146 replies to this topic

[dimachaerus]

LordKnightFandragon, on 18 March 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

Wiat wut? Wut they change on LRMs? Quicker locks with higher arc so you can lock on in a fraction of the time and hit significantly more with little effort?

No, maybe you should try reading some current events man, or hell, reading the thread at least. There was a bug with LRM's yesterday that inadvertently made a change to how missile locking worked. It was repaired today along with the movement archetype fixes.

[Fonzie260]

stJobe, and Alistar Winter,


Again...


Crying that only one of the weapon systems is broke due to the players inability to work as a team isn't a game issue its the players issue.


You claim that mechs can carry more with smaller engines and without slowing down... where do get that Info from? Do Ravens, spiders, Kit foxes (three off the top of my head) have to drop engines for large lasers? Last I checked they don't its optional to carry any large weapons for light mechs. I do believe that light mechs should have a speed reduction as the weapon load goes up. It's not in the game but it's a solution to the imbalance of Light vs Assault mechs issue as it ties into the weapon balance issue.

Now before you go on a tirant about lore and what mechs can and can't do.... Lore and the Table top rules have been applied only in certain instances in this game. PGI's number one goal is to make money, Table top rules and procedures comes in a flat last to that.

Allow me to remind you that You and your friend are the one crying only about missiles. There are so many problems with all the weapon systems in this game that it should be addressed as a whole not picking on just one weapon system.

I have offed solutions as a whole to the weapons and systems. What have you and your friend there offered? Oh that's right, condescending and belittling others that are tying to actually offer something other than "Nerf"


Now you asked... "But why should LRMS have to be a team-only weapons when no other weapons are?"

Do your really believe that LRMs are team only weapon? They do work best when you work as a team however a team isn't required to use them. Just as lasers and auto cannons do.

What I said and is true... it's a team game.. if you don't like playing as a team then don't play. The game is designed around team play.

I agree with you about the coding for LRMs. I'm sure it's a hot mess and they adjust code all the time... so what makes you think that the rest of the weapon systems are just fine? I bet all the bad coding could be rewritten with better code and rules.

Yes last night did show us a bug and exposed those who like to cry and scream nerf LRMs hence my response.


So with that... my original statement stands as a viable solution as opposed to the "nerf" that everyone and his brother crys.

[stjobe]

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

Yeah, no thanks, I'd much rather keep my non-locking SRM's exactly as they are, being able to actually put them more-or-less where I want them is why I prefer them to streaks.

At knife-fighting range you can somewhat aim SRMs, sure. At medium or longer ranges, you're just trusting to the RNG gods - same as you would with the system I suggested.

And bone-targeting can be tweaked; it's percentage-based between the hit locations, so you could conceivably adjust the spread dynamically depending on range and where the reticule is aimed - in effect keeping your sorta-kinda aim ability intact even with a fire-and-forget guided system.

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

As for fire and forget, sure, I'm down with that, but leave the bone targetting out of it so that there's at least some directionality on the receiving end

Missile spread and flight phases already spread the missiles to the point where very few pilots whose stats I've seen have a hit percentage north of roughly 40-45%, more often it's in the 30-40% range. The system I suggested would achieve the same kind of spread just with a different mechanic - one that allows fire-and-forget (which the current mechanic does not).

As an additional benefit, the spread and miss chances can be manipulated the same for LRMs as for SRMs, increasing the spread with distance and/or aim and tightening it with LoS, TAG, Artemis etc.

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

and when it comes to TT? Yeah this is Mechwarrior Online, TT has very little to do with the way a pinpoint aimed multiplayer arena shooter with funny-moving avatars wearing 3d meshes over their POV's plays out.

It's "a BattleTech game", remember? Says so right up there in the logo. It makes sense to try to stick to how things work in the BattleTech universe as far as possible. And while I do acknowledge it isn't possible all the time, in the case of missile mechanics it is.

I've said before, and I stand by it still, that I really don't care if they throw all TT rules out the window as long as they deliver something that feels like it's set in the BattleTech universe. The easiest way of achieving this is likely to just follow as many of the TT rules as possible, but I'm open to alternatives. The sad fact however is that MWO feels pretty far from BattleTech at the moment, what with its rather low TTK, magical ECM, and non-guided missiles, to name just a few examples.

[Reitrix]

stjobe, on 18 March 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

Make them lock on faster and guide themselves to the target. As compensation, when you fire you lose your lock and have to re-acquire it for the next salvo. Use the bone-targeting that was developed for Streaks to target groups of 5 missiles (with a chance of individual missiles missing completely).

