632 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Thank you for your constructive feedback.


LRM-60+ Boats can easily kill any enemy locked on within mere seconds without having to fear counter fire. Boating. Other mechs have the same benefit, but require LOS.

Which is bad? You want buff them now or what? You remember the LURMAGEDDON we had after the speed increase for LRMs? Is that what you call diversity in gameplay or role warfare? No? Then why did everyone used it? And is still the most used weapon in (lower tier) PUG-matches?

A Lurm 60, unless is't comprised of 6 LRM10s, is going to spread like mad, and if you're out of LoS, they're not all going to even hit the target. You're just sandblasting 5 or 6 components, and will take considerably more than 10 seconds to actually kill something this way, if they stand completely still.

LRM50+A, in LoS+TAG, still still take 10+ seconds to get through the armour of most mechs.


Also, that speed buff wasn't a Lurmageddon. It was a whinefest. Lurmadeggon was the Splash bug with 1.8 damage per missile, and the Artemis divebombs.



I know I don't fear LRMs in PUG matches. WubShee doesn't fear them, especially after I got Radar Derp. Only issue with the WubShee is the terribad torso pitch; can't shoot down most UAVs. Thankfully, the damage falloff is broken on UAVs, so I can just shoot them at 500M with MPLs.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Wolfways, on 14 September 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

LRM players (and some who don't use LRM's) only complain about ECM,

Maybe, I'm don't. I can fight in any situation.

Quote

Imo the only people who don't want ECM changed to not block missile locks are those who are bad players and need their LRM umbrella

Maybe, I rarely play LRM boats.

Quote

or those who just hate LRM's because they don't use them and "reasons".

Maybe its a matter of choice?

Quote

Most people complaining about "no-skill LRM's" don't even realize that the chance of getting hit by LRM's has less to do with the firer and more to do with their own skill.

Aye, direct fire weapons are much more dangerous.

Quote

LRM's have been hugely nerfed in the transition from TT to MWO. How many people have complained about LRM's in TT for the past 30 years? Probably very few.

Correct.

Quote

The majority of people posting here about OP LRM's don't even know what they are talking about, they just assume LRM's are OP because they haven't or can't learn to deal with them.

OP? I only see a discussion about balance, not about being OP. It just destroys the gameplay if everyone drives LRM-boats.

Quote

If LRM's were actually OP why are there players who aren't bothered by them, or those (me) who believe LRM's (at least in direct-fire) need a big buff? (This is where people accuse me of wanting to protect my LRM boat...which I've never had )

They do not need a buff, they need to be aligned with other roles to be useful, as well as other roles to be useful.

Quote

No weapon system should be negated by a piece of equipment, ever.

Aye.

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

A Lurm 60, unless is't comprised of 6 LRM10s, is going to spread like mad, and if you're out of LoS, they're not all going to even hit the target. You're just sandblasting 5 or 6 components, and will take considerably more than 10 seconds to actually kill something this way, if they stand completely still.

LRM50+A, in LoS+TAG, still still take 10+ seconds to get through the armour of most mechs.


Also, that speed buff wasn't a Lurmageddon. It was a whinefest. Lurmadeggon was the Splash bug with 1.8 damage per missile, and the Artemis divebombs.



I know I don't fear LRMs in PUG matches. WubShee doesn't fear them, especially after I got Radar Derp. Only issue with the WubShee is the terribad torso pitch; can't shoot down most UAVs. Thankfully, the damage falloff is broken on UAVs, so I can just shoot them at 500M with MPLs.

Its not about LRMs being too strong, its about PUGs using them more than anything else.

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 14 September 2014 - 02:42 PM.

[Wolfways]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Thank you for your constructive feedback.


LRM-60+ Boats can easily kill any enemy locked on within mere seconds without having to fear counter fire. Boating. Other mechs have the same benefit, but require LOS.

Can't comment on that as I've never seen it happen.

Quote

Against a real boat? Nope, 5/60+ is not "eaten away"

Someone wandering about alone will die, if not from LRM's then from anything else. I regularly see grouped AMS destroy whole salvo's of missiles.

