432 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

damonwolf, on 27 November 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

In your opinion only.

No, in cold hard analysis of the content of what they've said.

You can argue that I'm not 'arguing correctly' but when you do that to avoid responding to my points you're not really proving anything other than you don't have an actual response to a valid point.

You attempt to insinuate that I'm somehow stupid or deluded about my own skill level, instead of directly responding to the points made, again, you're not actually proving anything nor using any logic to address the issues I've brought up.

You may not like what I have to say but until you respond to what I've ACTUALLY said, you have nothing to stand on.

Quote

Let me put it to you in a way that, hopefully, you will get...
You're proposing having different scoring rules for a weapon system you don't like or use. Implementing a system like that would penalize pilots for using a weapon system that is widely used and even promoted by the Devs (Most new Mechs are muti-LRM capable, Role Warfare, etc.) would be wrong. Implementing punitive measures against a weapon system purely because some people don't like, approve of, or use in other words. In simpler terms, a game of Rock, Paper Scissors, but penalizing someone for choosing scissors.

See, you're using words I don't think I used. If I used "punished" or "penalized" I used those words incorrectly. If I didn't use those words, then you are incorrectly putting words in my mouth and are instead responding emotionally to what I actually said, which has been:

We need to stop giving full value to damage done that could not have occurred without the assistance of others.

LRM users are the prime beneficiary of other player's efforts (targeting, NARC'ing and TAG'ing), and cbill expenditures (UAV's). Why should they be allowed FULL VALUE for something they required the assistance of others to make happen?

>>IF<< Everyone who was providing TAG/NARC/UAV/target locks was awarded a portion of the damage the LRM boat/user was inflicting to their own score, it wouldn't even be a moot point, BUT, the only beneficiary of the damage is the LRM boat/user.

And due to the nature of the ease of use of LRMs, the limited scoring algorithm encourages an unnatural overabundance of LRM boat/users during the challenges.

Quote

It's a slippery slope. Why? What happens when penalizing people reduces LRM usage and people start b!tching about Gauss, PPC, Wubs, etc. in Challenges/Tournaments? YOUR weapons systems start getting a penalty...

Let's face it Dimento, you're a sniper (paper). LRMs are a counter (scissors) to your efforts, so you want them reduced because they inhibit your ability to achieve god mode.
Funny how most people that complain about LRMs in Forums are other new, bad or their game play is countered by LRMs...odd that.

Nothing done to the challenge scoring would inhibit in any way the abilities of LRMs. They would STILL work in the same "little circle in big square, wait for big circle, pull trigger" simplicity they always have. The firing arcs would still be the same, the damage would be the same, the crit potential would be the same, the travel time would be the same, how they responded to terrain, ECM, et al, would be THE SAME.

The ONLY difference would be NORMALIZING their value to the rest of the game during CHALLENGES and ONLY during CHALLENGES.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 27 November 2014 - 02:31 PM.

[-Vompo-]

In most games I don't even get hit by lrms so I don't really see them as a problem. Sure sometimes you get narced and destroyed by massed lrm fire but that happens. It is extremely rare compared to getting hit by massed fire of lasers or autocannons and those have no counter like ecm or ams.

Some of the challenges encourage people in using lrms but that's the challenges fault and not the weapons.

[damonwolf]

Quote

See, you're using words I don't think I used. If I used "punished" or "penalized"

Those aren't the words you used and I never said they were. BUT, that's what it amounts to if you don't give them "FULL VALUE" like every other weapon system because some people don't like them.

Quote

Why should they be allowed FULL VALUE for something they required the assistance of others to make happen?

It's a TEAM effort. Why should your damage be allowed full "FULL VALUE" when ECM Mechs covered your ass. Scouts performed reconnaissance for you, Brawlers took out the enemies Brawlers, and LRMs suppressed the enemy allowing the entire team to maneuver on them, worked over the enemies Dire Whales and Support Mechs, and chewed the enemies armor off so you can score a kill.
Oh, BTW Dimento, if an LRM boat chews off the armor of a Mech and you swoop in and kill it close, or from 1400 meters away, should your damage and kill #s be adjusted because you didn't have to work for it, and it happened only because of the assistance of that LRM boat?
Not awarding "FULL VALUE" to only one weapon system in any match, whether it's regular, tournament, or challenge, would be punitive. Period. It's a team sport, and no one...NO ONE, does anything without the assistance of others.

