142 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

Im curious if Bishop is trolling too to the OP

Of course!



What a bunch of trolls we are

[mrpetzold]

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Now, of course I could be misinterpreting all of this due to you simple not being around nearly as long as the people telling you why they disagree and therefore lacking relevant background knowledge. But I have no problem admitting I`m wrong when it is in fact the case, however, that has yet to be proven

Finally, this is a homerun if that had been the case. But, those "veterans" have NOT wrote WHY they disagree. Lets take a look at one of those veterans (Mechwarrior Buddah) first post in this thread.
"I take it youre new. In CB they came in at a 90 degree angle. They HAVE been nerfed the way you say, REPEATEDLY." That was his answer to the OP (who btw had been a member of this community since dec 2012). Or, it might be wrong to say that he didnt wrote why he disagreed. But the reason was for all intention a "no-reason". As I wrote in my last answer to him:
Because of the nerf/buff-history PGI should't even try to make work better? It is not to put under a chair that PGi has used a too heavy nerf-hammer and buffed things to the sky way to often in the past. The past has already happend, and can't be changed. The future however can be changed and this community can influence it aswell.

[Torgun]

The problem is that some maps actually have very little cover for LRMs so unless you always have radar deprevation on your mech those maps can be quite awful when your opponents happen to be stacking LRMs. And yeah this is on solo queue, and as some have suggested, it would be a lot better if LRMs were better when you have LOS compared to when you don't. Whether it's travel speed, damage or diving angle can be discussed.

[Zerberus]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

So, because of the nerf/buff-history PGI should't even try to make work better?

Nobody said that.

Quote

The past has already happend, and can't be changed.

Correct, but have you ever heard the saying "Those that don`t learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?

Because

Quote

The future however can be changed and this community can influence it aswell.

is absolutely true.

But NOT by making the exact same mistakes again and again, or reverting what most regard as good changes back to their previously bad state simply because some people refuse to adapt.

Which is, howeve,r kind of exactly what you are asking for by asking for a flatter trajectory. The originally came in 90°, were heavily nerfed to, like 30°or so for about a year, and now have a more "ballistic" flight path (when fired at over 600m range, I might add, which many experienced LRMers generally regard as a luck shot anyway).

During the time before the flight path and speed buffs (which were both quickly re-nerfed by a smaller degree to their current state), lrms were a joke weapon that nobody used. Now they`re strong enough when massed to severely punish stupid mistakes, and almost useless against intelligent gameplay. The only reason they seem so überop in lower elo ranges of the solo queue is that players there generally make more and greater mistakes.

The main issue that currently exists is that PGI cant buff or nerf brains and teamplay

*edit* Then again, if they could, they`d have to re-buff LRMs to be competitive again, and then the new players would really be getting hammered.... Or they`d have to nerf the top teams to the point of the game essentially becoming steering wheel central and then they could nerf the lrms down to "Derp, derp, shoot robot, derp" level.

But people would still complain even with perfect balance, because "He shouldn`t be able to kill me if I can`t see him" and x million other tenuous reasons which all get rehashed daily as a reason to nerf lrms. All because of that constraining mental framework of imaginary rules and "honor" codes I mentioned earlier.

Edited by Zerberus, 28 November 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[mrpetzold]

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Nobody said that.

Mechwarrior Buddah said something that can be tolked in that direction.

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Correct, but have you ever heard the saying "Those that don`t learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?

This is probably the exact opposite of what I tried to tell with my post. I can't remember to have said that PGI shouldn't learn from theire past mistakes. All I said is that mistakes where made. It is up to PGI to learn from theire mistakes, not my job.

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

But NOT by making the exact same mistakes again and again, or reverting what most regard as good changes back to their previously bad state simply because some people refuse to adapt.

Which is, howeve,r kind of exactly what you are asking for by asking for a flatter trajectory.

Again, I have not asked them to revert anything. To revert is to go to the exact same values as before, and I haven't said a word that goes to that direction. I have said that AOA is a natural place to look. When you say "what most", the ones that think that lrm is in a really good place now is the clear minority (not even remotely close to the majority. Closer to 1/20 then 5/20) in this thread, along with other similar thread. Unless you think that 6/8 lrm's on each team on caustic valley during the time of the day where the amount of online players is on the lowest is lrm in a good place? When its a low amount of players online the number of good players is low aswell (good players dont use lrms since it doesn't work against a team of 12 good players).

The perfect balance of lrm's might be closer then we think. But it is a fact that it is no where close to perfect right now. Better then before? Yeah, im sure it is. But still far from perfect. Perhaps small tweaks to one or more of these things: aoa, dmg, velocity, rate of fire, heat, line of sight, maximum amount of launchers, required amount of other weapons, weight of launchers, amount of ammunition per ton ammo, max/min amount of lrm's on a team, reworking the current maps or not allowing lrmboats on caustic valley (which is the most troubled map by far when it comes to lrm's, and probably the map where most of these threads are from.

