposing enemy player isn't enough causality to warrant the overpowered nature of IDF.

Now for the 6th time this thread, once IDF has been "Addressed" properly we can then increase the power of LRM's on a individual basis.

You say that smart tactics is getting under the LRM range of your target, which is asinine as it is absurd. (what game are you playing?) The issue isn't the one guy with LRM's it's the majority of enemy team having LRM's (hence why I said individually weak, insanely strong in groups) so getting under one targets minimum range does nothing when the rest of their team has LRM's.

Why people defending a flawed system is beyond me. And if you have any foresight at all you can see what I am suggesting would not penalizing LRM's but in fact giving them a much needed buff and make over. By making them comparable to Energy and AC weapons without being broken.

Fixing the issue.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

IDF is not overpowered. Lrms are not overpowered. All I'm seeing in this thread is "Waaaa I died coz lrms! nerf naow!" This is what happens when you try to bring a CoD style mentality into this game. Lrms are supposed to be support weapons capable of firing indirectly. This is done with friendly mechs sharing info. This is part of information warfare.

I don't have many problems with lrms because I know how to use cover and tactics. I hardly ever go down due to lrms. Even when the enemy team is 50% missile boats (which is so rare it's almost not worth mentioning), it's not a problem. The thing that most people are not seeing is that the effect of lrms is also psychological. Once you see that, you realise they're actually not that bad. You just need to keep your cool and think yourself to safety.

And as much as you'll disagree, I don't even have a problem with ecm. It's amazing how the psychological effect of losing a little red marker can make people cry like angry, hungry new borns. Again, using tactics and your eyes helps. To be completely honest here, that little red marker is a gamers biggest crutch and has been present in almost every fps game made. It's a skill killer. It's easy mode. And you all cry when ecm takes away your "enemy is over here" sign even when you have a line of sight on them and guns on your mech ready to fire. Yes, it does also hide other mechs on its team. I might not agree with that ability but that's the way it works currently. You have plenty of ways to counter ecm so think and use them. When ecm first arrived, there were no counters. So these days, you got it easier.

Stop crying, think better, play harder.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Carrioncrows, on 21 August 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

It is extremely bad gameplay to allow one player to attack another player indirectly without that targeted player having anyway to stop those attacks.

Totally disagree.

[Widowmaker1981]

Carrioncrows, on 19 August 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

There isn't enough cover in the world to hide from 12 people and be effective. You can't even engage 2-3 enemy targets without calling down an entire team's worth of indirect fire.

Even with the cover you have to be literally rocks scrapping your cockpit to avoid getting hit by LRM's and even then if that cover's not tall enough you are screwed. LRM's simply come in from too steep of an angle.

Let alone the other 11 people fighting for the same piece of cover.

Even when you do have cover if one of those 12 have LOS to you, you are XXXXXXX. Period.

Unless you are packing ECM.

I don't buy it. This game should be more.

funny how i have very few issues with LRMs killing me, and i do not own a single ECM capable mech (dont like lights, dont like atlases). Maybe its because i fairly frequently play LRM mechs, and so know how to avoid being hit by them..

*shrug*

Not like i NEVER die to them, sometimes you get caught in a bad spot in a slow mech, but anecdotally id say 90%+ of the damage i take overall is to direct fire weapons.