[Lord de Seis]

Good post! Thank you for putting up.

I have no problem with LRM's on weekdays but I find on the weekend they definitely take a spike, I am guessing from challenges. It can definitely get frustrating to the point that I will stop playing at times and switch to something else.

Thank being said my favourite mech right now is a my founders CPLT-C1 with 2x LRM15, I don't think there is anything wrong with LRM's but when you see a group of them on a team it can be lame but for the most part it is a rare occurence.

[KuroNyra]

Dimento Graven, on 27 November 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

No, in cold hard analysis of the content of what they've said.

What a joke.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

So when are we getting the longbow or yeoman. Especially the latter. Then whole thing screams MOAR LURMS!!!

[P H O X]

Hm..while having LRMs loaded i often wonder how hard it is to get working locks. As a brawler i wonder how they get so much lock on me...all a thing of perspective. At least in pugs.

But what really bothers me on both sides of the Missilestorm is the freaky trajectory / physics. So Yes, that should be fixed for the happiness of both sides. Cover should really be cover. As a firing pilot i wish i could predict more of the path the missiles go. This also leaves the option open to put more skill into the firing itself, and not just klick the button and hope that the smart thingys will find their way up that ridge.

Also AMS shouldnt be firing at Missiles it doesn´t "see". Through hills or buildings.

[Dimento Graven]

damonwolf, on 27 November 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Those aren't the words you used and I never said they were. BUT, that's what it amounts to if you don't give them "FULL VALUE" like every other weapon system because some people don't like them.

When your boss doesn't pay you for work for you didn't do, are you being penalized? No.

Stop using that word it's wrong.

Also, who says I don't "like" LRMs. YOU keep saying that, I don't. I say LRMs are fine as is, EXCEPT for how they are scored in challenges, which encourages the lazy, unskilled, and impatient to use them as a cheap and easy way to get their challenges done quickly.

Quote

It's a TEAM effort. Why should your damage be allowed full "FULL VALUE" when ECM Mechs covered your ass. Scouts performed reconnaissance for you, Brawlers took out the enemies Brawlers, and LRMs suppressed the enemy allowing the entire team to maneuver on them, worked over the enemies Dire Whales and Support Mechs, and chewed the enemies armor off so you can score a kill.

First off, go back and read my previous posts, I submitted a possible situation where ECM 'mechs WOULD be credited for providing ECM (though, those little ******* rarely do as 99% of them are configured as sniper builds and in the first few seconds of the battle RUN OFF and provide the ZERO ECM, so why should those little ******* get ANY credit?).

Quote

Oh, BTW Dimento, if an LRM boat chews off the armor of a Mech and you swoop in and kill it close, or from 1400 meters away, should your damage and kill #s be adjusted because you didn't have to work for it, and it happened only because of the assistance of that LRM boat?

AND NOTE: In all my later iterations of the challenge calcs, I have switched the (kills * X) to (SOLO kills *X), which means if your LRM boat did most of the damage, and I "swooped in" with my dual gauss and finished the enemy off with a single gauss shot from across the map, >>I<< wouldn't get a KILL score for that in the calc, I'd get an ASSIST score (maybe), but that's it.

I'm not being unreasonable here. I'm trying to find a calculation that reflects the TRUE value of everyone's contributions.

Quote

Not awarding "FULL VALUE" to only one weapon system in any match, whether it's regular, tournament, or challenge, would be punitive. Period. It's a team sport, and no one...NO ONE, does anything without the assistance of others.

When ONE weapon system gets an inordinate amount of benefit from OTHER PEOPLE'S efforts, it's unfair, and skews what the challenges and contests should be attempting to measure, namely, people's actual skill in game.

When ONE weapon system makes it easy to "game" the calc by allowing an overly easy means of padding your score, it results in many people taking the easy way and skewing the drop composition from a standard 2 to 3 support mechs to 8 or more support mechs.

