307 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

finalexamweekFTW, on 13 January 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Radar Stuff (not to sound rude, just condensing the post for space).

I would like to mention that, technically, our mechs have such advanced sensors on them that we should be able to get locks through many objects such as buildings and some hills. However, in MW:O, we actually don't have our full sensors (for balance reasons, and I kinda agree with it). Seismic is actually suppose to be a built in sensor on every mech (but is a module in this game). BAP technically can not only detect shut down mechs, but also mechs through objects with ease. They are often handy in lore for detecting a possible ambush before the enemy even know they have been detected. Then we have magnetic sensors, thermal, starlight (night vision), etc.

Also, our mechs don't technically use "radar", as there would be too much clutter that close to the ground to really render them effective. They have alternative sensors that track targets, and probably can track the fading signal when LOS is lost (I'm not certain about this, but I'm sure that they probably can anyway). There may even be a "predictive algorithm" to help guide missiles where a mech is "predicted" to be after it breaks "lock".

Have to remember, this is the year 3050s. Not 2010s. It's also science fiction, so only so much real world logic/science can apply.


However, you present a reasonable argument about Target Decay. I can understand the reason why you may not like that function in the game, and do honestly appreciate your feedback in relation to the reason you personally do not like LRMs.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 13 January 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

This is not a case of me not understanding what you are saying or missing your point. I flat out disagree and am outright saying that you are wrong.

Griefing is intentionally interfering with someone playing the game. Not sharing information is not covered here. Choosing to play your own style and being a 'puck' hog to use a Canadian term, may be being a poor or selfish teammate. If I have the puck or enemy in my sights in this case, and I choose to be selfish and try and kill him all on my own, it is not griefing anyone. No one should ever be expecting a player to do what they want them to do, to make it easier on them or their weapons choice to succeed. The biggest thing here and while it may seem like splitting hairs, is the difference between going out of your way to interfere with a player and not helping a player. Again no one can or should expect other players to do something that they want them to do, in order for them to enjoy or succeed. That's not a fair or reasonable expectation. Sharing locks is voluntary and not sharing them is a choice. If the mechanics were such that it would completely negate the lrm pilots ability to play the game you might have a leg to stand on here.

As for bringing lrms in the first place being a form of griefing, I am not saying it actually is. I was saying following your logic and stretched definition it certainly can be construed as such. For instance there are many posts asking new players to not bring them to FW and many experienced players will tell these guys to stop doing it because in this mode it is very harmful to the team. People do it anyways. Now while not griefing under my definition, under yours, it certainly could be. Being in the back is making it more difficult for those in the brawl up front. This is giving the enemy less targets and making it an uneven fight. This is why the only way to have success with lurms is teams that specifically mitigate for these circumstances. One side is saying don't bring the dammed things, the other is saying hold locks please. Either side is not griefing the other by not listening to the demands.

These scenerios can go on and on. So as far as your wiki for reference, please consider the difference outside of intent or motives. There is a diffence here between 'sabotage' and not helping.

While still in the realm of lrm hate, I actually think that this topic should perhaps be opened in a thread of its own to get others take on griefing in general and if others see our two sides...

Thing is, there is a difference between our situations here.

You are saying not sharing information or not getting locks is not griefing. You are correct here, it isn't on it's own.

I am saying, intentionally dropping a lock because you see the LRMs incoming with the sole reason to just annoy and hinder the LRM user is griefing. It is in a way.

One way (yours), you are just playing the game and, even if you are being greedy and not locking so you can get the kill alone, you are not purposefully going out of your way to hinder not aid anyone else on your team. You are just playing the game. Your actions have no malevolence against your team or anyone in particular, you just aren't being a good team player.

The other way (my description), is a willful sabotage and intent to hinder a specific player(s). You aren't being selfish. You aren't playing the game as "you normally would". You are intentionally, willfully and willingly going out of your way to specifically make some player(s) game play more miserable. This would be, getting a lock and seeing the missile icon. Then dropping the lock before the missiles can hit, even though the lock wasn't broken. Then, probably, re-picking up the lock, only to intentionally drop it again next time you see that missile symbol again.

The situations may appear the same or similar to a spectator, but it's all about the intent behind the actions that make the difference.


