637 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

RalphVargr, on 31 October 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

If you don't like LRM's, then remove all non-direct-fire weapons with a greater than 500 meter range from the game.

Fair is fair. Isn't that what you really want?

False equivalence much?

The issue is not LRMs range, or even locking on. Streaks lock on and the damage per ton for LRMs is very reasonable.

The issue is that indirect fire is superior to direct fire for all intensive purposes.

Sure, you get a small bonus for direct fire but the tradeoff (taking damage vs being immune to damage) vastly offsets it most of the time unless the enemy isn't really even shooting at you or can't cover the range gap.

Nerf the **** out of indirect fire so it's more about denial and harassment than full killing power and make direct fire significantly superior.

If I walk out into the open under the direct fire guns of 5 or 6 enemy mechs I'm going to have a Bad Time. However I can easily break line of sight, hill-hump and survive such a barrage most of the time pretty easily. Also, I can shoot them back.

Indirect fire LRMs means that one person sees you and you can see back, but you can come under fire from up to 12 people and the cover you take may not actually protect you.

That's the crappy part of LRMs. That's the part nobody really enjoys.

Buff direct fire, flatten trajectory, increase flight speed for direct fire.

Nerf indirect fire, flatten trajectory a bit, keep flight speed the same or slower, increase missile spread.

I would be 100% on board with at least looking at requiring TAG or NARC to allow indirect fire, or the targeting mech having a Command Console (in lieu of the C3, which essentially we already have for everyone already).

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Problem is, if we start to remove things like effective indirect fire we start to make the game more and more like any other twitcher FPS. I really don't want to see that happen.

[Kjudoon]

RocketDog, on 31 October 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

Problem is, if we start to remove things like effective indirect fire we start to make the game more and more like any other twitcher FPS. I really don't want to see that happen.

the problem is a lot of people who are coming to MWO WANT that type of twitch game in big stompy mechs. Mech of Doody or Battlewarrior Online.

[Mercules]

Triordinant, on 30 October 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

The ideal solution is to make LRMs effective for direct fire, but horribad when used for indirect fire, just like in the "real" Battletech universe.

Except they were not "Horribad" in TT. I would take some LRM Carriers as vehicles in our group. Others had their mechs. My buddy had infantry. We would often have the infantry infiltrate into a solid forward position and act as spotters for LRMs. Mech sensors wouldn't notice the infantry and we were out of LoS and out of range of the other sensor systems so they basically had to head in the direction the LRMs were coming from and slog through the rain of fire for multiple turns only to crest a ridge and find a couple Von Luckner Heavy Tanks waiting for them with their AC/20, SRMs, and Machine Guns to get crits from open sections and tear weakened sections off mechs.

It's +1 to hit. +2 if the unit spotting shoots.

Kjudoon, on 31 October 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

the problem is a lot of people who are coming to MWO WANT that type of twitch game in big stompy mechs. Mech of Doody or Battlewarrior Online.

I think you mean Hawken or Titanfall both of which are twich mecha games.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 31 October 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

the problem is a lot of people who are coming to MWO WANT that type of twitch game in big stompy mechs. Mech of Doody or Battlewarrior Online.

Part of what makes MWO a Mechwarrior game is that it's generally based off TT rules. Indirect fire had a lot of limitations for exactly this reason; the ability to rain fire without threat of response is bad for game balance.

Indirect fire weapons isn't the magic line that separates MW:O from Call of Duty or the like and trying to pretend it does just points out how shallow the argument for LRMs staying the same is. So before the LRM buffs and hit-reg fixes when they were rare the game was exactly like Call of Duty?

LRMs would still have indirect fire - it would just be significantly inferior to direct fire. That's still something no other weapon has but isn't the only viable way to use LRMs at that point and it is simpler and easier than putting more cover on every map for example.

Because currently LRMs are not a 'good' weapon. They're up on the block for a reason; feast/famine, a patchwork of semi-effective 'fixes' and 'counters/semi-counters' that only leave them more lop-sided.

They need balanced in line with every other weapon in the game or every other balance change is going to mess with them. They are why ECM sucks. Fix LRMs and you have no good reason NOT to fix magic jesus bubble ECM.