It's time to stop rewarding that and score everyone on their actual value in the fight.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

thing is that is the MM skewing the count. COMP teams do not use them at all. And pugs is exactly that. Pick Up Group. You get what you get.

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 27 November 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[Mercules]

Triordinant, on 27 November 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Count again. 48% is NOT a majority. Saying "Yes, during challenges" is not the same as saying "No" to the poll. If the OP made it a simple Yes or No poll then the real majority would be seen more easily and there would nothing to argue about.

So are we also going to count all the people who have come into the thread and said, "I would have voted "No", but the second part of the poll wouldn't let me finish because I have to pick something to change and I don't think any of them fit." because there were a bunch of people who said something similar. Those are "No" votes that didn't get placed because of the biased nature of the polling.

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Once again you show your lack of intelligence.........artillery is not in this game, if it were it'd be called a LONG TOM...........LRM's are a MECH weapon, not artillery. Try again genius.

Is this where I point out that some mechs have indeed carried Long Toms?

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Artillery also does not "home in" on a target like your LRM's do, if you had any true knowledge of the game you'd agree that LRM's should not be able to fire on a target the carrying mech can't see UNLESS that target is being lased with a TAG laser, or has a NARC beacon on it.

Is this where I point out two falsehoods you spoke of? ArrowIV system is indeed an artillery system and it does "home in" on a target like the LRMs do. Also, Indirect fire only requires a spotter with LoS to the target, no additional gear by the rules you are trying to use as justification. Look through your book for "Indirect Fire" there is a whole chapter laying out the rules.

Dimento Graven, on 27 November 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Yes, and all those people were responding emotionally with little to zero thought on the subject, defending tooth and nail, their free rides during the challenges.

False and a lie. I haven't done any of the recent challenges and don't typically use LRMs and was at no point emotional. I was one of the people arguing against your ridiculous premises the most. Again you argue that anyone who doesn't agree with you only does so because they have some agenda. This is called Projecting in psychology where you project your motives onto others without realizing it.

Dimento Graven, on 27 November 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Their arguments were so incredibly bad all they've done is cemented my view point on this.

Actually, you were the person most heavily making use of every bad stereotypical fallacy and invalid argument you could. I think my old Logics professor finally died or I would be tempted to copy it all to a PDF and send it to her as material for her class. Her students could go through a checklist of fallacious arguments you have made... kinda like bingo.

[R Razor]

And that spotter can do NOTHING else, no movement, no engaging in combat............so okay, let's use those rules..........when you're brawling with an enemy and you press the R key, the minute an LURM boat launchs on the target you have selected, you have to stop moving and firing. Works for me.

LRM's are NOT Arrow IV, neither or LONG TOM.............try again please. Try not to choke on that smug 'tude when you do.


Or.....PGI can do the sensible thing and only allow indirect fire on targets that are NARC'd, Tagged or that have been visually spotted and targeted by a mech equipped with a Command Console or Clan targeting computer. Problem solved..........now the lurmbots have to actually work a little to get some steel on target.

[zortesh]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

And that spotter can do NOTHING else, no movement, no engaging in combat............so okay, let's use those rules..........when you're brawling with an enemy and you press the R key, the minute an LURM boat launchs on the target you have selected, you have to stop moving and firing. Works for me.

LRM's are NOT Arrow IV, neither or LONG TOM.............try again please. Try not to choke on that smug 'tude when you do.


Or.....PGI can do the sensible thing and only allow indirect fire on targets that are NARC'd, Tagged or that have been visually spotted and targeted by a mech equipped with a Command Console or Clan targeting computer. Problem solved..........now the lurmbots have to actually work a little to get some steel on target.

Well that makes sense, lets also make all our hits and aiming work on dicerolls cuz thats how it works in table top.

No? not interested in that? didn't think so...

[Abivard]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

And that spotter can do NOTHING else, no movement, no engaging in combat............so okay, let's use those rules..........when you're brawling with an enemy and you press the R key, the minute an LURM boat launchs on the target you have selected, you have to stop moving and firing. Works for me.

LRM's are NOT Arrow IV, neither or LONG TOM.............try again please. Try not to choke on that smug 'tude when you do.


