551 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Kraftwerkedup, on 27 December 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

Ok well then our idea of compelling gameplay isnt the same. To me storylines and immersion, IS compelling gameplay, and PvE in F2P games doesnt offer that.

Played DCUO at all? You should try it then. It's not deep immersion, but it's far deeper than any PvP game I've played.

[MischiefSC]

I get what you're saying, I do. However there's a reason you don't really see lrms in competitive play - at a pretty early point my ability to account for lrms becomes more relevant to their ability to damage me than your ability to shoot them at me. You get a small surprise value the first time you shoot them at which point I've adjusted my positioning and approach to largely nullify them.

Brushing someone back by getting them to avoid 100%of the damage you want to do is inferior to brushing someone back with a 64pt alpha to their ct. I've distracted/pinned 4 mechs by repositioning to shoot at their flank, doing the same thing while inflicting accurate damage.

That is the thing. The "benefits" of idf can all be replicated by DF and done with more effictive, precise damage to specific locations. However the moment IDF isn't flat out inferior to DF then it makes DF irrelevant. However as the skills involved don't require the same aiming/trading skill set they will always be offset more by your opponents ability to counter than your ability to shoot at them.

[Kjudoon]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

LRMS needles to be direct fire as in flat, fast trajectory. Should still have locks to tighten pattern and track moving targets. Then give it slow indirect fire on TAGed / NARCed targets with a wide spread.

Make their primary use comparable to direct fire and IDF require dedicated spotter and less accuracy. Sorta like tabletop.

So a guided LBx system. Sorry, but you are missing the point of missiles and may as well remove a third of all weapons from the game and chuck lore for the sake of a few crybabies who can't handle looking up.

The reason you don't see LRMs in competitive play is because they have been nerfed OUT of competitive play because of a pair of significant flaws in the game:

1. The maps are too small by a factor of 5 to 10
2. The defensive systems that are missile centric are too easy to be had.

IF, you got rid of AMS, ECM, incoming missile warning, Raderp, and sped up the LRMs to 300-400m/s they would be in competitive games like crazy because the advantage of being able to shoot over cover without direct LOS is MASSIVE. That one advantage is unbalancing as applied to this game.

But yet... as I have learned thanks to World of Warships... it isn't. Indirect fire is not the problem. It's the lack of the ability to use a 3rd person view and speed of the game that's the problem. In WOWS, everyone fires indirect SLOW shots. But, they can also lead targets that also move slow and shells hit for a LOT more. If you allowed the 3rd person drone to be used to fire LRMs and see over obstacles, you'd go a long way to being able to dumbfire weapons. But, then you're talking more AC speeds of 600m/s to match the speed of the game. OR you would have to increase the damage of LRMs to handle being essentially dumbfired.

Right now you have the problem with lore and simulation losing to Arena shooter thinking bucking against cryhards in the part of the development. They want their big stompy esport robot game. Most of us who play LRMs want far more simulation.

The ultimate point is still this. LRMs have been the victim of discrimination by players who are anti-indirect fire weapons in all games that have them. Those same players currently have favor in PGI's eyes and ears, and that is why LRMs, streaks and similar guided and indirect fire weapons will never have equal standing.

They would rather perfect convergence laser vomit to true balance even though that is totally alien to lore and tabletop design rules they sort of use and creates the mess we are in for LRMs are the true counter to that meta. You can't vomit on something you can't get a LOS on but can hurt you without ever being seen.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 December 2015 - 07:44 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

So a guided LBx system. Sorry, but you are missing the point of missiles and may as well remove a third of all weapons from the game and chuck lore for the sake of a few crybabies who can't handle looking up.

No, I'm daying.make them work like tabletop. If the difference between a guided direct fire missile system and LBX isn't clear I dunno what to say.

You see there are differences between balsitics, lasers and srms? Same sort of thing. I get that you want to include IDF as a primary fire mechanic but in a fps moba it's a bad mechanic for all the reasons already discussed. Hence why even in tabletop they didn't work that way.