I'm sure your next argument is going to be 'oh fine, MAKE EVERY WEAPON IDENTICAL'. Lasers are not like PPCs are not like ACs are not like SRMs. They are, however, balanced (approximately) across weight, damage, effectiveness, etc. They are at least on the same scale. LRMs are not and they need to be.

That is and has always been the issue with LRMs and it will forever be the issue with LRMs with every other change in balance and mechanics until they're balanced to be a direct fire first and indirect fire as an unusual perk - like ECM disruption for PPCs or heat generation on flamers or crit damage bonuses on MGs/LBX or reduced burn time for pulse lasers. It's not their purpose or primary function but it's a useful perk to using them.

[Kjudoon]

Mercules, on 31 October 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

Except they were not "Horribad" in TT. I would take some LRM Carriers as vehicles in our group. Others had their mechs. My buddy had infantry. We would often have the infantry infiltrate into a solid forward position and act as spotters for LRMs. Mech sensors wouldn't notice the infantry and we were out of LoS and out of range of the other sensor systems so they basically had to head in the direction the LRMs were coming from and slog through the rain of fire for multiple turns only to crest a ridge and find a couple Von Luckner Heavy Tanks waiting for them with their AC/20, SRMs, and Machine Guns to get crits from open sections and tear weakened sections off mechs.

It's +1 to hit. +2 if the unit spotting shoots.



I think you mean Hawken or Titanfall both of which are twich mecha games.

Right and many want that here too. They're not satisfied with 2 other games to do the same thing they do in every other similar game.

[LordKnightFandragon]

RocketDog, on 31 October 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

Problem is, if we start to remove things like effective indirect fire we start to make the game more and more like any other twitcher FPS. I really don't want to see that happen.

Thats the direction this game is headed anyway, PGI is making PPFLD and lolpha more effective through these new quirks, not less so.

[Zark474]

for a weapon that requires no line of sight and need, no tracking just fire and forget i say it's broken and for the effort it requiers to use it's "ehm" op...and dont give me the "it's fine" because guess what, almost everyone is rolling with them....even lights...there is NO match without LRMS (at least for me)....

TL;DR: it's not popular because it's fine..it's popular because it's too effective and easy to use.

[Kilo 40]

Zark474, on 01 November 2014 - 01:55 AM, said:

no tracking just fire and forget

no.

[Kjudoon]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 November 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

Thats the direction this game is headed anyway, PGI is making PPFLD and lolpha more effective through these new quirks, not less so.

Remind me... PPFLD? I get lolpha, and yes. After making statments to limit the 50 pinpoint alpha a thing of the past, we are getting significant rollback to all things NOT long range pinpoint alpha.

Zark474, on 01 November 2014 - 01:55 AM, said:

for a weapon that requires no line of sight and need, no tracking just fire and forget i say it's broken and for the effort it requiers to use it's "ehm" op...and dont give me the "it's fine" because guess what, almost everyone is rolling with them....even lights...there is NO match without LRMS (at least for me)....

TL;DR: it's not popular because it's fine..it's popular because it's too effective and easy to use.

know your weapon better. LRMs are NOT fire and forget. They never have been and never will be. Not even streaks are that.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pin
Point
Front
Loaded
Damage.

I have a 20 point pinpoint front loaded Damage AC20 and 91 Point Alpha. Which I use to smash my opponents without mercy. I like fighting you guys Like Mike Tyson used to fight (until he started eating ears! )

[Kjudoon]

Yeah.... that's not good. I don't enjoy playing or being victimized by waddlewaddleblamdead play.

Edited by Kjudoon, 01 November 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Zark474, on 01 November 2014 - 01:55 AM, said:

for a weapon that requires no line of sight and need, no tracking just fire and forget i say it's broken and for the effort it requiers to use it's "ehm" op...and dont give me the "it's fine" because guess what, almost everyone is rolling with them....even lights...there is NO match without LRMS (at least for me)....

TL;DR: it's not popular because it's fine..it's popular because it's too effective and easy to use.

It is not fire and forget. You have to track them all the way in.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kjudoon, on 01 November 2014 - 03:57 AM, said:

Yeah.... that's not good. I don't enjoy playing or being victimized by waddlewaddleblamdead play.

Its a personal preference, I'm big and old, and even when I was not so big and younger, defeating an opponent before they could have a chance to defeat me sounded like a good strategy. So I worked on breaking techniques, and head shots on a gun range.