Or.....PGI can do the sensible thing and only allow indirect fire on targets that are NARC'd, Tagged or that have been visually spotted and targeted by a mech equipped with a Command Console or Clan targeting computer. Problem solved..........now the lurmbots have to actually work a little to get some steel on target.

[R Razor]

zortesh, on 27 November 2014 - 09:51 PM, said:

Well that makes sense, lets also make all our hits and aiming work on dicerolls cuz thats how it works in table top.

No? not interested in that? didn't think so...

Hey your fellow lurmbot buddy is the one that brought TT rules in pal..........personally, as I said above, I prefer the common sense rules, but that doesn't seem to be something you ezmode boys are interested in. Take Abivard for instance, he has nothing constructive to add so he searches the web for an infantile picture to post..........funny thing is, when he used to drop with us in the group que, he was one of the biggest whiners about lurms and usually the first or second to die. Apparently he has gained super power skills now.

Anyway, enjoy it while it lasts.......like everything else in this game, PGI will make changes sooner or later, I'll save these threads so when you start whining about how unfair life is I can point out your hypocrisy.

Edited by R Razor, 27 November 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[Mercules]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

And that spotter can do NOTHING else, no movement, no engaging in combat............so okay, let's use those rules..........when you're brawling with an enemy and you press the R key, the minute an LURM boat launchs on the target you have selected, you have to stop moving and firing. Works for me.

That's an outright mistruth. That spotter can fire and move. He can have moved previously in the round and he can move in the next round. He can also fire and all that does is increase the target number for the indirect fire. In MWO it usually leads to rounds flying back his way so it tends to work out to him having to dodge and likely lose his lock.

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

LRM's are NOT Arrow IV, neither or LONG TOM.............try again please. Try not to choke on that smug 'tude when you do.

I never said they were. However I also didn't claim mechs don't carry artillery and that artillery doesn't lock on and track targets, two things you claimed which I disproved.

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Or.....PGI can do the sensible thing and only allow indirect fire on targets that are NARC'd, Tagged or that have been visually spotted and targeted by a mech equipped with a Command Console or Clan targeting computer. Problem solved..........now the lurmbots have to actually work a little to get some steel on target.

It's not sensible, it's not in the rules, and there is no need to FURTHER nerf the least useful and powerful weapon system in the game... again. Seriously. LRMs are ONLY good against either bad pilots, or good pilots that made a mistake that can now be exploited.


Just so we are clear because I'm tired of these discussions.



If you get hit with LRMs "all the time" then you are doing something wrong.

[Mercules]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

Hey your fellow lurmbot buddy is the one that brought TT rules in pal..........personally, as I said above, I prefer the common sense rules, but that doesn't seem to be something you ezmode boys are interested in. Take Abivard for instance, he has nothing constructive to add so he searches the web for an infantile picture to post..........funny thing is, when he used to drop with us in the group que, he was one of the biggest whiners about lurms and usually the first or second to die. Apparently he has gained super power skills now.

Anyway, enjoy it while it lasts.......like everything else in this game, PGI will make changes sooner or later, I'll save these threads so when you start whining about how unfair life is I can point out your hypocrisy.

Actually, this non-LRM using pilot who often hunts LRM boats when he seems them fly was correcting your references on the rules. You referenced TT rules although apparently were not clear on what they actually were. Since you were using them as a basis for an argument, we needed you to understand what you were trying to talk about.

So again we get another user of the "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" saying I would only argue against nerfing LRMs because I use them. First of all that is incorrect as I rarely if ever use a mech with LRMs. Secondly, even if I did that doesn't invalidate any point I might make by itself. For example: A mother might tell their child not to stick a fork in a light socket because they don't want their child to be electrocuted. Clearly they have a circumstantial bias towards the child not dying. That doesn't invalidate their claim that sticking a fork in a light socket is a bad idea.

[R Razor]

Mercules, on 27 November 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

Actually, this non-LRM using pilot who often hunts LRM boats when he seems them fly was correcting your references on the rules. You referenced TT rules although apparently were not clear on what they actually were. Since you were using them as a basis for an argument, we needed you to understand what you were trying to talk about.

