432 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Sam Slade, on 05 December 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

EXACTLY! I'm talking about making LRMs BETTER for players like you and far worse for disengaged pizza-munchers. I run my founders cat with twin ARLM15, 3 MedLas, TAG, max JJ and enough speed/ammo to provide close support to my team and benefit from friendly AMS/ECM...

Seriously, if you are using LONG range missiles as Close support, you ARE doing it wrong. It may work for you, but you are still doing it wrong.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 02 December 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

I realize how what I'm about to post is going to sound, trust me I do.

I am mostly unapologetic about it, so take it at face value:

Sorry, but I'm not of the 'participation award' generation, if there's a winner or loser I give a crap as to the out come. My sense of 'fair play' doesn't include giving an award just because someone "shows up".

I'm sure at some far point in the future, they'll look back on this part of world history and one of the primary reasons for the current decline of world culture will be listed as, "A lack of caring about winning or losing, as evidenced by 'participation awards' and a fear of making anyone 'feel bad' for doing badly."

I am competitive, I care about actual honest scores and 'fair play.'

As the competitions are scored on an individual basis, I care about how I do as compared to my teammates.

It may be an archaic and anachronistic concept to some, but, it seemed to provide an impetus towards exceptionalism for nearly the last two thousand years of our culture that dragged us up from a purely subsistence existence to a society capable of intelligently arguing the merits of scores from a "game" that has no actual physical reality.

Quite remarkable, really, if you look at from an appropriate perspective.

So, let's continue the push towards excellence, not just ourselves but each other as well.

I am not part of the Participation Generation either Dimento. I am also a Former Marine Infantryman. Your complaint about "participation" and "Fair" do not actually work when the competition is combat.

Combat uses Overlapping fields of fire, and 'layered approach of engagement. Which means that in a battle(game combat) the team that apply their fire best wins. LONG range Missiles are meant to be fired from a distance They are often used as a damage multiplier. That 35 ton Mech can't carry an LRM30+ But his big slow brothers sure can. And when I do have em, I lend a hand to that Jenner 600M away cause the longer he lives the better chance we will win.

You are fighting a three dimensional fight with one dimensional thinking. As a Rifleman I was the one who had to get in the face of danger while Tankers and Cannon Cockers fought from "relative" safety. We gave em grief for having it easy, But we loved their support when it was delivered.

You don't appreciate the fire support role in the game. Thats cool, it not for you, But because they are not on the frontline standing at your side, does not imply they are not participating. Unless you are one of those who refuse to hit R cause
They are waiting to help you from 400M behind the fight... Like they are designed to do!

Sure its a game, but again it is a combat game, and that means it is meant to be played by a different set of rules than football game.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 December 2014 - 05:25 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 December 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

I am not part of the Participation Generation either Dimento. I am also a Former Marine Infantryman. Your complaint about "participation" and "Fair" do not actually work when the competition is combat.

Combat uses Overlapping fields of fire, and 'layered approach of engagement. Which means that in a battle(game combat) the team that apply their fire best wins. LONG range Missiles are meant to be fired from a distance They are often used as a damage multiplier. That 35 ton Mech can't carry an LRM30+ But his big slow brothers sure can. And when I do have em, I lend a hand to that Jenner 600M away cause the longer he lives the better chance we will win.

You are fighting a three dimensional fight with one dimensional thinking. As a Rifleman I was the one who had to get in the face of danger while Tankers and Cannon Cockers fought from "relative" safety. We gave em grief for having it easy, But we loved their support when it was delivered.

You don't appreciate the fire support role in the game. Thats cool, it not for you, But because they are not on the frontline standing at your side, does not imply they are not participating. Unless you are one of those who refuse to hit R cause
They are waiting to help you from 400M behind the fight... Like they are designed to do!

Sure its a game, but again it is a combat game, and that means it is meant to be played by a different set of rules than football game.

First, I never said I didn't 'appreciate the fire support role in the game', however, here's the difference:

They need everyone ELSE more than everyone else needs THEM.

The way this game is designed and how the indirect fire support role works in this game LRM boats who are going to utilize indirect fire need spotters. They need the brawlers and spotters providing that targeting information, TAG'ing, NARC'ing, UAV'ing that they provide. During NON-challenge/NON-contest play, NORMAL PLAY, everyone is rewarded appropriately. There's spotting bonuses, TAG'ing bonuses, NARC'ing bonuses, and everyone's end of match scores pretty much reflects their level of participation and effort which is an absolutely great thing, HOWEVER, during challenges and contests the scoring formula DOES NOT maintain that same level of balance and fairness which is ultimately bad for the game during these challenges and contests.

