551 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Quote

You're saying you want LRMs to be OP. I've had this argument with people about PPCs - they wanted PPCs to be superior to all ballistics, cuz.... reasons?

No, I am saying I want LRMS to be EQUAL to DF weapons. I want to see situations in competitive play where you MUST have at least a few IDF weapons in the game to compete effectively. That's my standard. Functional in their role at competitive levels. But they aren't because they have been artificially nerfed by whiners such as the people who agree with you because they can't hack an enemy who can shoot at them without direct line of sight because they engaged in teamwork, and used info warfare to shoot at your sensor target. It adds a whole new dimension to the game that is necessary to make this game worth playing other than your standard moronic FPS not worth the effort to criticize it's so stupid.

You don't want simulation. That's clear. But demanding this game be reduced to Pong like complexity is just asinine. DF battles often end up being like bad TTRPGs:

Roll to hit
Roll Damage
Now roll to be hit
Take X damage
lather
rinse
repeat
stupid
stupid
design.

[Extremist Pain]

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.

well ill give you more information, i was in a hunchback 2c going 86 kph, in the center of the death ball one expects on hpg. not a single held lock( long enough to actually hit r myself) for 5 minutes. i mean, if it legitimately is beyond you to hold a lock for more than a second, the problem is with you, because that means one thing.. you dont even have the balls to hold the lock long enough to actually fire. so rather than assuming that im some coward playing lrms from the back, address the point im bringing up. This point is also supported by the fact ive all but abandoned playing assaults because of how hard it is to come by a team that keeps in mind assaults do not go 150kph, so keeping together requires a bit of keeping an eye on the slowest guys.

[Ultimax]

Kjudoon, on 28 December 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

Really? So artificial inferiority is legitimate now, because reasons? Rustled jimmies?

They are "artificially" limited just as they artificially aim for you.

There is nothing "natural" about them being lock-on, no aim, no leading required weapons.

They are "artificially" an Indirect Fire Weapon.


All of these things are just game mechanics and as such each and every one of them is "artificial".


They are purposefully limited because the skill required to use them and do *something* is low, because firing indirectly is low risk.

In return they are intentionally gimped, with a low skill ceiling. They are denied all of the higher play attributes of most other weapons.



If you want LRMs to be an effective weapon system and see them buffed, I highly suggest you lobby as hard as you can for indirect fire to be removed, for some kind of higher level of skill required to fire them on a target beyond holding your cursor over a red box.

Once those aspects are gone, they will be able to be made into a real weapon system.

[Kjudoon]

Ultimatum X, on 28 December 2015 - 11:47 PM, said:

>frustrated conflict of interest nonsense<

We get it.

You will not accept any form of Indirect Fire regardless of evidence or logic that you are arguing on a false premise and biased data.

As for lobbying, I don't have back channel access to Russ, which seems to be the only way things get changed in this game.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 28 December 2015 - 09:40 PM, said:

No it's not a terrible mechanic. FPS players who can't deal with rocks being thrown over a wall should be ashamed of themselves.



That is bad game design and ignorant criticism..
NO game should have a weapon that has no purpose. But that's the core problem of PGI I think in this whole issue.



Your solution. Either make them all 1000m streaks at AC speeds or convert them all to LBx weapons.

That is NOT an improvement. that is an elimination.

You do not get the concept of 'distinction without difference'. If there IS a difference, define it please. It better be substantial functionally.

I get that you want to keep LRMs as fire-and-forget IDF weapons. I get that. You want to believe, really really want to believe, that balances in a FPS environment.

You're wrong. We've been over it, you're strawmanning the ideas put forward because it's a lot easier than trying to address points that are logical and reasonable with one of trying to make an OP imbalanced mechanic (locking IDF in a FPS MOBA) optimal.

You want to balance the game around T4/T5 play. If you don't get the existing difference between ballistics, lasers and SRMs and how LRMs with a fast, flat trajectory fit into that (I have explained it, repeatedly, in several posts in this thread) I'm not going to do it again. Nobody ever talked about 'fast streaks' or 'LBx weapons'. Nobody. Ever. Except you. Those are your creations, your ideas that everyone has said is bad. You created those bad ideas and then attributed them to me and anyone talking about making LRMs work and be worthwhile in the game. You created a bad argument and then argue against it.

We've also been over, repeatedly in this thread and 100 others, why locking IDF is bad. Why inherently it's not controlled by the user but by the target, is it something that can reasonably and effectively be avoided. If it can be then it's crap when people learn how to do so. If it can't be then it's broken OP. Again, low skill cap because of that.