So again we get another user of the "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" saying I would only argue against nerfing LRMs because I use them. First of all that is incorrect as I rarely if ever use a mech with LRMs. Secondly, even if I did that doesn't invalidate any point I might make by itself. For example: A mother might tell their child not to stick a fork in a light socket because they don't want their child to be electrocuted. Clearly they have a circumstantial bias towards the child not dying. That doesn't invalidate their claim that sticking a fork in a light socket is a bad idea.

[Redacted]

I've stated my opinion on how LRM's should be handled in the game, you [Redacted] aren't happy about it, I'm done [Redacted] no matter what you folks just assume that when someone doesn't like the way a weapon system is implemented it's because they die to it constantly.......sure sounds like one of them there "circumstantial ad whateverinums" you just bleated on about don't it?

Edited by John Wolf, 30 November 2014 - 05:56 AM.
Unconstructive

[Mercules]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Blah blah blah...........keep trying to sound sophisticated and intelligent, it helps make your point.

I've stated my opinion on how LRM's should be handled in the game, you lurmbots aren't happy about it, I'm done trying to reason with your biased and ignorant opinions, no matter what you folks just assume that when someone doesn't like the way a weapon system is implemented it's because they die to it constantly.......sure sounds like one of them there "circumstantial ad whateverinums" you just bleated on about don't it?

So, please explain why you think LRMs need to be changed then? What is the onus for altering them?


Oh and I apologize for sounding intelligent it was certainly never my intent to come across as a rational and reasonable person on an internet forum. Yes that was sarcasm.

[Abivard]

R Razor, on 27 November 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

Hey your fellow lurmbot buddy is the one that brought TT rules in pal..........personally, as I said above, I prefer the common sense rules, but that doesn't seem to be something you ezmode boys are interested in. Take Abivard for instance, he has nothing constructive to add so he searches the web for an infantile picture to post..........funny thing is, when he used to drop with us in the group que, he was one of the biggest whiners about lurms and usually the first or second to die. Apparently he has gained super power skills now.

Anyway, enjoy it while it lasts.......like everything else in this game, PGI will make changes sooner or later, I'll save these threads so when you start whining about how unfair life is I can point out your hypocrisy.

LOL
I have never, ever complained about LRM's being in a match or getting killed by them, err wait, I have often complained about having too many LRM boats on MY SIDE!

I don't think I have died to LRM's more than a dozen times in the two years I have been playing.

This whole thread is nothing but nonconstructive QQ about not liking LRM's or not being able to cope with them.

The reason people, besides newbs, use LRM's is to provoke these tears of outrage you and yours so copiously provide in game and out.

[R Razor]

Then I must assume, since you assert that you're intelligent and rational, you are either obtuse or being intentionally ignorant.........I have posted, more than once, why I feel they need to be changed and what I believe the fairest changes would be that would keep them relevant while removing their use as an "easy mode" weapon that allows less skilled players to punch out of their weight class so to speak.

Nobody yet has been able to explain why, if they are in fact a skill required weapon, that you only see them in the PUG que for the most part, and that you see a much larger amount when a challenge comes along that rewards assists and/or damage. The obvious correlation would seem to indicate that they come out more then because even skilled pilots know that it's easier (hence the term ezmode) to rack up the assists and damage and c-bills using them. No weapon system should ever be "easy mode" period.

Abivard, on 27 November 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

LOL
I have never, ever complained about LRM's being in a match or getting killed by them, err wait, I have often complained about having too many LRM boats on MY SIDE!

I don't think I have died to LRM's more than a dozen times in the two years I have been playing.

This whole thread is nothing but nonconstructive QQ about not liking LRM's or not being able to cope with them.

The reason people, besides newbs, use LRM's is to provoke these tears of outrage you and yours so copiously provide in game and out.

You argue like a 2 year old, but then as I said, having played with you, I'd expect nothing less. You also lie rather convincingly, I'll give you that.

While some folks may be crying about LRM's in general, most rational people are merely suggesting changes to take them out of the easy to use bracket that less skilled players such as yourself need them to be in so you can feel good about your in game accomplishments.