[Sandpit]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

Played DCUO at all? You should try it then. It's not deep immersion, but it's far deeper than any PvP game I've played.

I like how they do their PvP gear separate from PvE gear essentially making a completely different set of stats for each. I bouthg the lifetime sub way back when, but I think their pricing model when they went F2P in regards to account restrictions for free players was a bit much.

[Wintersdark]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

So a guided LBx system. Sorry, but you are missing the point of missiles and may as well remove a third of all weapons from the game and chuck lore for the sake of a few crybabies who can't handle looking up.

If not that, it has to be something. If LRM's are buffed from where they are, it destroys the new player experience. Where LRM's are, however, is garbage unless you're in the underhive.

So, something needs to change. It cannot be a pure numbers change, either - no amount of normal stat changes are going to fix this problem, they'll just swing it one way or another as Mischief says - and as history has shown.

Fluff has to take a back seat to being a functioning weapon system.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

I get what you're saying, I do. However there's a reason you don't really see lrms in competitive play - at a pretty early point my ability to account for lrms becomes more relevant to their ability to damage me than your ability to shoot them at me. You get a small surprise value the first time you shoot them at which point I've adjusted my positioning and approach to largely nullify them.

Brushing someone back by getting them to avoid 100%of the damage you want to do is inferior to brushing someone back with a 64pt alpha to their ct. I've distracted/pinned 4 mechs by repositioning to shoot at their flank, doing the same thing while inflicting accurate damage.

That is the thing. The "benefits" of idf can all be replicated by DF and done with more effictive, precise damage to specific locations. However the moment IDF isn't flat out inferior to DF then it makes DF irrelevant. However as the skills involved don't require the same aiming/trading skill set they will always be offset more by your opponents ability to counter than your ability to shoot at them.

the reason you dont' see LRMs in "competitive" play is because they don't fit into the min/max formula and they are actually the hardest to use effectively which is counter to the "easiest path" mentality of the min/max crowd typically and that's the only reason.

[MischiefSC]

Wintersdark, on 27 December 2015 - 07:43 PM, said:

If not that, it has to be something. If LRM's are buffed from where they are, it destroys the new player experience. Where LRM's are, however, is garbage unless you're in the underhive.

So, something needs to change. It cannot be a pure numbers change, either - no amount of normal stat changes are going to fix this problem, they'll just swing it one way or another as Mischief says - and as history has shown.

Fluff has to take a back seat to being a functioning weapon system.

Boom. All that +1.

I'm all for having lrms have an idf secondary fire mode like in TT with a designated spotter. The point though is that to make them competitive with DF but not clownshoes broken they need a viable df performance. A damage buff, fast flat trajectory. speed of AC20 rounds? Small arc to get over the people in front of you.

Screenshake + a more reliable 60pt alpha on a target is a viable investment for the tonnage and heat. Tonnage/heat/damage lrms are a solid investment. It's the accuracy model that needs refined.

[ChewBaka]

Extremist Pain, on 26 December 2015 - 03:31 PM, said:

MechWarrior is a team game. Im not sure where this belief that supporting your team is too much. For example, i was just asking for locks in a game and i was told to get my own locks. Im sorry if asking for a contribution is too much, but if you dont feel like being a member of the team, dont play a team based game. You think you can win this game without my help, go ahead and try. Ill enjoy watching you fail.

Erm, might be a little late to respond to you but I was once in a game where someone asked for locks and the team noticed he was in an Atlas.

We abandoned his slow *** and used him as 'bait' to distract the enemy lights while we NASCAR'ed into their assault lance. Easy victory with only one casualty, being that Atlas. His contribution was significant in its own way, but not quite what he expected or wanted I think.

Don't think so highly of yourself. If you brought a pure LRM boat, chances are you don't have the capacity to influence the game as much as you think, or at least not in the manner that you intended. If you are reliant on your team for locks, than your performance is tied to your team which doesn't make you a matchwinner by any measure.