This would be a great change to LRMs. Would go a fair way to bringing balance to the Feast or Famine problem LRMs suffer from.
Currently, the smaller launchers are better as they cluster damage to the CT, fire faster, waste less ammo on failed shots, run cooler and weigh less.
The nonstop streaming also causes people to prefer smaller launchers.

Requiring you to lock and fire for each launch gives the bigger launchers more appeal.
Causing sets of 5 missiles to target specific bones would also increase the appeal of larger Launchers.
I'd go a step further and make IS LRMs fire in sets of 5, not quite like the cLRM streams, but more like 5 missiles in a cluster 4 times rapidly for an LRM20. Each cluster aims for a specific bone determined at time of launch.

Gives AMS time to respond to the sometimes ridiculous amount of LRMs that the IS can fire in a huge cluster without making them too clanlike.

[Fonzie260]

stjobe, on 18 March 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

At knife-fighting range you can somewhat aim SRMs, sure. At medium or longer ranges, you're just trusting to the RNG gods - same as you would with the system I suggested.

And bone-targeting can be tweaked; it's percentage-based between the hit locations, so you could conceivably adjust the spread dynamically depending on range and where the reticule is aimed - in effect keeping your sorta-kinda aim ability intact even with a fire-and-forget guided system.


Missile spread and flight phases already spread the missiles to the point where very few pilots whose stats I've seen have a hit percentage north of roughly 40-45%, more often it's in the 30-40% range. The system I suggested would achieve the same kind of spread just with a different mechanic - one that allows fire-and-forget (which the current mechanic does not).

As an additional benefit, the spread and miss chances can be manipulated the same for LRMs as for SRMs, increasing the spread with distance and/or aim and tightening it with LoS, TAG, Artemis etc.


It's "a BattleTech game", remember? Says so right up there in the logo. It makes sense to try to stick to how things work in the BattleTech universe as far as possible. And while I do acknowledge it isn't possible all the time, in the case of missile mechanics it is.

I've said before, and I stand by it still, that I really don't care if they throw all TT rules out the window as long as they deliver something that feels like it's set in the BattleTech universe. The easiest way of achieving this is likely to just follow as many of the TT rules as possible, but I'm open to alternatives. The sad fact however is that MWO feels pretty far from BattleTech at the moment, what with its rather low TTK, magical ECM, and non-guided missiles, to name just a few examples.

Like a originally stated... it is the weapon system that is broken. Once you adjust one it's going to make the others OP.

I think we agree but are coming from two different places on this statement.

[Davegt27]

Saying LRMs are easy mode is like telling someone with a machine gun

Hey! You use machine guns because they are easy



If you go to your stats page and look up the hit percentages you will probably find lasers at the highest percentage

You might say hey you just hit the button with LRMs

Ok with lasers you just pull the trigger you don't need any range and angle tracking
There are no counter measures just point and shoot then repeat

Could we stop crying about LRMs

[JaxRiot]

I don't know whats with all the LRM hate.

LRMs are junk outside of pugs. None of the competitive units will allow them because they are already far too easily countered and even outfitting spotters with things like NARCs and TAGs are not worth the crit slots to help LRMs because their damage is so crappy and even with assistance they can still be avoided.

[dimachaerus]

JaxRiot, on 18 March 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

I don't know whats with all the LRM hate.

LRMs are junk outside of pugs. None of the competitive units will allow them because they are already far too easily countered and even outfitting spotters with things like NARCs and TAGs are not worth the crit slots to help LRMs because their damage is so crappy and even with assistance they can still be avoided.

Thats what we've been talking about trying to fix? Haven't really seen any hate going on in here for Lrm's.

[ThrashInc]

>>way more effort to use LRMs
>>having to keep crosshairs on target
>>lol

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 March 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Well, it basically needed the person to aim at the enemy mech to gain the lock-on, instead of aiming somewhere in the general direction of the enemy.

I, to be honest, kind of liked the way it worked. Felt more involved and actually more *fun* to use the LRMs.

lol....tbh, I didn't even notice on my HBK-4J. Guess I musta always just aimed "proper" to begin with, lol.

[LordNothing]

you want to fix the lerms, you need to steal a few pages from MWLL. pretty much copy their whole damn targeting/electronic warfare/missile/c3/etc systems.

it was doomed from the second pgi decided, 'hey lets throw 2 decades of mechwarrior game mechanics (not tabletop, mechwarrior is not tt) down the drain and do a striped down system that todays attention deficit tweens can understand'. every single 'fix' has been a bandaid on a disabled kid, no matter how many you use, hes still crippled.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 March 2015 - 07:46 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

Good choice of lolcat. Very good choice.