As for your reference to LRMs being taken into a match possibly being considered griefing, it would completely depend upon the intent of the player. If a player is intentionally bringing LRMs to hinder the team, than they are griefing. If they are bringing LRMs as part of their normal game play, or with the intention of trying to do as well as they can in a match, than that is not griefing.

Griefing is often about the intent behind the action, not the matter of the action itself. An action also doesn't have to be against the rules to be griefing. It can still easily be griefing, but completely within the rules and regulations of the game. And often, griefing can't even be proven as griefing, because it's all about the intent, which often only the person doing the actions knows about, and everyone else can only speculate.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 13 January 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

...

We are dancing around on this but your last bit has come a lot closer to my side without actually agreeing.

One of the key issues here and why we can go back and forth is the ambiguity and lack of hard definition. My main contention is however, that whatever the motivation might be, the action of not helping (indirect action/lack of action) vs. intentionally disrupting (direct action/interference) is the key differentiator between when a behaviour is griefing. I also consider that a differentiating characteristic is also that harassing behaviour or using mechanics in an unintended way to prevent a player from enjoying or playing the game isn't the equivelent of not helping a player, play in the exact manner he would like. So griefing is hard or difficult for a player to get around, hence causing him grief. Not helping in this case means the player either has to get his own locks or try and work with what he is given. While that might not be to his preference, it is not so far off as when you are a brawler on Frozen City just waiting and waiting for your team full of lurmers and ppcers to be ready to close into your window of engagement.

Some may agree with me, some might not. I actually think we should do a post in general discussion presenting our two sides. I believe from this conversation on this thread you already have a plus one on your point of view. I actually mentioned it last time as I was feeling you out to see if you would either bring it up or be ok with me starting it. Perhaps snipping your arguments or you doing something along those lines. I actually think that more people are going to agree with your side, as I think there is a misconception that anything a player does that I don't like is griefing (obviously not your position as you have laid out your side thoughtfully and logically). So you in? Have the energy? Think it would be a good topic to hear what others have to say or weigh in on?

[Barkem Squirrel]

MacClearly, on 13 January 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

Of coarse. You should contact EMP and especially Gman to let them know of your success. That way top comp teams and meta mechs can then show the world how wonderful the lrm Oxide is...

Just maybe I have dropped with some of them before in private matichs. remember LRM 5's have the same weight as SRM 4's. When you have had one of those days, throw in the LRMs and have fun. Now I would say the LRM mist lynx is fun, but even with 4 ERML's or SPL's it is a chore.

[General Solo]

finalexamweekFTW, on 13 January 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Ok, my contributions to the debate, Firstly, LRMs are passive weapons. What I mean by that is an LRM boat can sit 4-700 meters behind the line and not maneuver, just bothering to follow the red dots with the mouse and generally zone out and lose situational awareness. I have had to rescue more than one out of position LRM boat only for him to die anyway and leave me in a bad spot. THIS IS NOT UNIVERSAL HOWEVER. The other issue that I have with LRMs is the problem they present with indirect fire. this capability is fine by itself, however the mechanic for radar decay and the like is broken IMHO. how radar works is that a radio wave is reflected off of a surface and returns to the sender and therefore gives a contact, as soon as I break radar contact by going over a ridge or behind a low building that blocks LOS, all locks should be immediately broken and the missiles should fly to the last known location. With Radar decay however, the missiles continue to track A MOVING TARGET without input from the radar system and therefore no longer function as missiles but as AI controlled objects. To my understanding missiles require constant radar contact to the target to track it. This is the case with real missiles not including missiles with a self contained radar like AMRAAM, which would still require directional LOS to the target to track it. What PGI has done though is to give us Radar Deprivation modules, which forces missiles and radar systems to function as they would IN REAL LIFE. So my issue is that LRMs will continue to rain on my *** for another 10 to 15 seconds after I break LOS and therefore radar contact with every enemy player. One last note, NARC is fine and dandy and makes sense similar to Radar guidance but lasts far too long to be fair to us that choose to not play LRM boats. A mech like the Raven 3L with its quirk for increased NARC duration and the NARC duration module you can make it last a good minute I think, which is a long time for a randomly generated team that may or may not have ECM to counter it, and therefore a 100 ton mech can therefore get absolutely shredded on a map like caustic or Polar Highlands with no chance to seek cover. That is my issue with them. That is why I hate them.

