365 replies to this topic

[GreenHell]

I personally HATE the "Warning, incoming missiles" every goddamn time a missile flies in my direction. It's more annoying than anything at this point. Why not have a warning tone like MW2, rather than betty constantly blathering on? That worked just fine for me back when I was a kid, why wouldn't it work now in MW:O?

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

I don't run LRMs, but I do run "support" mechs. However, I rarely do this stuff because:
1)Average LRM guy in no way use map awareness. He gets the lock, he shoots at it untill it dies or the lock is lost. He never consider that target may be in cave/pipeline/tunnel/thin mountain passage/right behind the tall building. And no, he doesn't look if his crosshair gets red or not.
2)Average LRM guy got no idea about how to position himself. He'll be hitting rocks directly in his FOV, but he won't move an inch to fix that.
3)Average LRM guy isn't even aware that his missiles got both 180m minimal range AND 1000m maximal range.
4)Average LRM guy never heard of "Primary".
5)Average LRM guy goes loco should there be more than one target. The worst version of tower defence idiocy you'll ever get.
6)Average LRM guy doesn't even look at difference between targets. So, he'll be happy shooting a squirrel while you are painting that D-DC fatlass.

So, before we even talk about balancing LRMs, we should forbid it's use for anyone who hasn't passed "exam" on these. Long, painful exam with limited trials per month.

[CainenEX]

Hopefully someone will tweet this to PGI

[Barantor]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 March 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

Or if they were fast enough that the only time you got significant window to do anything with the warning info is when those LRMs were fired from more than 600 meters away.

Think if you got a warning only when the missiles were about to hit your AMS range (like 50m). I think even that would go a long way to let the LRMs have a chance of hitting and might encourage more AMS use.

The problem is that most don't like having to change their builds to include AMS. It is something they have to put weight into that doesn't gain them any xp/cbills. I would be fine with AMS giving some cbills for when you are not the target though.

[Bishop Steiner]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

I don't run LRMs, but I do run "support" mechs. However, I rarely do this stuff because:
1)Average LRM guy in no way use map awareness. He gets the lock, he shoots at it untill it dies or the lock is lost. He never consider that target may be in cave/pipeline/tunnel/thin mountain passage/right behind the tall building. And no, he doesn't look if his crosshair gets red or not.
2)Average LRM guy got no idea about how to position himself. He'll be hitting rocks directly in his FOV, but he won't move an inch to fix that.
3)Average LRM guy isn't even aware that his missiles got both 180m minimal range AND 1000m maximal range.
4)Average LRM guy never heard of "Primary".
5)Average LRM guy goes loco should there be more than one target. The worst version of tower defence idiocy you'll ever get.
6)Average LRM guy doesn't even look at difference between targets. So, he'll be happy shooting a squirrel while you are painting that D-DC fatlass.

So, before we even talk about balancing LRMs, we should forbid it's use for anyone who hasn't passed "exam" on these. Long, painful exam with limited trials per month.

If we just put that as a requirement to open the mechlab, let alone drop, PERIOD, the population of MWO would plummet, whether they prefer to pilot LURMs or Vomit.

Because let's face it, pretty much everything you just noted applies to probably 75% of the people who play, period.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

If we just put that as a requirement to open the mechlab, let alone drop, PERIOD, the population of MWO would plummet, whether they prefer to pilot LURMs or Vomit.

Because let's face it, pretty much everything you just noted applies to probably 75% of the people who play, period.

I'm not talking about restriction to opening mechlab. I'm talking about restriction to deploy in a mech that mounts LRMs in his current loadout.

[Bishop Steiner]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'm not talking about restriction to opening mechlab. I'm talking about restriction to deploy in a mech that mounts LRMs in his current loadout.

I am aware of that.

And I'm saying there is so much stupid, in some many builds going around, that it's pretty silly to target LRM users, when I see more Idiots each match in laservomit.

Just because one uses a "metamech" doesn't make one remotely competent.

Sounds to me like you just have an anti LRM crusade.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 March 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

I am aware of that.

And I'm saying there is so much stupid, in some many builds going around, that it's pretty silly to target LRM users, when I see more Idiots each match in laservomit.

Just because one uses a "metamech" doesn't make one remotely competent.