Other than the condescending first obligatory 'no skill' statement when the reality is ' no twitch', I agree but think it doesn't go far enough. If I have to track like a sniper for 4 to 6 seconds of flight time, I want FLPPD for my artemis LRM40s I fire. I pay the weight and spaceand cbills for the equipment, then "skill" is being required (to accept a false premise), I want the cheese benefits that SHOULD go with it.

So, a 32 pixel wide targeting are at range just like snipers, and I should reap an almost completely removed spread and gain the ability to target components to make instant legging or kills just like the ballisticheese possible.

time to balance LRMs with the cheese if you are going to make it even harder to use them than they already are with the rat maze infowarfare of garbage no other weapon system has already in place.

[Kjudoon]

JaxRiot, on 18 March 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

I don't know whats with all the LRM hate.

LRMs are junk outside of pugs. None of the competitive units will allow them because they are already far too easily countered and even outfitting spotters with things like NARCs and TAGs are not worth the crit slots to help LRMs because their damage is so crappy and even with assistance they can still be avoided.

This is why I made the "accident/opportunity statement in another thread.

I would like to propose a 2 week test.

1- put the bug back where the targeting is that much harder.

2- buff the LRM speed to 200m/s, same as SRMs.

3- dramatically shrink the spread of missiles for locked targets, and increase it for dumbfire or lost lock targets.

Watch the results. In 2 weeks, adjust if needed, revert or lock it down.

Remember, twitch is not skill. It is instinct and reaction time. Muscle memory. Skill requires thought and comprehension. Let's put some thought back into the game. LRMs are very skill based and low on twitch. This will bring the two ends closer together.

[Roadkill]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly.

That's not even close to enough. With that bug in place, LRM lock time needed to be nearly instantaneous AND the projectile speed needed to be in the AC/20 range just for starters.

Lock time requires as long as the old CERLL that everyone thought was trash. So if you have to hold your reticle over the target for at least that long, AND then maintain it while the munitions travel to the target, AND the flight time to target is so long that the target can literally run and hide before they arrive, AND those munitions can be shot down in flight...

Yeah, not even close.

LRMs are more dependent on the skill of the target than on the skill of the shooter. Subconsciously, everyone knows that. And that's why people get butthurt when they get killed by LRMs, because deep down they know it was their own damn fault.

[Kilo 40]

Roadkill, on 18 March 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

That's not even close to enough. With that bug in place, LRM lock time needed to be nearly instantaneous AND the projectile speed needed to be in the AC/20 range just for starters.

Lock time requires as long as the old CERLL that everyone thought was trash. So if you have to hold your reticle over the target for at least that long, AND then maintain it while the munitions travel to the target, AND the flight time to target is so long that the target can literally run and hide before they arrive, AND those munitions can be shot down in flight...

Yeah, not even close.

LRMs are more dependent on the skill of the target than on the skill of the shooter. Subconsciously, everyone knows that. And that's why people get butthurt when they get killed by LRMs, because deep down they know it was their own damn fault.

what he said.

[Khobai]

Quote

LRMs are more dependent on the skill of the target than on the skill of the shooter. Subconsciously, everyone knows that. And that's why people get butthurt when they get killed by LRMs, because deep down they know it was their own damn fault.

This. Plus ECM. ECM is still laughably overpowered against LRMs.

[Kilo 40]

Khobai, on 18 March 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

This. Plus ECM. ECM is still laughably overpowered against LRMs.

To be honest, I'm fine with ECM as it is. My biggest grip is the radar dep module.

not only is it OP, it also completely negates advanced target decay.

[Anyone00]

Has there ever been a multiplayer game with a significant weapons system that was indirect fire where it wasn't a nightmare to balance?

Anyways *wades into the sea of liquefied necrotic equine* how does the following sound:
1) Keep the more precise targeting requirement Alistair Winter is suggesting
2) All mechs can get a lock-on (can be toggled on/off) without regards to their weapon load out.
3) For a mech to get a indirect lock-on a friendly mech must first make and maintain a direct lock-on
4) LRMs will continue to go for their original target as long as any friendly mech maintains a direct lock-on even if the mech firing the LRMs looses the lock.
5) A NARC beacon counts as a maintained direct lock-on.
6) EMC nullifies NARC beacons (but looses the current cloaking ability; it still keeps the increased lock-on and target gathering times).

Give LRMs a rather significant boost to speed, a bit steeper path, maybe bring in max range to 800m, increase the effectiveness of AMS to counter some of the increased LRM speed (it's still tonnage), figure out a way of making LMR something that definitely let players know they're hitting them without causing blinding explosion filled "Michael Bay vision", either increase the damage per missile or ammo per ton, and maybe allow them to be targeted on the map by setting some sort of 'saturation point' with the downside of a huge spread increase to encourage the enemy move from an entrenched position.