Quote

That is the re-balance of a target-tracking ability. You do not get any warning from SRMs, do you?

There would be no point because of the range. Having a warning is imo just another nerf to an already weak weapon (LRM).

Quote

Which is also true for lasers, clan-acs, srms and any other weapon that is not pinpoint.

No. With lasers and cAC's you have a chance of hitting a single location (depending on the target size and both pilots skills). With missiles (SRM's and LRM's) you have no chance, ever.

Quote

Which you cannot use if you have no LOS to fire back with direct fire weapons.

That's why mechs have legs....

Quote

Which is a problem, yes. And thus discussed here.

Which is fine if everyone wanted balance, but some are just here to try to stop losing their LRM umbrella.

Quote

Which is bad? You want buff them now or what? You remember the LURMAGEDDON we had after the speed increase for LRMs? Is that what you call diversity in gameplay or role warfare? No? Then why did everyone used it? And is still the most used weapon in (lower tier) PUG-matches?

I remember the single so-called Lurmageddon that was the two days that missiles dropped vertically when Artemis was put into the game. The speed increase did nothing imo and was removed because of a very vocal anti-LRM community.
I don't understand why people keep claiming that LRM's are the most used weapon. Do you not see nearly every mech with lasers, AC's, PPC's?
Since the clan release there are more LRM's in matches because the lighter clan launchers made them (nearly) worth using, but there are certainly not less of the other weapons. If there were less lasers and especially AC's i'd die a hell of a lot less!

LRM's are the best weapon to use in low tier games because those players suck as they are either new or just bad. I suck in light mechs so assume my ELO is low, and when I'm playing it i see players die to LRM streams. When I'm in a heavy, which have been my main weight class since CB, i rarely see LRM's doing much. I have to work my arse off to do well in a CPLT-C1 but the game is massively easier in my JM6-S (both with stock weapons).

Quote

Really? Well, thats your opinion then.

Aye, and really the only reason i post so much about LRM's (i think i just annoy many regulars now ) is because there are so many anti-LRM posts on these forums all the time.
I know my ideas for LRM's will never be in MWO because i want what many probably think is OP. I accept that. But I'll never accept any weapon being nerfed just because of some people who hate it.

[IsaAurinkoinen]

ECM is fine. If you play LRM-boat, take TAG/NARC and drop couple of tons ammo to fit them. Find your own targets!

Also now you can only take one strike with you many have UAV with them and I see many used per game.

Only those who want sit back and boat their LRM100 slowasses cry about ECM (and maybe lorepurists). I play LRM-heavy-mechs occasionally and only rarely have problems with ECM but then I use backup weapons. Simple.

Edited by IsaAurinkoinen, 14 September 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[Wolfways]

Túatha Dé Danann, on 14 September 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Maybe its a matter of choice?

That's the problem with ECM affecting missile locks...it removes choice.

Do i use the LL or should i use the improved T2 ERLL? A choice.
Do i use the AC or the improved T2 UltraAC? Again, a choice.
Do i use the LRM's with or without the improvedT2 TAG/NARC? Not really a choice because unlike the LL and AC my LRM's can become useless without the T2 gear, thanks to ECM.

[Túatha Dé Danann]

Mate, I just don't care about LRMs or ECM - again and again and again. Its about balance. If you think people are complaining without giving any kind of balancing perspective or trade-offs for changes, then its just an opinion. Who cares?

Right now, you can use LRMs indirectly, which will also be true for the future, thus they can do more than direct fire weapons, esp. on 1.000m range, which is the longest range of any IS weapon. The loadout is also rather efficient for the damage they deal so of course you need to find some sort of balance. Esp. when having a plethora of other weapons that also try to be valid. Thats what this is about. Right now, ECM is flawed because its a one-trick pony. So changing this also changes other gameplay elements, as they are connected.

Edited by Túatha Dé Danann, 14 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[Wolfways]

IsaAurinkoinen, on 14 September 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

ECM is fine. If you play LRM-boat, take TAG/NARC and drop couple of tons ammo to fit them. Find your own targets!

Also now you can only take one strike with you many have UAV with them and I see many used per game.