The ONLY person to benefit from the damage done via LRMs is the LRM boat/user. The person(s) taking the risk by spotting, TAG'ing, NARC'ing and/or spending the CBILLs on UAVs get nothing added to their challenge/contest scoring.

If we can't award those people their due, then it's only fair to NOT award full value to the LRM boat/users for damage they couldn't possibly have done without assistance.

That's all.

I can't understand why people find that so objectionable...

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 05 December 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

First, I never said I didn't 'appreciate the fire support role in the game', however, here's the difference:

They need everyone ELSE more than everyone else needs THEM.

The way this game is designed and how the indirect fire support role works in this game LRM boats who are going to utilize indirect fire need spotters. They need the brawlers and spotters providing that targeting information, TAG'ing, NARC'ing, UAV'ing that they provide. During NON-challenge/NON-contest play, NORMAL PLAY, everyone is rewarded appropriately. There's spotting bonuses, TAG'ing bonuses, NARC'ing bonuses, and everyone's end of match scores pretty much reflects their level of participation and effort which is an absolutely great thing, HOWEVER, during challenges and contests the scoring formula DOES NOT maintain that same level of balance and fairness which is ultimately bad for the game during these challenges and contests.

The ONLY person to benefit from the damage done via LRMs is the LRM boat/user. The person(s) taking the risk by spotting, TAG'ing, NARC'ing and/or spending the CBILLs on UAVs get nothing added to their challenge/contest scoring.

If we can't award those people their due, then it's only fair to NOT award full value to the LRM boat/users for damage they couldn't possibly have done without assistance.

That's all.

I can't understand why people find that so objectionable...

Funny I am the brawler who does spot for the LRM boats, I get rewarded pretty well for spotting the target. I get a Kill or Assist, I get component destruction.

Also that is how Indirect fire works in real life as well. Unless there is a UAV over the enemy. Artillery/Missile batteries sits Miles from the front and use the info from the poor grunts taking a pounding to get the location/coordinates.

And Challenges are special case scenarios... otherwise they wouldn't be a challenge now would they?

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 December 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Funny I am the brawler who does spot for the LRM boats, I get rewarded pretty well for spotting the target. I get a Kill or Assist, I get component destruction.

And again, my proposed changes to the challenge/contest scoring account for that:

(Solo kill * X)+(Assists * Y)

In that portion you and the LRM boats/users are awarded appropriately for kills you did the most damage on, and any assists)

Quote

Also that is how Indirect fire works in real life as well. Unless there is a UAV over the enemy. Artillery/Missile batteries sits Miles from the front and use the info from the poor grunts taking a pounding to get the location/coordinates.

And Challenges are special case scenarios... otherwise they wouldn't be a challenge now would they?

And we're back to the ORIGINAL point made several pages back, and the gist of what the OP's poll tells us:

For the most part LRMs are fine and during NORMAL game play the number of missiles is probably appropriate, HOWEVER, during CHALLENGES and CONTESTS the LRM users/boats multiply to unreasonable levels, WHY?

Because the fact that LRM boats/users get EXCLUSIVE points for the damage they do, at little to risk to themselves encourages the lazy, unskilled, and impatient to drop into LRM boats and do nothing but indirect fire their way onto the score board.

Either adjust the DAMAGE scoring so that the risk-v-reward factor is appropriately scored:

((enemy damage-team damage)-(LRM damage/Z)/15)

OR, make sure people doing spotting, TAG'ing, NARC'ing, UAV'ing get points.

After all, if someone provides this information on a target for the LRM user/boats but doesn't get a chance to do any damage to that target, they get nothing, not even an assist according to the challenge scoring.

I think it's easier to adjust the damage portion of the calc downwards for LRMs than it is to adjust it upwards for TAG/NARC/UAV/targeting.

[Ordin Hall]

LRMs don't need to be nerfed, they need more counters. I actually love the idea of PPCs disrupting lock, which would also give them a more tactical direction in addition to the ECM disruption instead of just damage. This would also give lights a reason to load a PPC, going behind enemy lines to disrupt LRM boats.

Edited by Ordin Hall, 05 December 2014 - 09:02 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Ordin Hall, on 05 December 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

LRMs don't need to be nerfed, they need more counters. I actually love the idea of PPCs disrupting lock, which would also give them a more tactical direction in addition to the ECM disruption instead of just damage.

Can you imagine...follow your buddy within 90m...every time you see missiles, shoot him in the @ss for 0 dmg and a disrupted lock.