Put that on the test server for a month or two to see how it goes and make adjustments; and then we could lasso the Moon to pull it down to Earth so we can build our golden mansions there.

[JaxRiot]

Kjudoon, on 18 March 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

This is why I made the "accident/opportunity statement in another thread.

I would like to propose a 2 week test.

1- put the bug back where the targeting is that much harder.

2- buff the LRM speed to 200m/s, same as SRMs.

3- dramatically shrink the spread of missiles for locked targets, and increase it for dumbfire or lost lock targets.

Watch the results. In 2 weeks, adjust if needed, revert or lock it down.

Remember, twitch is not skill. It is instinct and reaction time. Muscle memory. Skill requires thought and comprehension. Let's put some thought back into the game. LRMs are very skill based and low on twitch. This will bring the two ends closer together.

Im terribly sorry and I dont mean any disrespect, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around that reasoning.

LRMs are not worth thier crit slots outside of Pugs. Thier damage is pretty low for realistate they require. Its not worth outfitting spotter mechs to assist them. Competitive units wont use them...

And your solution is to reintroduce a bug to make it even harder to compete?

I dont get it. Im trying to understand but I dont get it.

And none of those solutions will combat what LRMs are already struggling with that make them so undesireable outside of pug matches in the first place

Cheers

Jax

Edited by JaxRiot, 18 March 2015 - 09:45 PM.

[wanderer]

People laugh about aiming LRMs.

Let's review that and do a little comparison. LRMs go 160m/sec: this means if you fired them at maximum range, it takes 6.25 seconds to go from launcher to target. Yes, this means that LRMs are so slow that at long ranges, the weapon has recycled and is firing AGAIN before the first salvo hits. There's a lot of reasons shots over 600m are generally considered foolish.

Now, let's compare that a few favorites.

ERLL's have an effective (full damage) range of 675, pre-modules and assuming no quirks with a 1.25 second burn time. It takes roughly 4.2 seconds for LRMs to travel that distance- but they have to lock on target first. The ERLL can fire, deal it's full damage and even gets a second or two to duck back behind cover before the LRMs arrive- realistically, LRM boats try and fire at under 600m (3.75 sec travel time or less, not including lockon time) as this means popup fire from many guns can hit a LRM carrier without retribution, especially if said shooter has radar deprivation installed- which will mean breaking LOS also ruins missile tracking instantly.

ERPPC's can travel the maximum range of an LRM shot in under one second (the effective 600m bracket, in roughly .57 seconds). The missiles do it in 6.25. Again, the ER PPC can poke from cover and return without fear of reprisal given intelligent use.

Without assistance (spotters, UAVs, NARC) the tradeoffs get even worse as lockon times have to be added and if the LRM carrier has any brains, they're shifting position so as to at least force the direct-fire user to re-acquire them...and of course, to be able to keep a lock as the target drops behind cover, as radar dep will snuff an accurate launch otherwise when LOS-lock is disrupted. In truth, without a team to help keep locks operational, the missile boat vs. an opponent with cover is going to be mauled- one big reason why LRM boats tend to like getting behind cover. Standing facing your target for 4+ seconds and hoping your missiles lock, you can fire, and the target doesn't just dodge is a special kind of hell.

Autocannons have similar advantages. If all this seems like a whole lot to spray someone with partial damage over a wide portion of their armor....congrats! Now you understand how "easy" using LRMs effectively against a competent player becomes. Add in ECM on top of all that. Even if someone's close enough to give you a potential lock, ECM drastically increases lock-on time, making all of the above shots even more ridiculously difficult.

So please, call LRMs a no-skill, easy-mode weapon. They're easy only against opponents that are even easier to nail with point-and-shoot guns, and anyone with the fundamentals of ridge humping, poptarting or poking, cover use and/or a team with the usual ECM suspects will leave that missile boat rekt unless he gets REALLY creative and closes to 400m or less. At which point, he's only a single salvo of missiles away from being rushed and stuck fighting with secondary guns- a fate PPC/AC/laser users never experience, as said guns have no dead zone (save standard PPCs, and those can still hang at 179-91 and be perfectly safe).

Too far, your missiles are useless. Too close, your LRMs can be rushed under and rendered useless. ECM? Crippled. Opponent's got good cover and radar dep? Good luck hitting him. LRM carriers can wipe bad players, but against decent ones it's a constant fight to be able to fire effectively, and good ones it's a constant fight to be able to fire anything that even -hits-, never mind good hits.

Meanwhile, my Thunderbolt-9S cheerfully nails you at whatever range, focuses it's damage nicely, and isn't hearing the next shot on the way before the first one hits. No muss, no fuss, much lightning, such PPFLD, wow.