But we've been over this. I can't say if you're either unwilling or unable to get those points but it's largely irrelevant. LRMs as locking IDF weapons don't work in MW:O. They never have, they never will. They might in T4/T5 environments but you can work flamers and MGs there or whatever frankenbuild you want because you can always count on the poor decisions of your opponent to offset the poor design of your mech.

You repeatedly try to disingenuously dismiss 'rocks thrown over a wall' and such. The problem of course is that we have had better LRMs in the past and we have LRMs currently and we have seen and still see how their use actually plays out. Your arguments are based on pretending that somehow that isn't what happened or it only works that way because.... people just don't want it to work the way you want to pretend it should work.

LRMs are bad. Until they are brought into line as DF weapons they will always be bad. PGI won't do that, because PGI doesn't fix broken things it just breaks other stuff until it's all broken together, so LRMs will always be bad. We just might periodically get other terribad changes to stuff related to them.

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 28 December 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

No, I am saying I want LRMS to be EQUAL to DF weapons. I want to see situations in competitive play where you MUST have at least a few IDF weapons in the game to compete effectively. That's my standard. Functional in their role at competitive levels. But they aren't because they have been artificially nerfed by whiners such as the people who agree with you because they can't hack an enemy who can shoot at them without direct line of sight because they engaged in teamwork, and used info warfare to shoot at your sensor target. It adds a whole new dimension to the game that is necessary to make this game worth playing other than your standard moronic FPS not worth the effort to criticize it's so stupid.

You don't want simulation. That's clear. But demanding this game be reduced to Pong like complexity is just asinine. DF battles often end up being like bad TTRPGs:

Roll to hit
Roll Damage
Now roll to be hit
Take X damage
lather
rinse
repeat
stupid
stupid
design.

Wow. That's so much straw you can build a house out of it but it'd be a total fire hazard.

So either you don't get how locking IDF works or you don't want to get it. So you don't 'aim' them, you just get a lock and shoot. The target either evades because they are slow enough/have counters enough to be avoided, in which case once players who reach the skill level of understanding and using those counters can effectively ignore IDF weapons or the locking IDF weapons can not be consistently/effectively countered, in which case they are utterly and totally superior to any other weapon because you can damage an enemy effectively and consistently who can't damage you back and it requires significantly less skill and effort to do so than learning to shoot straight.

'Teamwork' exists and is critical in DF. Why don't you ask anyone who's ever, I dunno, been in the military or something. Like the sum total of battlefield tactics and strategies throughout history that involved being something other than a spotter for air support/arty. You are so disingenuous about this it's hard not to see it as flat out lying. There's far less teamwork in 'go get LoS to the enemy so I can click fire' than focused fire and setting up to win trades.

DF is a PvP skill contest. Can I shoot you better than you shoot me. Locking IDF is a PvE skill contest. You sick your AI-managed locking/tracking NPC missiles on me, can I avoid/defeat them? I'm not playing against you so much as the locking/tracking mechanic of the missiles. Your skill is involved but at a far lower level.

Locking IDF is a **** mechanic in a FPS. It's fine in a tactical strategy game. It was not, however, ever a significant part of BT. You wanting to introduce it here is not only a bad FPS game mechanic (hence why you never really see it) but also has no real basis in the lore. It was always an inaccurate secondary use for LRMs.

The fact that nobody else really wants or enjoys it or that everyone else recognizes it as a bad mechanic you try to play off as somehow everyone just 'doesn't know what's good'. Your opinion is certainly valid for yourself; everyone else though who gets the difference and understands the mechanics would like good LRMs, useful LRMs that fit into the game. For example flat, fast trajectory LRMs with their existing tracking mechanic.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

I get that you want to keep LRMs as fire-and-forget IDF weapons.

Excuse me but do not claim I said things I have not.

NEVER in this conversation, have I said I want Fire and Forget. You know what that means right? Get lock, fire, and you don't have to maintain lock. Do you ever LRM?

You are arguing from faulty logic, with bad data and claiming accurate understanding. And you claim I'm the one constructing straw men? When you are done stuffing yours, maybe we can talk.

Garbage in garbage out I guess is acceptable for the lurmhatorz.

Quote

DF is a PvP skill contest.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Utter crap! Skill... what a joke. Alphastrike Warrior online proves that wrong every single day as the lowest skill game in town.

Edited by Kjudoon, 29 December 2015 - 01:09 AM.