Narc's the only thing that makes Lerms decent IMO, sometimes good and in some situations devastating
For a long time narc was utter rubbish, now its a potent tool in the right hands and situations. But it ain't omnipotent all the time


Defense against the Dark Narcs - Lesson 1

- Try not to be more that 5 seconds away from cover. If you have to cross open ground make it quick.
Just remember even if the lrm's can't hit you, the entire enemy team will know exactly where you are due to the narc, so don't
peek untill it wears off.

- Run to the closest ecm mech

[Van Tuz]

So, Tesuine, looks like our little conversation is just stalling in place with both sides repeating the same arguments. This should be my last post in this thread and you may consider yourself a "winner". Unless something changes of course.

Tesunie, on 13 January 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

(About Arrow IV)

Looks like we're exactly on the same page here. There was no need to prove something to me about it.

Tesunie, on 13 January 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Arguments about ammo density.

Here we go again. Looks like you aren't even trying to understand why i suggested this in the first place. On the contruary, i DO understand why you did not want that to happen (aside from the ususal "status quo" stuff). And yet you latch onto it like it's the end of the world while ignoring the big picture.
It's a counterweight to ensure that other changes won't turn the game into LRM hell. I'll describe the situation to you and if you have better solution - suggest it.

Lock retention changes are necessary to counter radar deprivation. That's one of the major reasons why LRM perform differently in different skill brackets and people here seems to agree on that. Highly skilled players are also the ones who have all the gear. Equalising this aspect would to improve LRM balance both in low and high-tier games. Or at least it will be a first step to properly assess its balance state.

AMS changes are necessary to normalise the effect on LRM-boats and LRM as support weapon. Let me reiterate one more time if you haven't noticed the importance of this:

Quote

LRM5 is a complete waste of tonnage against anything equipped with current AMS with modules. LRM 10 (or maybe even 15) won't reach their target if there's 2-3 AMS in cluster unless you happen to perfectly time your launches with your teammates. That's a complete waste of 6-7 tons.

That's kind of a big deal if i want to make a LRM-flanker out of my Raven.
Yes, i am aware that AMS provides levers used in LRM5 - LRM20 balance and the whole IS-clan "balance". However the complete lack of impact from small packs of LRM used as secondary weapon system is much more important problem to solve IMHO.

So, again, i appreciate the criticism but these are important issues and you being the "devil's advocate" isn't helping to find the solution. If you have a better ideas - go ahead and speak. Maybe they're better than mine in every way.

Oh, and these questions about speed and ammo were rhetoric questions. They are not meant to be answered.
("Built in ammo feeds", heh. AC/20 shells won't squeeze trough half of those joints even with all the machinery removed)

Edited by Van Tuz, 15 January 2017 - 12:33 AM.

[General Solo]

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

Here we go again.

You been playing a week and are an expert of everything

Sounds like you haven't tried much to adapt yourself to the game

In fact it sounds like you want the game adapted to you.

Not buying it

[Van Tuz]

OZHomerOZ, on 14 January 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

You been playing a week and are an expert of everything

Sounds like you haven't tried much to adapt yourself to the game

In fact it sounds like you want the game adapted to you.

Not buying it

How is that makes any of my math and/or arguments any less valid? I have that thing called "brain" to perform that thing called "analysis". I think that your thing called "brain" can cough up a better and more constructive thing called "counter-argument" than "u'rn00b". Try it.
Being fairly new to the game has its advantages. Your eyes aren't blurred by all the time you've invested in the game so you can see its flaws more clearly and you're less inclined to preserve "status quo" at all costs.

Edited by Van Tuz, 14 January 2017 - 11:29 PM.

[Danjo San]

OZHomerOZ, on 14 January 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

Narc's the only thing that makes Lerms decent IMO, sometimes good and in some situations devastating
For a long time narc was utter rubbish, now its a potent tool in the right hands and situations. But it ain't omnipotent all the time


Defense against the Dark Narcs - Lesson 1

- Try not to be more that 5 seconds away from cover. If you have to cross open ground make it quick.
Just remember even if the lrm's can't hit you, the entire enemy team will know exactly where you are due to the narc, so don't
peek untill it wears off.