You know what will really help LRM boats in this game to ensure that you will get more targets? If PGI includes an option where YOU (the LRM boat) can buy and distribute UAVs to your teammates. This way you will get your locks without needing your teammates to face-tank on your behalf.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Edustaja, on 26 December 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Asking for locks implies that you're just going to sit back at 1k and lob missiles at walls.
Active lrm usage usually requires for you to stay with the group and close to the targets to get positive hits.

Typical self-centered reply.

"You're asking to work as part of a team; that means you want me to carry you. You obviously suck."

Sorry all you masters of all things Mech, but you obviously have no clue how to play LRMs. They can be used while the LRM carrier is still approaching the firing line. That's what shared locks are for.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 27 December 2015 - 08:02 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

the reason you dont' see LRMs in "competitive" play is because they don't fit into the min/max formula and they are actually the hardest to use effectively which is counter to the "easiest path" mentality of the min/max crowd typically and that's the only reason.

If there was an advantage to be mined out of lrms people would do it. It's about reliably and consistency and that means max control of your results. Lrms are more dependent on the target than your own skill. That's what I mean about skill cap. I can hillhump, side poke, use bulk ams or ECM and nullify most if not all your firepower. Df however always works. In range? I hit if my aim and positioning is good. Trades are being better at this than the other guy.

I get the appeal of lrms. We all do. If you want them fixed though you need to be honest about them and how they work. Idf and locking weapons have the appeal of being easier to fire but the results of firing being dependent on the targets competency with mitigating locks and IDF trajectory.

[Mystere]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

Right now you have the problem with lore and simulation losing to Arena shooter thinking bucking against cryhards in the part of the development. They want their big stompy esport robot game. Most of us who play LRMs want far more simulation.

Which is why a clear line should separate the lore from the eSports side of MWO. We get our lore, they get their generic robot shooter. The latter can waive their epeens all they want via their 3-lance Clan companies (Yuck! Yuck! Yuck!).

I wonder though if PGI has the intestinal fortitude to do such a thing.

[Rhent]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

I get what you're saying, I do. However there's a reason you don't really see lrms in competitive play - at a pretty early point my ability to account for lrms becomes more relevant to their ability to damage me than your ability to shoot them at me. You get a small surprise value the first time you shoot them at which point I've adjusted my positioning and approach to largely nullify them.

Brushing someone back by getting them to avoid 100%of the damage you want to do is inferior to brushing someone back with a 64pt alpha to their ct. I've distracted/pinned 4 mechs by repositioning to shoot at their flank, doing the same thing while inflicting accurate damage.

That is the thing. The "benefits" of idf can all be replicated by DF and done with more effictive, precise damage to specific locations. However the moment IDF isn't flat out inferior to DF then it makes DF irrelevant. However as the skills involved don't require the same aiming/trading skill set they will always be offset more by your opponents ability to counter than your ability to shoot at them.

No, that isn't really the advantage. LRM mechs spread the damage around as long as they are smart in how they play and read the mini-map. The damage spread allows our snipers to get one hit arm removals or torso criticals earlier in the game. If you are fighting me and I get a blip, I will fire one volley into you and a secondary volley depending on your position on the map and spotter. About 2 secs before the second volley hits, I look to the mini-map and find my next target, get a lock and repeat the process. Besides forcing you to take cover, it also breaks up formations and causes people to fall out of the murder ball making it easier for my team to kill you. Towards the end when I'm out of LRM's, my armor is mostly intact and my dual LPL's will kill the remainder or I can tank for the guys that are left. Welcome to LRM 101.

If you don't respect LRM's, you aren't carrying AMS, ECM or Radar Dep, and I love players that do that.

Edited by Rhent, 27 December 2015 - 08:11 PM.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

Except that your success with LRMs at upper levels is driven by your targets use of counters and terrain, not by your skill. With DF there is no "counter". If you can shoot them they can shoot you. It comes down to aim, accuracy and timing.