[Sandpit]

Extremist Pain, on 28 December 2015 - 10:02 PM, said:

well ill give you more information, i was in a hunchback 2c going 86 kph, in the center of the death ball one expects on hpg. not a single held lock( long enough to actually hit r myself) for 5 minutes. i mean, if it legitimately is beyond you to hold a lock for more than a second, the problem is with you, because that means one thing.. you dont even have the balls to hold the lock long enough to actually fire. so rather than assuming that im some coward playing lrms from the back, address the point im bringing up. This point is also supported by the fact ive all but abandoned playing assaults because of how hard it is to come by a team that keeps in mind assaults do not go 150kph, so keeping together requires a bit of keeping an eye on the slowest guys.

trust me, the higher you go in tier the less this becomes an issue.

This information really is more or less for new players, players learning, players looking to improve, and players looking for new strats to try. The tryhards who "think" they're "great players" and argue against the advice in threads like these are the ones locked in a perpetual state of Tier 4 and 5 without ever climbing or trolls plain and simple

When they do that nascar crap and won't wait for the assault lance, I just announce in chat my location, that i'm not going to try and nascar anymore, and do my best to make sure the tail end of that nascar has to fight it out with us.

Ultimatum X, on 28 December 2015 - 11:47 PM, said:

They are "artificially" limited just as they artificially aim for you.

There is nothing "natural" about them being lock-on, no aim, no leading required weapons.

They are "artificially" an Indirect Fire Weapon.


All of these things are just game mechanics and as such each and every one of them is "artificial".


They are purposefully limited because the skill required to use them and do *something* is low, because firing indirectly is low risk.

In return they are intentionally gimped, with a low skill ceiling. They are denied all of the higher play attributes of most other weapons.



If you want LRMs to be an effective weapon system and see them buffed, I highly suggest you lobby as hard as you can for indirect fire to be removed, for some kind of higher level of skill required to fire them on a target beyond holding your cursor over a red box.

Once those aspects are gone, they will be able to be made into a real weapon system.

here's the thing though
just because you can't use them effectively doesn't make them a subpar weapon system. They're about on par with the others at the moment. They could use a little tweaking here and there but they're a very viable weapon system. Can we stop with all the "but I know better than you because my opinion is more important and I say this weapon, mech, build, etc. is bad"?

[Wintersdark]

hahaha ok, I have to admit, it happened to me today.

I'm levelling my IIC mechs, and got to my HBK-IIC-B. It's equipped with 4xALRM15's and 2 ERML's. It's a silly mech, I'm not afraid to admit it, but now and then I like play

And I got endlessly badgered by the guy ostensibly in command on VOIP, insulted for using them.

So, there ya have it, it's happened to me too.

619 damage, 2 kills, 8 assists. Pulled my weight just fine, despite getting all my own locks (LOS is necessary for Artemis to function, so I may as well).

[crashlogic]

LRM threads are about hating ltms and nothing useful. Whats funny is what constitutes "skill" in this game is reduced to weapon aiming. Piloting seesm not to matter, tactics don't matter positioning doesn't matter, team work doesn't matter. Its all reduced to can you aim your laser?
There are a whole lot of variables that make a person a good player, and most of those have nothing to do with weapons. This is true in any FPS.

[Illuzian Pryde]

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.

Every time someone types out "Locks please" it makes me roll my eyes.

Lights will lock what they can,
Brawlers might be switching targets,
Newbies need to learn the skill, if you are in Tier 3 you might be playing with people who do not know how or have not mastered the skill.

And finally,I myself playing a missile boat from time to time, I take the locks that are out there but I seek my own, LRMs work much better with at least some LOS. As an LRM boat you most certainly can get your own locks and should seek them out too. And unless there is a whole lance of LRM boats, the team most certainly can win without you.

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 29 December 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:

hahaha ok, I have to admit, it happened to me today.

I'm levelling my IIC mechs, and got to my HBK-IIC-B. It's equipped with 4xALRM15's and 2 ERML's. It's a silly mech, I'm not afraid to admit it, but now and then I like play

And I got endlessly badgered by the guy ostensibly in command on VOIP, insulted for using them.

So, there ya have it, it's happened to me too.

619 damage, 2 kills, 8 assists. Pulled my weight just fine, despite getting all my own locks (LOS is necessary for Artemis to function, so I may as well).

now imagine that happening 4-5 times a day during your playing time lol
it gets really old really quick

Illuzian Pryde, on 29 December 2015 - 02:09 AM, said:

the team most certainly can win without you.

the team can win without you and your (insert weapon here) so there

see how silly that kinda sounds?