- Run to the closest ecm mech

Now while that is all true. Narc means little without the rain. So if you are narcd and get no missiles incoming just dont poke stupid and you'll be fine. However paired correctly means you'll be locked behind cover for a while. And that can really suck, especially in modes like Invasion/Conquest

[PFC Carsten]

Use it to your advantage to reposition widely. True, enemy team can see you, But it's also true, that many people will lose track as soon as you're not in their viewport anymore. And even if they're tracking you, it doesn't do them any good to know there's a sniper in their backs, so they WILL have to divert attention from focussing your pushgroup. Plus you can provide target locks.

[Burning2nd]

This is how I look at it.. you got those guys carrying 2-4 20's and 1000 rounds... and they are like "missile boat here ready for locks" Not understanding that reload time, and spread,

Then you have your smaller faster units who are able to provide mobile LRM support in a dynamic situation

It goes both ways... The days of just lob'n large clusters of LRMS are over, thats a old tactic that doesnt work anymore,


WHen trying to be the LRM support for your team, you need to be able to move and shoot.. and understand that the second you pull that trigger you have given your self away.. You can look At the missle in flight, and ID the amount of tubes being fired... Then you can automatically start to populate configurations who whos carrying them and what else they have on there mech

When i run my A1(c) with 6-5's+atrimis I almost never stop moving, Ive got 2200 round advance sensor range, advance target info, radar derp, cool down and range, I use to do 80 something but now they bought it down since the resize, The point is, you never stop moving... the pop tart back and forth thing is stupid......

I will not fire on narcs... because i can see them doesn't mean im getting the info on the target i need to confirm a Good flight course, YOU dont have to believe me... Not everyone can run a mech that only has LRMS

Edited by Burnin2nd, 15 January 2017 - 02:01 AM.

[General Solo]

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

How is that makes any of my math and/or arguments any less valid? I have that thing called "brain" to perform that thing called "analysis". I think that your thing called "brain" can cough up a better and more constructive thing called "counter-argument" than "u'rn00b". Try it.

YoUr limited experience and knowledge of the game MWO, makes your "analysis" less than complete.

[General Solo]

Danjo San, on 15 January 2017 - 12:01 AM, said:

Now while that is all true. Narc means little without the rain. So if you are narcd and get no missiles incoming just dont poke stupid and you'll be fine. However paired correctly means you'll be locked behind cover for a while. And that can really suck, especially in modes like Invasion/Conquest

I partly agree, sure narc is better with lerms but even without lerms their wall hack ability can be very valuable even if your team has no lerms.

In T1 games on Solo que in some games I am the only lrm/narc mech but my direct fire team mates use the info the narc provides to adapt a more aggressive play style.


It can suck behind pinned down behind cover by narc and lrms.
However I think it's more common to be pinned behind cover by direct fire, especially at the higher levels of play

Also I believe its just part of the game, its a tool, and one possible way to deal with pop tarters.
It give the game much need variety

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 15 January 2017 - 07:03 PM.

[The Errant]

It's been said already, but I'll echo it anyway.

People who hate LRMs on their team do so because most of the time the people running them either don't know how to LRM right (can't fire and move, don't want to stick with the team and share armor/facetime, won't ever try to get their own locks, shoot into cover or from too far away or at bad locks, etc etc etc) or they run them on builds that are too heavy/slow to keep up with the rest of the team thus leaving their teammates out-tonned and out-gunned on the line.  Also there are so many counters to LRMs that it's luck of the draw on how much work a LRM boat has to put in to get damage: ECM, Radar Dep, AMS, smart positioning/movement.  Meanwhile, 100% of the time direct fire works every time.

People who hate LRMs on the other team do so because quite frankly they're the most annoying weapon in the game.  Getting focused with LRMs on chain fire is a natural panic-inducer, especially if A) you're NARCed, https://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/cool.png you don't know where you're being spotted from, C) you're too far in the open to make it to cover, or D) you have no Radar Dep/AMS (and/or if they have Target Decay).  And if you're on the line when you're getting LRMed it's a crapshoot on whether somebody won't find you when you try to hide and shut down to wait out the NARC.

Also as others have said, good folks might pack a LRM pod or two to support their direct fire payload, especially in clan mechs which can pull it off much more easily, but they won't bother boating them unless they're trolling, just messing around, or leveling a new mech geared/quirked for LRMs...won't lie I pull one out sometimes out of spite if I see a lot of LRMs on QP.

Edited by The Errant, 15 January 2017 - 08:13 PM.