The other skills, like positioning etc are not harder for IDF than df. The difference is required exposure to fire and accuracy of the shot vs just getting a lock.

Df, skill cap is all you. Idf, skill cap flips to target skill not yours.

You do realize that that type of mano-a-mano gameplay is just so one-dimensional, right?

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 07:15 PM, said:

counters and terrain go with the skill level of using them along with being able to know the maps well enough to choose good positions and anticipate where the battle will rotate to. That way you're always in your team's rear lines, still in range of all enemy units, and able to continue barraging.

Well, I have come to realize long ago that a large part of MWO's problems can be traced to this very one dimensional man-to-man mindset plaguing this game.

Edited by Mystere, 27 December 2015 - 08:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 07:39 PM, said:

No, I'm daying.make them work like tabletop. If the difference between a guided direct fire missile system and LBX isn't clear I dunno what to say.

You see there are differences between balsitics, lasers and srms? Same sort of thing. I get that you want to include IDF as a primary fire mechanic but in a fps moba it's a bad mechanic for all the reasons already discussed. Hence why even in tabletop they didn't work that way.

If you think LRMs are "worthless" now, wait until you try to make them a direct fire weapon that doesn't track, shoots from 900 meters, and travels so painfully slow that all but the absolute slowest mechs can dodge them.

If you want to make it truer to tabletop I think reworking the way they work when using indirect fire is how to do it. Loosen their grouping and lengthen lock times if you personally don't have LoS, and decrease the grouping size.

The helps cut down on the "invisible" mechs shooting lurms, still keeps them very viable, and help balance them a bit with the current system, because realistically, no idea, no matter how good I might personally think it is, that requires a massive overhaul to the complete mechanics and weapon system is going to gain much traction and we're far too "deep" into the game at this point to realistically expect something like that.

ChewBaka, on 27 December 2015 - 07:56 PM, said:

We abandoned his slow *** and used him as 'bait' to distract the enemy lights while we NASCAR'ed into their assault lance. Easy victory with only one casualty, being that Atlas. His contribution was significant in its own way, but not quite what he expected or wanted I think.

this is exactly he type of player(s) i'm talking about in my previous posts. GJ for you sir, I'm glad to know that now so I'll be sure to be on the lookout for scummy players like that.

[MischiefSC]

Rhent, on 27 December 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

No, that isn't really the advantage. LRM mechs spread the damage around as long as they are smart in how they play and read the mini-map. The damage spread allows our snipers to get one hit arm removals or torso criticals earlier in the game. If you are fighting me and I get a blip, I will fire one volley into you and a secondary volley depending on your position on the map and spotter. About 2 secs before the second volley hits, I look to the mini-map and find my next target, get a lock and repeat the process. Besides forcing you to take cover, it also breaks up formations and causes people to fall out of the murder ball making it easier for my team to kill you. Towards the end when I'm out of LRM's, my armor is mostly intact and my dual LPL's will kill the remainder or I can tank for the guys that are left. Welcome to LRM 101.

If you don't respect LRM's, you aren't carrying AMS, ECM or Radar Dep, and I love players that do that.

Except I can largely mitigate your lrms with terrain and you "largely intact armor" means my team has almost certainly been winning trades against your team who's been forced to fight 11 v 12 so you can pepper some scattered damage on my team on the occasion when someone gets a lock on us outside of ecm. RDerp is always useful, lrms or no.

If LRMs were as useful or more than direct fire you'd see them at every level of play. As they are mitigated by the skill of the target while DF largely isn't they have diminishing returns as your opponents get better and better.

[Rhent]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

Except I can largely mitigate your lrms with terrain and you "largely intact armor" means my team has almost certainly been winning trades against your team who's been forced to fight 11 v 12 so you can pepper some scattered damage on my team on the occasion when someone gets a lock on us outside of ecm. RDerp is always useful, lrms or no.