Only those who want sit back and boat their LRM100 slowasses cry about ECM. I play LRM-heavy-mechs occasionally and only rarely have problems with ECM but then I use backup weapons. Simple.

So you are happy that you are nerfing yourself and your team because you don't use a mech that can use all of its weapons all the time. Fine, your choice.

Btw, telling an LRM boat to "find there own targets" is basically saying "come into LOS so i can easily kill you because you don't have enough firepower to fight back effectively".

[IsaAurinkoinen]

Wolfways, on 14 September 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

So you are happy that you are nerfing yourself and your team because you don't use a mech that can use all of its weapons all the time. Fine, your choice.

Direct fire weapons cannot be shooting trough obstacles, so direct fire builds cannot use their weapons all the time either. If you choose take only LRM or only direct fire, you choose to not able to participate fight in some situations. Its up to you if you like to play one trick build(s).

I seriously think that, you hamper you own team when you use assault as LRM-boat, because that armor is needed in frontline. There's many more maneuverable options in heavy and medium mechs, which don't have any problems getting their own targets.

Edited by IsaAurinkoinen, 14 September 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[Wolfways]

IsaAurinkoinen, on 14 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Direct fire weapons cannot be shooting trough obstacles, so direct fire builds cannot use their weapons all the time either. If you choose take only LRM or only direct fire, you choose to not able to participate fight in some situations. Its up to you if you like to play one trick build(s).

I seriously think that, you hamper you own team when you use assault as LRM-boat, because that armor is needed in frontline. There's many more maneuverable options in heavy and medium mechs, which don't have any problems getting their own targets.

LRM's don't fire through obstacles either...
With all weapons, if you see it you can shoot it...unless it has ECM and you have LRM's/SSRM's without additional equipment.
You can fire LRM's indirect if someone on your team has LOS to the enemy, or a NARC/UAV has been used, but imo if you don't shoot down the UAV or hide if you have a NARC on you (which i believe there should be an indication of in the HUD) then it's your own fault that missiles are hitting you.

[Ertur]

IceSerpent, on 14 September 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

That's not even remotely close to how ECM works IRL.

Say what?
I'll grant that the mechanics aren't completely right (it's a game and not ultra top secret classified intel after all), but yeah, jamming works by denying the use of radar. That's why it's used. Frankly, it should be WORSE than it is currently implemented: instead of a bubble of space where radar doesn't work it should be a pie shaped wedge of the entire map where radar doesn't work (except for stuff that is very close, where the radar can burn through the jamming). The width of the wedge would depend on how close the jammer is to you.

[IceSerpent]

Ertur, on 14 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Say what?
I'll grant that the mechanics aren't completely right (it's a game and not ultra top secret classified intel after all), but yeah, jamming works by denying the use of radar. That's why it's used.

Jamming denies use of radar by saturating that particular frequency. The jammer itself is very easy to locate via simple triangulation, because it's very powerful transmitter by nature. There's no RL jammer that creates a magical "invisibility cloak" around itself.

[IsaAurinkoinen]

Wolfways, on 14 September 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

...but imo if you don't shoot down the UAV or hide if you have a NARC on you (which i believe there should be an indication of in the HUD) then it's your own fault that missiles are hitting you.

Here you are absolutely right in both instances. But not have icon for being narced isn't very big deal, usually you will notice that eventually.

But LRM fires over the many smaller obstacles and you can even shoot LRM's without locks (even its very inefficient) but SSRM aren't as good spot right now. SRM's are fixed and replaced them totally.

I'm only mediocre player and I don't have any serious problems with ECM when I play LRM-heavy-mech's and when I die from LRM's it's usually because there is no good cover in the vicinity (I am watching at you Caustic Valley), I'm locked in push or duel or just bad moment, so how about you all great ones that complains about ECM all the time. Information blockage?

Thou if your team has no ECM and enemy team has LRM superiority then those can supress your team very efficiently and rest of enemy team can get better positions. Under heavy LRM fire its hard to start push or make good firing line. LRM's aren't so weak what some lets understand. Supression is great weapon also.