Sounds to me like you just have an anti LRM crusade.

Yes, I am on anti LRM crusade. However, there are quite some reasons for it, all of them combined sums up to the fact that if stupid laservomit guy bring at least something to the table, there are good chances that stupid LRM guy won't bring anything at all.

[Xavori]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

Yes, I am on anti LRM crusade. However, there are quite some reasons for it, all of them combined sums up to the fact that if stupid laservomit guy bring at least something to the table, there are good chances that stupid LRM guy won't bring anything at all.

So....

Why not go on a fix LRM crusade so that stupid LRM guy brings at least something to the table even if it's just some store brand cookies?

[Bishop Steiner]

Xavori, on 19 March 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

So....

Why not go on a fix LRM crusade so that stupid LRM guy brings at least something to the table even if it's just some store brand cookies?

once admitted weapon bias crusades are confirmed, I figure it means time to tune out.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Xavori, on 19 March 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

So....

Why not go on a fix LRM crusade so that stupid LRM guy brings at least something to the table even if it's just some store brand cookies?

Because that's not how things work. Some stuff is a no-brainer, some stuff takes thinking. It doesn't directly mean that no-brainer is good and complex stuff is bad. That's why you need a data, data collected from average or BASIC players - players who know WHAT and HOW to do, yet only trying to MASTER things. With LRMs, you got little to no such players. That gives? Right, dire need in a way to get these precious WHAT and HOW to do in their heads. That's why long and boring briefing exists for almost any activity.

Edited by Confirmed Cheater, 19 March 2016 - 08:42 AM.

[Xavori]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Because that's not how things work. Some stuff is a no-brainer, some stuff takes thinking. It doesn't directly mean that no-brainer is good and complex stuff is bad. That's why you need a data, data collected from average or BASIC players - players who know WHAT and HOW to do, yet only trying to MASTER things. With LRMs, you got little to no such players. That gives? Right, dire need in a way to get these precious WHAT and HOW to do in their heads. That's why long and boring briefing exists for almost any activity.

The reason we have little to no of those players is the first time you drop into a match with LRM's, everyone tells you how much they suck. Then they end up doing little to no damage because LRM's take more skill with all the obstacles PGI has built into them. Then they get on the forums and read how much they suck, and they give up rather than learn.

[Damia Savon]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Because that's not how things work. Some stuff is a no-brainer, some stuff takes thinking. It doesn't directly mean that no-brainer is good and complex stuff is bad. That's why you need a data, data collected from average or BASIC players - players who know WHAT and HOW to do, yet only trying to MASTER things. With LRMs, you got little to no such players. That gives? Right, dire need in a way to get these precious WHAT and HOW to do in their heads. That's why long and boring briefing exists for almost any activity.

So you are just another boring, ignorant a$$hat. Good to know.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Xavori, on 19 March 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

The reason we have little to no of those players is the first time you drop into a match with LRM's, everyone tells you how much they suck. Then they end up doing little to no damage because LRM's take more skill with all the obstacles PGI has built into them. Then they get on the forums and read how much they suck, and they give up rather than learn.

Well, there goes the question - which came before - lack of competent people or rants of how LRMs suck?
Actually, screw that question, it's oversimplifying things. Still, if you let a monkey to choose between a stealth bomber and a stick, it's choice will be the latter. It doesn't mean that stick is better.

Damia Savon, on 19 March 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

So you are just another boring, ignorant a$$hat. Good to know.

I am in no way telling that LRMs got no troubles. I am telling that you can't just slap buffs until LRMs get their places in top 10 weapon systems used. Otherwise we can just turn every weapon into yellow pulsing beam thingie that has the same traits and just give them different names.

[Roadkill]

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

No. It'll just eliminate them completely, because at that point, all LRMs require multiple tons of otherwise useless equipment to be anything but an inferior direct-fire weapon system.

TAG is a garbage system for spotters, as it requires constant face time and drops as soon as the TAG-user has to shift away. That leaves NARC, and to reliably use it, multiple NARCs. 4+ tons of equipment, per spotter, just to give you fully-functional LRMs. Otherwise, you have something that is best replaced with SRMs or simply an effective ranged weapon system.

You know, like what organized players generally use anyway.