If LRMs were as useful or more than direct fire you'd see them at every level of play. As they are mitigated by the skill of the target while DF largely isn't they have diminishing returns as your opponents get better and better.

The majority of players run Seismic and Advanced Zoom, short of brawlers who don't have to run advanced zoom. To each their own, please continue discounting LRM's.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 08:21 PM, said:

If you think LRMs are "worthless" now, wait until you try to make them a direct fire weapon that doesn't track, shoots from 900 meters, and travels so painfully slow that all but the absolute slowest mechs can dodge them.

If you want to make it truer to tabletop I think reworking the way they work when using indirect fire is how to do it. Loosen their grouping and lengthen lock times if you personally don't have LoS, and decrease the grouping size.

The helps cut down on the "invisible" mechs shooting lurms, still keeps them very viable, and help balance them a bit with the current system, because realistically, no idea, no matter how good I might personally think it is, that requires a massive overhaul to the complete mechanics and weapon system is going to gain much traction and we're far too "deep" into the game at this point to realistically expect something like that.


this is exactly he type of player(s) i'm talking about in my previous posts. GJ for you sir, I'm glad to know that now so I'll be sure to be on the lookout for scummy players like that.

You make them lock and track or dumbfire. You just make it fast and flat. You also up damage and tighten cluster, like srm4a width on lrm20a at 1000m. You also still have idf about like we do now just a bit wider spread. The point being that shooting you with 3xlrm15as at 400m needs to be comparable to 2lpl, 4xcerml at 400m. Less precision but more damage plus screenshake. If someone spots you with tag or you're NARCed I can IDF harass the crap out of you.

We'd need to re-evaluate the 180m minimum range. In TT you could hot load lrms but it had risks.

I would *love* a ballistic + lrm build to be viable. If LRMs are locking DF you get perpetual accuracy synergy even if projectile speeds vary. I'd run a nice cool Ac10 (take the stupid as **** ballistic drop off that btw) and some fast firing lrm5s +2 mls on a Victor and ragefuck the face off people. It'd be glorious.

13 dps with screenshake and a ton of flexibility, manageable heat and performance driven by my skill not the targets.

We all want lrms to work. That however means making them a viable and interesting direct fire weapon with a harassing IDF option, not a boat-or-ignore idf support weapon that is controlled by the targets skill at countering it.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

You make them lock and track or dumbfire. You just make it fast and flat. You also up damage and tighten cluster, like srm4a width on lrm20a at 1000m. You also still have idf about like we do now just a bit wider spread. The point being that shooting you with 3xlrm15as at 400m needs to be comparable to 2lpl, 4xcerml at 400m. Less precision but more damage plus screenshake. If someone spots you with tag or you're NARCed I can IDF harass the crap out of you.

We'd need to re-evaluate the 180m minimum range. In TT you could hot load lrms but it had risks.

I would *love* a ballistic + lrm build to be viable. If LRMs are locking DF you get perpetual accuracy synergy even if projectile speeds vary. I'd run a nice cool Ac10 (take the stupid as **** ballistic drop off that btw) and some fast firing lrm5s +2 mls on a Victor and ragefuck the face off people. It'd be glorious.

13 dps with screenshake and a ton of flexibility, manageable heat and performance driven by my skill not the targets.

We all want lrms to work. That however means making them a viable and interesting direct fire weapon with a harassing IDF option, not a boat-or-ignore idf support weapon that is controlled by the targets skill at countering it.

so you make them lock or dumbfire
uhm isn't that exactly the same mechanic we have now..?

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

so you make them lock or dumbfire
uhm isn't that exactly the same mechanic we have now..?

Flat, fast trajectory. Lock on LoS, tag or narc only. If firing IDF wider spread.

How maneuverable I don't know. However you want lrms to be viable you need to make them directly competitive with DF in the same way pre-nerf gauss was competitive with lasers or buffed srms. Not the same but side by side competitive performance.