I think that balance is relatively good now in this case. Though in some challenge events there is too much LRM's for my liking

Once again. If enemy team takes ECM to counter LRM's and some other things, you have to take something to counter ECM. Simple.

Edited by IsaAurinkoinen, 14 September 2014 - 04:24 PM.

[100 Tonne]

This thread seems to be being derailed? I realise there is a big interaction from missiles with ECM but IMHO thats not the issue.

I have 5 Atli, and my DDC out preforms them all, why? Is it the hard points? No it because of 1 ton of equipment.

I dont think anyone would complain about what ECM does if it was 7 tons and 7 crit slots.

And this is the point there is NO cost in having ECM.
Is ECM - an anti missile system?
- An information denial system?
- A group support system?

Let it be one, but not all.

(What I would like to see it be is an Electronic counter measures against BAP, TAG and UAV's.)

[Zuesacoatl]

Tolkien, on 12 September 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Why would we believe you this time when you've shown utter disdain for the obvious will of 90+% of the community before?


Seriously, tell us all why this time is different? Is it because we have you by the short and curlies on your new game and you're finally realizing you need your community more than it needs you?

Unban vassago rain, unban roadbeer, unban sandpit, unban victor mason - these, standing cow of the DHB and Anders of the goons would all make great members of the player council because they will tell you what you NEED to hear, not what you want to hear. Ignoring the voices of players like these is what got the game (and your new game) where it is today.

forget that, other than roadbeer, everyone of those names were nothing but cancer to the community. I hated reading forum posts and tried to avoid doing it because I knew vasago or the others were going to be there spitting out non-productive vitriol and teenage angstyness.... I know that most were above 20 years of age, but every time they typed they allowed their immaturity to show. No, if you want someone who truly looks out for the community, I would say homeless bill ftw. I do not always agree with his ideas, but he has show his willingness to discuss and work through hang-up spots in the past. I personally have not seen him show his child side yet in a dissagreement.

[Wolfways]

I'm not even sure why we're discussing what ECM should do. It already exists in BT: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Guardian_ECM

[nonnex]

Wolfways, on 14 September 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

I'm not even sure why we're discussing what ECM should do. It already exists in BT: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Guardian_ECM

Tons
Clan = 1 IS = 1,5

Critical Slots
Clan = 1 IS = 2

Because "this" would make TT happy but not the IS MWO-Players

Edited by nonnex, 14 September 2014 - 05:27 PM.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 14 September 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

I'm not even sure why we're discussing what ECM should do. It already exists in BT: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Guardian_ECM

Well, for one thing, I believe in this thing called "creative license".

[Wolfways]

nonnex, on 14 September 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

Tons
Clan = 1 IS = 1,5

Critical Slots
Clan = 1 IS = 2

Because "this" would make TT happy but not the IS MWO-Players

Don't IS and clan ECM work exactly the same now? I haven't seen anyone complain about the size difference.

Mystere, on 14 September 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Well, for one thing, I believe in this thing called "creative license".

So do i, if there's a reason for it.

[Ertur]

IceSerpent, on 14 September 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Jamming denies use of radar by saturating that particular frequency. The jammer itself is very easy to locate via simple triangulation, because it's very powerful transmitter by nature. There's no RL jammer that creates a magical "invisibility cloak" around itself.

First off, ECM doesn't provide a magical invisibility cloak here, either, aside from your fevered hyperbole. I can see an ECM raven just fine, I just can't get a radar lock on it. ECM just denies the use of radar. Which, derp derp derp, is what RL jammers do, too. Now, did you catch me in any thing wrong with that before?

Let's look back:

Quote

ECM is doing what ECM does IRL. That's how it works. It prevents radar from working at long range. You can 'burn through' it up close (which is what BAP is doing). What is missing in the game is the ability to get a rough bearing to the ECM signal, but without range information it is useless for targeting. I mean, sure if they had that then you and a buddy could triangulate and figure out what grid square an ECM mech is in, but you'd probably already know where it was just from being familiar with the map.