That's the exact mentality I'm talking about. I don't think you intended it as such, but think about what was said and the subject and thread. It's team game. That shouldn't even be a thought unless you're dealing with a player who refuses to participate or suicides, etc.

[Illuzian Pryde]

Sandpit, on 29 December 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

now imagine that happening 4-5 times a day during your playing time lol it gets really old really quick the team can win without you and your (insert weapon here) so there see how silly that kinda sounds? That's the exact mentality I'm talking about. I don't think you intended it as such, but think about what was said and the subject and thread. It's team game. That shouldn't even be a thought unless you're dealing with a player who refuses to participate or suicides, etc.

Not intended that way at all, but people will get the locks they can, sure some people might not be great at multitasking the R key but people do not intentionally not get locks, that why the whole "locks please" mentality irritates me. I lock targets and drop UAVs but I definitely will not be sitting in a firing line to hold a lock for my LRM boats because the pinpoint damage the front line fighters can do is more effective.

It is a team game all the way, that is why the LRM boats should not be getting upset that people are not holding locks, if that is happening in game, get your own locks.

Obviously there are toxic players who do get sarcastic and say "Get your own locks" or starting ranting about LRM boats but you should totally ignore them and move on, it will just frustrate you and anyone else reading the conversation.

I have more against people getting stroppy over trivial things, I get not winning X games in a row can be frustrating but these people are not worth your time or might be having a bad day, better to just move on and ignore it.

[Sandpit]

Illuzian Pryde, on 29 December 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

It is a team game all the way, that is why the LRM boats should not be getting upset that people are not holding locks

uhm nobody is. That misconception was cleared up about 5 pages back

[Galenit]

Sandpit, on 29 December 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

That's the exact mentality I'm talking about. I don't think you intended it as such, but think about what was said and the subject and thread. It's team game. That shouldn't even be a thought unless you're dealing with a player who refuses to participate or suicides, etc.

Use 1/3 of your lrm ammo for supression and area denial, it gives nearly no damage or kills,
but taking one or more mechs out of the match for some moments is often enough to give your team the advantage for a win.

[Dodger79]

Illuzian Pryde, on 29 December 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

Obviously there are toxic players who do get sarcastic and say "Get your own locks" or starting ranting about LRM boats but you should totally ignore them and move on, it will just frustrate you and anyone else reading the conversation.

Well, i think the response "get your own locks" is a little overrated by "the lurmers". I write this, too, but under no circumstances does that mean that i do not get locks or would not drop an UAV. I just write this to encourage the boat to stick with the team, at a place where it is most useful for the team. After writing "get your own locks" i just play as always with locks, UAV etc. If the boat attacks "my" targets it's perfectly fine with me, as long as it is no backstander that does not want to share his armor with his team and is just seeking high damage-output for himself without getting shot back.

[QuantumButler]

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.

Don'ts use LRMS they're godawful and you're just hurting your team by being in a mech that is a liability and can't actually fight.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Illuzian Pryde, on 29 December 2015 - 02:09 AM, said:

Every time someone types out "Locks please" it makes me roll my eyes.

For me, its when they say "stick together pls". Makes me rage. I'm not going to cluster together just so they can hide behind me, block my lane and steal my kills. Oh, and leech off my AMS too! Who the hell do they think they are? Asking for such selfish thing? Get your own armor.

In fact, now that I think about it, asking "stick together pls" is so obnoxious and condescending that I'm going to start a 25 page vent thread about it. Maybe even compose a haiku denouncing those greedy jerks. How dare they.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 29 December 2015 - 06:36 AM.

[Quaamik]

Kraftwerkedup, on 26 December 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

So then were arguing about something that doesnt exist. There is no &quot;person who doesnt hit R

BS

I've been in countless matches where, observing after I died, no one I observed bothered to "target" anyone. They fired, often spent plenty of time with their sights on or near the enemy mech(s), but not slick to be seen. Quite often in those matches there is also hardly a word spoken, and almost never anything constructive (like where the frigging enemy is).

When you do that, you not only deny any LRM boats a chance to help, you also give the enemy de-facto ECM coverage for anyone out of line of sight.

[Volts]

QuantumButler, on 29 December 2015 - 04:02 AM, said:

Don'ts use LRMS they're godawful and you're just hurting your team by being in a mech that is a liability and can't actually fight.

Did it really take 25 pages for someone make this douchy comment?

We are getting nicer! Must be the xmas spirit.