Sorry, forgot one more very important change:

Make them fire-and-forget. If they have a lock when fired, that lock (and firing mode) remains in place until impact. No ducking out of sight to break the lock.

That way TAG is only needed until launch, then the spotter can run. And the spotter can tell that launch has occurred because of the "inbound missiles" icon over the target.

This will also eliminate most of the need for Radar Derp and Advanced Target Decay, though in theory they could still be useful. I'd probably just ditch 'em, though.

[Bishop Steiner]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Well, there goes the question - which came before - lack of competent people or rants of how LRMs suck?
Actually, screw that question, it's oversimplifying things. Still, if you let a monkey to choose between a stealth bomber and a stick, it's choice will be the latter. It doesn't mean that stick is better.

I am in no way telling that LRMs got no troubles. I am telling that you can't just slap buffs until LRMs get their places in top 10 weapon systems used. Otherwise we can just turn every weapon into yellow pulsing beam thingie that has the same traits and just give them different names.

In the hands of a monkey though, the stick IS better...because Monkeys can't fly stealth bombers. So actually, your illustration kind of backfires... as in the hand of the monkey, the stick actually is "somewhat effective", where the bomber would be not at all.

Roadkill, on 19 March 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

This will also eliminate most of the need for Radar Derp and Advanced Target Decay, though in theory they could still be useful. I'd probably just ditch 'em, though.

and that is why it will never happen.

Remove Grind Sinks and even a 1% chance someone will invest IRL money to avoid grinding for "mandatory" overpriced modules?

Bro, do you even F2P?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 March 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

In the hands of a monkey though, the stick IS better...because Monkeys can't fly stealth bombers. So actually, your illustration kind of backfires... as in the hand of the monkey, the stick actually is "somewhat effective", where the bomber would be not at all.

But, should we find a monkey that can fly stealth bomber, it will kill any monkey with a stick. And many other monkeys. And everything they love.
Then this monkey shares the secrets of stealth bomber and we just got another meta problem. And if balance resembles the swings rather than tables, you get player decline way worse than the one in case if something just sucks.

[Jackal Noble]

Confirmed Cheater, on 19 March 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

I don't run LRMs, but I do run "support" mechs. However, I rarely do this stuff because:
1)Average LRM guy in no way use map awareness. He gets the lock, he shoots at it untill it dies or the lock is lost. He never consider that target may be in cave/pipeline/tunnel/thin mountain passage/right behind the tall building. And no, he doesn't look if his crosshair gets red or not.
2)Average LRM guy got no idea about how to position himself. He'll be hitting rocks directly in his FOV, but he won't move an inch to fix that.
3)Average LRM guy isn't even aware that his missiles got both 180m minimal range AND 1000m maximal range.
4)Average LRM guy never heard of "Primary".
5)Average LRM guy goes loco should there be more than one target. The worst version of tower defence idiocy you'll ever get.
6)Average LRM guy doesn't even look at difference between targets. So, he'll be happy shooting a squirrel while you are painting that D-DC fatlass.

So, before we even talk about balancing LRMs, we should forbid it's use for anyone who hasn't passed "exam" on these. Long, painful exam with limited trials per month.

Have observed all of the above, solid post. I think the best way to rectify a large majority of player competency issues, would be to half a non-half arsed player tutorial versus what we do have(going on two years with the current outdated used car dealership that we do have). Something that actually has written text as well as verbal, goes into weapon systems and functionality. REALLY NOT THAT HARD TO IMPLEMENT. no sells moaaaar mechs!!

[Jackal Noble]

A tutorial that would be that cushion to help new players coming in not to feel alienated, and drop the game which I feel is and has been a very real issue for some time.

[Roadkill]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

and that is why it will never happen.

Remove Grind Sinks and even a 1% chance someone will invest IRL money to avoid grinding for "mandatory" overpriced modules?

Bro, do you even F2P?

I gave it 30 seconds of thought and managed to come up with replacements:

Radar Derp -> Targeting Counter Measures
A Mech equipped with Targeting Counter Measures requires twice as long to be acquired by a missile targeting lock.

Advanced Target Decay -> Advanced Targeting System
A Mech equipped with Advanced Targeting System obtains missile locks twice as quickly.

There, replaced 'em for you PGI.