Do you see the part I bolded and made bigger this time? You're saying the same thing now. Although you make it sound more exact than it would be. The bearing to a jammer is a pretty fat line, and you can't assume that the jammer is in the exact middle, so the triangulation provides a diamond or squarish shape and not an exact point.
Am I going to get into specifics? No. I've forgotten what parts of what I know are classified and what parts aren't. The bottom line is this: ECM can deny the use of radar around the jammer in real life. That's what jamming is for.

As for HARM (high-speed anti-radiation missile) or other home-on-jam systems, they don't exist in battletech. Even if they did, it would be a medium/long-range streak missile that would need direct line of sight, because you have no ranging information to use indirect fire.
Or maybe it could be like an Airstrike, only when you call it it would pick an enemy ECM mech (at random if there's more than one) and drop an airstrike on it (but without the red smoke). Call it a HARM strike. It's not lore, but it'd put some hurt on an ECM mech. If the ECM goes offline during the 4 seconds it takes the strike to come in, it would go to the last location the ECM signal came from (which is kinda sorta what a home-on-jam setup does usually aside from the times that it doesn't), or if the signal is still active puts the ECM at the dead center of the strike.

I actually like that last idea. Had someone else come up with it? If not, how does that sound?

[Haitchpeasauce]

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

What do you say?

I say that this process is far too complicated and protracted, and designed to fail.

I support change to ECM, I do not like its implementation, but what I'm reading in Russ' post does not fill me with hope. Unfortunately I feel extremely skeptical about this.

I support the community making proposals, but the proposed process does not convey a willingness to openly listen to and then implement ideas.

If PGI were actually serious about implementing community feedback, then all that's required is to put out a survey with a wide variety of popular options. Some options would overlap and so common idea threads would be highlighted in the aggregate results.

All that's needed is a collaboration between a group of community-chosen reps and the game developer. Options are then put to a survey/poll.

I appreciate that not all community ideas are fair/fun/feasible and so not all things voted for should be implemented.

But ECM is definitely one feature where community feedback should have been listened to a long time ago.

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Do you think you the community can come to an agreed upon consensus? One in which if the changes are implemented everyone says great job PGI on listening to us now we feel great about ECM and your ability to listen to feedback?

It is abundantly clear that the community cannot come to a complete consensus, but this is natural and normal! Is this a backhanded comment by Russ about the community? Is Russ trying to buy peace in the midst of the Transverse backlash? Is he admitting the community have hated ECM for ages and PGI have intentionally not acted? Is he implying that the lack of consensus to date obliged PGI to say and do nothing?

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

You the community decide how your going to present a proposal, nominate a peer that you feel has the best handle on this, put together your own player council whatever you like but present a proposal that your peers vote on. The vote would likely need to be far greater than just 51% in favor. Perhaps something more like 80+%

What's wrong with 50%? 60% is considered a landslide in elections. A vote of 80+% is extremely high and it takes an extraordinary event like the announcement of 3PV to get such a response.

It feels like this figure is deliberately picked to make it practically impossible to pass. Once voting fails to reach this criteria, the publicized conclusion will be that the community has spoken against the change.

Is this 80% of respondents? 80% of all subscribed players? 80% of active forum members? 80% of the council? This voting system requires clarification.

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

At that point PGI will analyze the proposal, if we see any technical problems or balance problems that we feel perhaps you didnt see, we will point those items out to you. Then if necessary you can adjust your proposal and put it to a vote again, if successful PGI will again analyze and repeat if necessary until we have a final design solution for implementation.

So it's possible for PGI to nullify good feedback anyway. This could spiral on and on until fatigue sets in. Is an 80+% vote required each and every iteration? The counter-proposal could very well be not in people's favour, and therefore could fail at any step.

Russ Bullock, on 12 September 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

PGI will then communicate how long it will take to implement with full explanation as to why, and we will patch the changes in upon the agreed upon delivery date. Once complete if this whole process has gone smoothly and civily we will proceed with doing things like this far more frequently or at least for other areas of the product that are controversial.

Will this impact the delivery of other features? Will this become a convenient reason for why other features are delayed?

What if the process is not civil? Will all future attempts at community engagement be abandoned?