[Van Tuz]

OZHomerOZ, on 15 January 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

YoUr limited experience and knowledge of the game MWO, makes your "analysis" less than complete.

"And you have a duckling syndrome after being head stuck in gauss-ppc meta for so long, sir!"

Now that we have exchanged the mandatory Ad Hominem insults, can we continue discussion of facts rather than characters?

[General Solo]

Van Tuz, on 16 January 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

"And you have a duckling syndrome after being head stuck in gauss-ppc meta for so long, sir!"

Now that we have exchanged the mandatory Ad Hominem insults, can we continue discussion of facts rather than characters?

I don't have duckling syndrome as I was wearing a tinfoil hat at the time of the guass ppc incident and thus have full recollection of the fact your account is less than two weeks old.

[B0oN]

I´m gonna tell you all just this much about LRM´s :

A good LRM player is , and now please be very attentive,

SELFSUFFICIENT

I will leave you guys to figure out what this could mean in all earnestness .

[Trenchbird]

OZHomerOZ, on 16 January 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

I don't have duckling syndrome as I was wearing a tinfoil hat at the time of the guass ppc incident and thus have full recollection of the fact your account is less than two weeks old.

Whew lad. Newbies can figure stuff out too, regardless of account age. For all you know he/she could've watched people play for weeks or months before joining the game, or is a quick learner. Try to be more inviting instead of fixating on account age like some elitist. You've had an account since 2012, you should know better.

Anyways, yeah. I'm fine with LRM boats for the most part now, but I still end up being the guy who really wants to type out sour, angry things if I see more than three clusters of LRM-5s on the horizon.

Edited by Catten Hart, 16 January 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

Looks like we're exactly on the same page here. There was no need to prove something to me about it.

I thought we were conversing, and most of that statement was saying I agree with you. Or, is that not accepted?

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

Here we go again. Looks like you aren't even trying to understand why i suggested this in the first place. On the contruary, i DO understand why you did not want that to happen (aside from the ususal "status quo" stuff). And yet you latch onto it like it's the end of the world while ignoring the big picture.
It's a counterweight to ensure that other changes won't turn the game into LRM hell. I'll describe the situation to you and if you have better solution - suggest it.

Lock retention changes are necessary to counter radar deprivation. That's one of the major reasons why LRM perform differently in different skill brackets and people here seems to agree on that. Highly skilled players are also the ones who have all the gear. Equalising this aspect would to improve LRM balance both in low and high-tier games. Or at least it will be a first step to properly assess its balance state.

AMS changes are necessary to normalise the effect on LRM-boats and LRM as support weapon. Let me reiterate one more time if you haven't noticed the importance of this:


That's kind of a big deal if i want to make a LRM-flanker out of my Raven.
Yes, i am aware that AMS provides levers used in LRM5 - LRM20 balance and the whole IS-clan "balance". However the complete lack of impact from small packs of LRM used as secondary weapon system is much more important problem to solve IMHO.

The issue I have with your suggestions is how much would have to change. You suggest that half the ammo count per LRMs would balance them out, I don't see how.

Then, you make a suggestion to AMS that would make LRM5s into an even more meta and more powerful system in the game. AMS would then cut a set percentage of missiles coming in (which would probably result in people complaining about how useless AMS is at preventing damage, because they wont see the reduced damage against large launcher boats, but instead be seeing the LRM5s always hitting when before they where not). Your ammo count suggestion is dependent on this change happening as well. Without this change, the halved ammo counts doesn't work (and still likely wouldn't, which is my remark).

THEN, you also need targeting to change, and how targeting decay is treated in the game. This THEN requires a change to missile locks, Radar Deprivation, probably ECM, and every aspect of locking imaginable. Though I'm not in complete disagreement that some of the things could use adjustments, it's another part of your "suggestion". You need this changed to also justify your reduced ammo count for LRMs.


So, basically, I have to look at every change being created to justify every other change. Then, when you are finished completely changing every aspect of LRMs in the game available, then everything will "magically" work. Then, and only then, can LRMs dealing 90 potential damage (under half just about all other weapons in the game) instead of 180 it currently does, will work. It will solve all the problems of boated LRMs and make LRMs work as a support system when complimented within a larger build again... But to get there we just need to change...