[Wildger]

LRM does not need to be nerfed!! This game needs teamwork. Without it, you will get your **** hanged back to you every time no matter which weapon systems you want to be nerfed. A LRM boat is next to useless if your teammates cannot function as a spotter. I once played in the snowy mountain map and cannot even fire a single missile shot because opponents outplayed us. You popped your head up and got snipped or a light mech can find its way and outflank you. So, stop whining and learn to play the game properly.

[Lightfoot]

LRMs are the only guided missile in MWO. SSRMs are placeholder weapons until PGI figures out how to balance them as real SSRMs.

So if the mech has missile slots LRMs go there.

LRMs were fine before the last nerf and there may be a Bug too that blocks damage now. But what this caused was what I warned, it forces players to boat LRMs or not use them. So that is what you see now when any player wants to use LRMs, mostly. What used to be LRM25 or LRM30, is now LRM40-50. That forces all players to carry AMS or pay the price in armor.

Anyway, if my mech has many missile slots LRMs are the only option unless it can brawl well with SRMs. Most mechs don't brawl well. If you want less LRMs fix SSRMs so they seek the center mass of the target. The way you balance this is give SSRMs a very wide turn radius so Lights can evade them easily, Mediums okay, Heavies not so much. Until then you get mostly LRMs on mechs. What else would you use? You are forced to use LRMs on Missile mechs.

I have always liked LRMs and Missiles in general because they create a tactical layer to MechWarrior. LRMs are weak damage but tactically strong weapons. AC's and Lasers are strong damage, but low tactics. The action and competition this mix creates for teams adds an excellent dynamism to skirmishes. They are certainly not skill-less weapons and when players face a good LRM support team is when players run to the forums to complain that they were roasted.

Just the same at the current time I am never facing LRMs and if I do the LRMs don't reach me. Of course I don't allow them to hit me and 4 seconds average is more than enough time to evade LRMs. LRM evasion includes ECM, Radar Dep Module, and power-down briefly to break the lock. Repeat as necessary, but I generally find that the power-down forces the LRMer to change targets.

I think LRMs are too weak now. This has been the only thread on LRMs for days now so you know they are not being used successfully. LRM debates are always fueled by the Missile-haters who are just going to hate them foreverrrrrrr.......

Generally when players ask for Missile/LRM nerfs they ask for so much no one would ever use them. MWO set them to be weak, but work to assist spotters, usually Lights. I do think they lowered the shake on Clan LRMs as I barely noticed getting hit by them today. IS LRMs seemed blinding.

LRMs are usually completely avoidable now. Nothing like before all the ECM and Radar Dep. Biggest mistake I see players make is walking their mechs into open areas under the control of LRM support even though they know it's there. LRMs are area denial weapons mostly, you just go around.

Edited by Lightfoot, 05 December 2014 - 04:35 PM.

[Strig]

Personally, I think LRMs are in a good place for the most part, damage and heat for the space/tonnage are fine. Warnings and potential counters, fine. The one thing that I find to be a problem is the amount of shake+explosion blindness that LRMs cause .... particularly Clan versions, since they "stream" onto a target. This makes fighting back while being fired upon practically impossible. Even getting pounded by AC20s isn't as problematic for the target. If you are targeted by multiple clan launchers you can't fight back and have to get to cover. Even sporting dual AMS's with the AMS Overload module you simply can't function while being bombarded.

This amount of explosion/shake might be ok when dealing with a full LRM20 hit from an IS mech where all of the missiles hit you in a single barrage ... but the never-ending pounding from CLAN LRMs should probably barely be noticeable, at least when my dual AMSs are running.

Just my 2 cents.

[topgun505]

Are LRMs OP as a weapon system? One on its own? No. The problem stems from:

A ) The ability in mech lab to be able to boat them to such a huge extent.
B ) The fact that all players have instant access to targeting data from other teammates, regardless if they have LOS to their teammate or not
C ) The combination of relatively high tragectory of the missiles + their ability to continue homing on a target after it leaves line of sight + the design of some maps in the rotation that leave very little effective cover.

You can't really do anything about A unless you totally rrwork mechlab which simply is not going to happen.

C is partially taken care of with the introduction of Radar Derp. Honestly Radar Derp and Target Decay should both be removed and normal LRM guidance should work like everyone has radar derp. I.e. LRMs should stop guiding the moment they lose lock, not a few seconds later. They should just go dumb and plow straight ahead. No curving around mountains or buildings or suddenly turning into mini ground-skimming cruise missiles.

So that just leaves B which seems that the most popular consensus for change would be for indirect to only be peeked vs targets that are being actively painted (TAG or NARC).