If they can't get back up they can't have a chance to hurt me! It has served me well for over 30 years of gaming/Tournaments.

[Sorbic]

For starters I would like a "missile incoming" warning that actually went off all the time. Of course I also have issues with direct fire weapons not making any sound when they hit which is also annoying.

[LordSkeletor]

Deathlike, on 27 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

LRMs are "fine" (for what they do), and "not fine" (ECM, situationally useless, too much shake).

I'm pretty sure this is a "the sky is falling" moment.

Lock-on time for LRMS should be a bit longer and ECM's effective range should be only applicable to the target mech or reduced by 60%. I could live with that. There's just way too much ECM going on in the game.

[RalphVargr]

MischiefSC, on 31 October 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

False equivalence much?

The issue is not LRMs range, or even locking on. Streaks lock on and the damage per ton for LRMs is very reasonable.

The issue is that indirect fire is superior to direct fire for all intensive purposes.

Sure, you get a small bonus for direct fire but the tradeoff (taking damage vs being immune to damage) vastly offsets it most of the time unless the enemy isn't really even shooting at you or can't cover the range gap.

Nerf the **** out of indirect fire so it's more about denial and harassment than full killing power and make direct fire significantly superior.

If I walk out into the open under the direct fire guns of 5 or 6 enemy mechs I'm going to have a Bad Time. However I can easily break line of sight, hill-hump and survive such a barrage most of the time pretty easily. Also, I can shoot them back.

Indirect fire LRMs means that one person sees you and you can see back, but you can come under fire from up to 12 people and the cover you take may not actually protect you.

That's the crappy part of LRMs. That's the part nobody really enjoys.

Buff direct fire, flatten trajectory, increase flight speed for direct fire.

Nerf indirect fire, flatten trajectory a bit, keep flight speed the same or slower, increase missile spread.

I would be 100% on board with at least looking at requiring TAG or NARC to allow indirect fire, or the targeting mech having a Command Console (in lieu of the C3, which essentially we already have for everyone already).

If you looked at my post a little more closely, I stipulated that direct-fire weapons users were there that those who complained about LRM's most. So eliminate everything that had a range of over 500 meters, and make it the slug-fest may seem to desire. You would seem to be among those who don't like LRM's, because they are an indirect fire weapon.

We can't brawl, and you get attrited by artillery (by whatever name).

Why do you think artillery evolved?

So, by all means, lets remove everything from the game (by whatever method you propose including total removal) that could be considered indirect fire (air/arty/LRM's). Then, only the best MWO twitch players could have a prayer.

Then, there will be a Darwinian sort, until a fraction of the playerbase remains. MLB/NFL MWO!

Unfortunately, for PGI, the day that occurs will be the day to shut down the servers. I will be playing tabletop (or tablet) OGRE, for really brutal infighting.

[RockmachinE]

I'd eliminate LRMs all together. I know its not an option, but I'd do it. It promotes stale ass boring no skill gameplay.

Nerf LRMs to hell for all I care. I know there are many who think alike.

[RalphVargr]

Most turn-based table top games do not translate well into online shooters.

SJG is smarter than PGI.

No tens of millions spent on development for a fanbase of about 10,000. That's a money loser.

And Evil Stevie does not have to put up with what Paul does, herding coders, and taking abuse from users.

Although, unfortunately for Steve, the Secret Service never forgets anything that causes them to look bad...

[YueFei]

Louis Brofist, on 01 November 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

I'd eliminate LRMs all together. I know its not an option, but I'd do it. It promotes stale ass boring no skill gameplay.

Nerf LRMs to hell for all I care. I know there are many who think alike.

They need to buff the hell out of LRMs for direct-fire mode.

The way they work for indirect-fire is fine. They're actually a very inefficient way to kill something in terms of ammo, heat, spreading damage all over the place to finally bring a guy down.

They need to be made stronger for *direct-fire* mode. Risk vs Reward. If you expose yourself on a direct line-of-sight to the enemy, and maintain lock throughout the flight, you should be rewarded for that. Missile spread needs to tighten DANGEROUSLY with direct line of sight (and especially with Artemis), and the missiles should home in on the enemy mech component where your crosshairs are aimed, so you can put the damage where you want it to go.