Your suggestion is outlandish. It requires a complete overhaul and change of the system, some of these changes you haven't even mentioned as far as I can recall (though this topic has been going on for some time, and I may have forgotten. If so, forgive me), like how locks will now need to be handled. Instead of working within the system we currently have, and making some small suggestions or additions to it, you seem to just want to completely change it all and "it will work". On this, I have to disagree still. It "might" work, but I don't believe it will. The reasons I don't believe it will:
- Targeting changes: Not sure exactly what you wish changed here, but recall that it still needs to try and be fair to all users, those of LRMs and those who are not using LRMs. (We don't want LRMs to suddenly become king damage dealers either.)
- AMS: Okay. This one could work. I just can't grasp how it will become more effective when even more missiles are tossed against it. It's a 0.5 ton equipment (with 1 ton ammo). It shouldn't become too effective for it's tonnage investment. I believe that this would only encourage LRM5 boats, though it would also help builds with LRMs as a support weapon, like if it's used as a single LRM5-10 launcher. But, is it going to help the game, or hurt it more? I'd wish to actually test this if it was possible, but I suspect it would only cause LRM5 boated even more than we currently have.
- LRM ammo count per ton: You wish to half the damage potential per ton of ammo for LRMs. A system that is already considered rather ammo starved. It already has a 30-40% (if not lower) accuracy rating for the average user, so it's damage per ton of ammo is technically even lower than 180. Also, changing the amount of ammo per ton will not disrupt the formula for the recommended amount of LRMs per 5 tub launcher, which is 180 missiles, to compound this even farther. That means that a mech that is carrying only an LRM5 or 10 would need 2-4 tons of ammo to be considered effective for a match, instead of 1-2 tons of ammo. All this will do in the end is encourage boating over making it a support option. Even with the AMS changes... Not unless you drastically alter the behavior of LRMs to make them even more accurate and effective (which, depending upon how accurate and/or effective may wreck T5 with LRM supremacy, but in the process may make LRMs an effective choice in T1, if not king weapon in the game...).


This is, of course, my opinion on your opinion/suggestions. I'm taking from my experience within the game, and trying to envision your changes. I just don't see how they would be of much help to the system overall. The AMS is the only part of your suggestion I could maybe get behind at the moment, and even then I have my reservations. Your concept taken as a single whole? You probably are trying to change too much, and I don't believe it would be in a good direction for the game as a whole.

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

So, again, i appreciate the criticism but these are important issues and you being the "devil's advocate" isn't helping to find the solution. If you have a better ideas - go ahead and speak. Maybe they're better than mine in every way.

Oh, and these questions about speed and ammo were rhetoric questions. They are not meant to be answered.
("Built in ammo feeds", heh. AC/20 shells won't squeeze trough half of those joints even with all the machinery removed)

I do have suggestions. For AMS, I don't really have much for that at this time.

For LRMs? Plenty of suggestions. Just recall, you did ask for this... (And yes, most of this is just my thoughts or opinions.)

I kinda would like to see more even spread across all the missiles, so LRM5s stop shooting primarily CT on targets, and so that LRM20s stop sending so many of their rounds around their target. I'm obviously not certain on what the spread could or should be exactly, but I would probably say that every launcher could use to shoot at the LRM15 or 10 spread level (if not larger even?) as an average. This way, LRM5s can be a light weight weapon used to harass, and LRM20s can be a bit more deadly for their weight costs. It would make shooting 4 LRM5s as the same concentration of damage as shooting a single LRM20. It should be a set spread, not dependent on how many missiles are in the air in a single launch. (I would imagine that refire rates would also need to be normalized, so LRM5s no longer shoot so fast as to make LR20s a bad DPS choice in relation to each other.)

From there, and can even be taken as it's own standing concept, I'd like to see spread become adjusted to match line of sight or firing indirectly. Tighter spread for direct fire, and more spread for indirect fire. So it becomes more carpet bombing blind indirect, or a bit more focused clusters against a target that the LRM user can see. The arcs can even change from a long overhead arc, to more straight (with a little upward arc still to shoot over allies) when shooting the different modes. This would make indirect missiles take longer to get to their target compared to direct fired (even if they move at the same speeds), and also mean direct fired missiles might be more likely to hit a target when blind fired (because they have a flatter flight path). This could be coupled with a faster moving missile, but I still recall the complaints about that when it was last changed (though it felt nice to me).