I definetly dont have the answer to these issues. But the current values of all these things, and the exact values that has been in the past is not the final answer.

[Mercules]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

The reason I started to answer you was the condecending "you must be new" argument. It is against those who are new, and stop playing this game early because of lrm's, that lrms are OP. On the other side of the scale lrm as useless against the top-bracket. To find the correct balance and make it viable for all elo-brackets is needed.

We do not build balance around the lowest skilled group or the highest skilled group. We build balance around the median. The median group of players do not get hit by LRMs on a consistent basis. I am not a top player. I am somewhere in the middle. I do not get hit by LRMs on a regular basis. When I do I often think back and realize just where I messed up and try to not get into that situation again.

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

So, because of the nerf/buff-history PGI should't even try to make work better? It is not to put under a chair that PGi has used a too heavy nerf-hammer and buffed things to the sky way to often in the past. Unlike you, I focus more on the present and the future then the past. The past has already happend, and can't be changed. The future however can be changed and this community can influence it aswell.

That is not what is being said. Two things are being said in reference to past nerfs.

Point # 1. LRMs were nerfed to the point they actually were useless at nearly all levels of play. PGI has fiddled with the various stats as you have mentioned you would like to do, and those of us with experience with them in various states would likely say they are in a fairly balanced place right now.

Point # 2. The AoA has been both sharper and less than right now. When it was sharper it was problematic but not horrible so. Most players could still avoid them. When it was more shallow it nearly negated LRMs as a weapon and that is when they flew faster.

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

The perfect balance of lrm's might be closer then we think. But it is a fact that it is no where close to perfect right now. Better then before? Yeah, im sure it is. But still far from perfect. Perhaps small tweaks to one or more of these things: aoa, dmg, velocity, rate of fire, heat, line of sight, maximum amount of launchers, required amount of other weapons, weight of launchers, amount of ammunition per ton ammo, max/min amount of lrm's on a team, reworking the current maps or not allowing lrmboats on caustic valley (which is the most troubled map by far when it comes to lrm's, and probably the map where most of these threads are from.

I definetly dont have the answer to these issues. But the current values of all these things, and the exact values that has been in the past is not the final answer.

The problem is that LRMs are in a pretty good state right now. Actually they could use a bit of a buff.

What would be REALLY great, but I think might be hard for PGI to implement, would be if LRMs were fired with LoS direct lock ones they flew much faster than they currently do, maybe triple the speed, with a very flat arc. If they were fired with Indirect Fire then they fly like they currently do, but spread out more than they currently do. Remove the screen shake and smoke and they would be useful all around.


Otherwise the thing that should change is not AoA but shake and smoke.

[mrpetzold]

Mercules, on 28 November 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

The problem is that LRMs are in a pretty good state right now. Actually they could use a bit of a buff.

6/8 lrm's on each team during the time of the day where the amount of online players is on the lowest is lrm in a pretty good state? I understand that you play during the peak-times, but mwo is a 24/7 game

[MikeBend]

The cause of the problem is not the LRM properties, its the people boating them. Yes, you can adjust LRMs every way you want, but those LRM boat pilots wont L2P, as you wish. They will just hop in the next best thing, be it Gauss boat, LPL boat or whatever. Would you be more happy meeting 4 Gauss boats instead of 4 LRM boats? Yeah, LOS weapon, you can fire back. Good luck with that.

[STEF_]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

6/8 lrm's on each team during the time of the day where the amount of online players is on the lowest is lrm in a pretty good state? I understand that you play during the peak-times, but mwo is a 24/7 game

I still doesn't understand why in your opinion LRM state depends on time zone.

It's strange because good players live in every country, by my experience.

edit: and bad ones as well

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 28 November 2014 - 05:44 AM.

[Joey Tankblaster]

Mercules, on 28 November 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

We do not build balance around the lowest skilled group or the highest skilled group. We build balance around the median. The median group of players do not get hit by LRMs on a consistent basis. I am not a top player. I am somewhere in the middle. I do not get hit by LRMs on a regular basis. When I do I often think back and realize just where I messed up and try to not get into that situation again.



That is not what is being said. Two things are being said in reference to past nerfs.

Point # 1. LRMs were nerfed to the point they actually were useless at nearly all levels of play. PGI has fiddled with the various stats as you have mentioned you would like to do, and those of us with experience with them in various states would likely say they are in a fairly balanced place right now.

Point # 2. The AoA has been both sharper and less than right now. When it was sharper it was problematic but not horrible so. Most players could still avoid them. When it was more shallow it nearly negated LRMs as a weapon and that is when they flew faster.