Are LRMs totally OP? No. But when abused they do tend to suck every last ounce of enjoyment out of this game and turn something fun into something tedious. Just 1 or 2 LRM boats in a pug match are enough to grind a game to a halt where nobody moves because nobody wants to stray more than 2m away from cover lest they eat 140 missile volleys.

For this I place blame on PGI for not implementing a built in voice coms system. Yes you have TS but it is awkward and time consuming to get people set up on comms especially if they are new and don't have the info for NGNG and the like. This isn't new technology. This should have been implemented on day 1. I play some online games that have had this built in functionality for A DECADE. There is no excuse.

At least if we had integrated comms you can give your pugs a plan or prod then into action so you can deal with the situation at hand. Whether or not they listen to you is another matter but hey, can't fix everything.

Edited by topgun505, 05 December 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[ollo]

(infringing some terms of CoC probably, but just bumping to let PGi recognize the poll result - there are more PPL liking the state of non-challenge-non-moronic-challenge-rules LRM than whining about it.)

[Galenit]

Dimento Graven, on 05 December 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

They need everyone ELSE more than everyone else needs THEM.

My raven is not that good.
But its great, if i have some lrm users behind me, i need them to be effective.

[RockmachinE]

I can't be bothered to read this thread, so I don't know if this has been pointed out.

But since the Hellbringer there was a natural yet drastic reduction in LRM use. Guess what? The game became way more fun to play. I can actually focus on doing things now other then dodging LRMs constantly. And I actually fight other mechs in peace. Some of the brawls recently are amazing.

So yeah solo queue is brilliantly fun without the incessant LRM storm.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 05 December 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

And again, my proposed changes to the challenge/contest scoring account for that:

(Solo kill * X)+(Assists * Y)

In that portion you and the LRM boats/users are awarded appropriately for kills you did the most damage on, and any assists)

I am not worried about how Dimento is rewarded in a Challenge. How you get "paid" is not my concern. I'm only worried about if I get every bonus I earn.

If you did a better job than me raining damage, no matter how you did it, You earned your salt!

What bothers me is we know what is needed to get a high score in the challenge And yet we complain cause... "Its not the way I wanna do it." Funny, challenge to me means, I should be put out of my comfort zone.

This last Challenge I knew to stay out of. I die as often as I kill so getting 1 and 1 and living would be... Difficult. Very Difficult. But the rules were what they were. Whining about it should NEVER change that. It is meant to be "A Challenge" after all.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 December 2014 - 06:06 AM.

[Sam Slade]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 December 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

Seriously, if you are using LONG range missiles as Close support, you ARE doing it wrong. It may work for you, but you are still doing it wrong.

'Close Support' is a relative term methinks...

I like sitting a few hundred meters behind the friendly I'm supporting... takes me out of SRM range of whomever they're brawling and Target Decay lets me bounce around a bit(disclaimer: I've not used my Cat in months)

[theta123]

This poll is clearly biased against LRMS. Not voting. I have only 3 mechs of 46 equipped with LRM's, and they are just fine

[Screaming Cruiser]

Your poll is skewed. I vote No, do nothing, but then had to choose a nerf from the second question, that didn't give me an option to change nothing. I voted to improve AMS, but honestly, I say leave it as it.

[Lightfoot]

Do nothing, "LRMs are fine", and you made me vote for AMS XP/CBill rewards which I don't think they should do.

I haven't seen an LRM thread in about a week except for this one (of course now some will be zombie resurrected) and I don't see everyone bringing LRMs usually. This is probably because you need a full dedicated LRM load-out to make them worth passing on Lasers and ACs now.

I always liked LRMs as back-up, but they are just too weak for that now. This and the PPC nerf forced me to shelve my Protector which I always felt was much in the spirit of Kerensky's Snub-Nose PPC Orion which would flip between LRM-25 and PPCs and do okay.

I say LRMs and guided missiles are a big part of MechWarrior game play. They can be very good or very bad, but all players complain about is when LRMs are beating them, but just as often LRMs are a weakness and do not do enough to stop a loss.

[Mercules]

Dimento Graven, on 03 December 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

If you don't care what's the point of putting forth the effort?

If you don't care you have no motivation to really even try.

Because I learned long ago, and this sounds really hokey, "The journey is the point, not the destination." Winning is the destination. Sometimes you will get there, and sometimes you won't, but you can still have some awesome experiences along the way. Winning is like 5 seconds of a 4-15 minute match. What matters more is the playing of the match.

Challenges are the same thing for me. If I get it, cool, if not, pshhhht who cares. If I'm not having fun trying to accomplish it, well it was a pretty stupid way to spend my time, wasn't it. If I feel cheated that is ON ME, not on everyone around me.