The problem is that LRMs are in a pretty good state right now. Actually they could use a bit of a buff.

What would be REALLY great, but I think might be hard for PGI to implement, would be if LRMs were fired with LoS direct lock ones they flew much faster than they currently do, maybe triple the speed, with a very flat arc. If they were fired with Indirect Fire then they fly like they currently do, but spread out more than they currently do. Remove the screen shake and smoke and they would be useful all around.


Otherwise the thing that should change is not AoA but shake and smoke.

I highly admire this idea. Give LRMs two operational modes. First on is direct fire, mech is mobile and uses its own lock, very fast missile, screen shake and good concentration on center and side torsos. Second mode is indirect fire. Lock on enemy mechs by UAV or NARC, mech is very slow or not mobile, ballistic flight, higher spread, less screen shake.

In a direct fire mode LRM-boats should be able to compete with lasers or ballistics (damage-wise).

Edited by Joey Tankblaster, 28 November 2014 - 05:49 AM.

[mrpetzold]

MikeBend, on 28 November 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

The cause of the problem is not the LRM properties, its the people boating them. Yes, you can adjust LRMs every way you want, but those LRM boat pilots wont L2P, as you wish. They will just hop in the next best thing, be it Gauss boat, LPL boat or whatever. Would you be more happy meeting 4 Gauss boats instead of 4 LRM boats? Yeah, LOS weapon, you can fire back. Good luck with that.

The amount of people boating them is a direct consequence of how they works.


Depends if the gauss-boats is IS or clan. IS, I would say yes since CTF-3D and Jagers especially are two of the mechs thats easiest to destroy. And there is the one big drawback when it comes to gauss. They explode, which have a tendency of destroying the mech. And that can often happend after 1/2 hits. If lrm-launchers had exploded after 1/2 hits, it would have been a totally different saga.

Probably the best thing to "fix" the issues is a smarter matchmaker who would somehow balance the amount of LRM-boats.

[MikeBend]

Yeah, matchmaker could really use some adjusting, but it is probably very hard to implement.

[Mercules]

mrpetzold, on 28 November 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

6/8 lrm's on each team during the time of the day where the amount of online players is on the lowest is lrm in a pretty good state? I understand that you play during the peak-times, but mwo is a 24/7 game

That would be all the overseas users who have a ping of 300+ and so have more issues with direct fire weapons getting hit registration so use LRMs and Streaks?

BTW, I sometimes play at 6AM CST, noon, or right when I log off work at about 3:30 CST. Those are not the peak times and I rarely see 6-8 LRM mechs per team. I do see more and I believe it is for the reasons I mentioned since I often see those playing those mechs have high pings.

[The Boz]

Joey Tankblaster, on 28 November 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

In a direct fire mode LRM-boats should be able to compete with lasers or ballistics (damage-wise).

Why? If LRMs would compete with lasers and ballistics in direct fire, and STILL have ANY indirect fire capability, they'd be a straight upgrade.

[kazlaton]

Zerberus, on 28 November 2014 - 01:42 AM, said:

As soon as you understand teh weapons systems employed, defence becomes second nature and requires zero actual thought.

THIS!

To all of you who think LRMs are OP, I have this to say:

I used to be one of you. I thought all the same things you are thinking, I agreed with all of your opinions, I hit the like button on all of your posts. So I figured if LRMs are so OP that I would try using them. And in using them I learned all of their weaknesses.

These days, I don't use AMS or ECM and I rarely die to LRMs. And when I do, I understand why. It's not because the opponents were a bunch of "EZmode noobs". Either I put myself in a bad situation, or their team out played mine.

[Mercules]

The Boz, on 28 November 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Why? If LRMs would compete with lasers and ballistics in direct fire, and STILL have ANY indirect fire capability, they'd be a straight upgrade.

Except for spreading the damage all over the mech, requiring lock on time, and doing little or no damage up close.

[The Boz]

Mercules, on 28 November 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Except for spreading the damage all over the mech, requiring lock on time, and doing little or no damage up close.

...so they'd be completely competitive, but not at all?

[Mercules]

The Boz, on 28 November 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

...so they'd be completely competitive, but not at all?

Well, okay you have me there. To be completely competitive to Lasers/Ballistics they would have deal all their damage to one pixel of the mech sometimes in a very short amount of time...

But I am pretty sure the person who made the comment that they should be competitive to Lasers was thinking that they should be at least as useful as SRMs are when doing direct fire. Which can compete with Lasers for inclusion in a mech build.

[The Boz]

...again, so why include SRMs if you can just slap on LRMs and call it a day?

[kazlaton]

The Boz, on 28 November 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

...again, so why include SRMs if you can just slap on LRMs and call it a day?

Because SRMs do more damage, and don't have a 180m minimum range.