Artemis, TAG and NARC would probably remain unchanged for the most part. The biggest change I can see needing to happen is the amount of time NARC would be on, especially if LRMs are going to take a higher path for indirect fire and/or if they move faster as well.

I would honestly kinda like to see LRMs also target (in clumps of 5) a specific component and maybe remove spread completely. They would then act very similar to how streak SRMs currently operate as far as how they hit a mech. And grouping them in bunches of 5 missiles would actually follow lore and the base TT rules this game is founded on. But, more than likely, spread is more effective for the desired weapon effective in this style of a game, when compared to TT. Still, I'd love to test it out just to see how it may affect things overall.


In regards to ECM, I would want to remove it's double penalty. Either remove it's cloak (not my recommendation) or remove it's missile lock delays. I would honestly like to see the cloak feature turn into a delay in the time someone can get a lock on the target to when they can see them (consider it like a reverse target decay kind of effect). This lets ECM be useful for sneaking around, but not as useful if you are just going to stand out in the open for a long time. As another option (included or separate from the above suggestion), ECM can also prevent the sharing of any target info (meaning the lock) to anyone under the ECM effects. So, even if you can see an ECM unit and target it, none of your allies will see that target on their minimap, and LRMs would not be able to be indirectly fired on them (as long as ECM is in effect). However, if an LRM user themselves can get said lock, than they can shoot LRMs with no penalty. (Only penalty I would do is that Artemis would not function against them, which is actually based on lore.) As far as in relation to TAG and NARC, probably have those remain unchanged.

As for Radar Deprivation (if it remains in the game), I would just want to change it's amount from instant to the same number that Adv. Target Decay grants. So, if Adv Target Decay grants a 0.5 second increase (just throwing numbers out here, I'm not actually certain what these timing numbers really are) to a standard 1 second decay, than Radar Dep would take off 0.5 seconds off decay, meaning a lock without Adv. Decay would have 0.5 second delay (and would stop a lot of the hiccups I notice against targets with Radar Dep, such as being able to clearly see and shoot them, but a tiny piece of their mech is obstructed, leaving the lock flickering in and out if not even possible*). A target with Adv. Decay would then have the base decay only, which would be 1 second in the example numbers provided.

*The cables in old Terra Therma was very well known for doing this, as well as some towers that are thin and other assorted obstructions not big enough to cover a mech completely.



On remark about AC20 bullets... How so? In lore, most ACs shot out the same bullet sizes, but as a stream** of them instead of as a single shot. It was just a matter of how fast the AC could deal it's damage that gave it it's rating. So, and AC20 that shot out the same bullet as an AC2 might shoot out 10 bullets compared to the AC2 shooting out a single bullet in the same time frame (10 seconds). So, in fact, the ammo feeds could be quite small. Not to mention the technology era of being in the 3050s, and a game/concept originally developed in the 1970-80s...

**Unlike in MW:O where they mostly went with a single shot version of the AC, which very few ACs did. Technically, we have older technology on our mechs referred to as a "mech rifle", which did shoot singe shot bullets.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 14 January 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

We are dancing around on this but your last bit has come a lot closer to my side without actually agreeing.

One of the key issues here and why we can go back and forth is the ambiguity and lack of hard definition. My main contention is however, that whatever the motivation might be, the action of not helping (indirect action/lack of action) vs. intentionally disrupting (direct action/interference) is the key differentiator between when a behaviour is griefing. I also consider that a differentiating characteristic is also that harassing behaviour or using mechanics in an unintended way to prevent a player from enjoying or playing the game isn't the equivelent of not helping a player, play in the exact manner he would like. So griefing is hard or difficult for a player to get around, hence causing him grief. Not helping in this case means the player either has to get his own locks or try and work with what he is given. While that might not be to his preference, it is not so far off as when you are a brawler on Frozen City just waiting and waiting for your team full of lurmers and ppcers to be ready to close into your window of engagement.

Some may agree with me, some might not. I actually think we should do a post in general discussion presenting our two sides. I believe from this conversation on this thread you already have a plus one on your point of view. I actually mentioned it last time as I was feeling you out to see if you would either bring it up or be ok with me starting it. Perhaps snipping your arguments or you doing something along those lines. I actually think that more people are going to agree with your side, as I think there is a misconception that anything a player does that I don't like is griefing (obviously not your position as you have laid out your side thoughtfully and logically). So you in? Have the energy? Think it would be a good topic to hear what others have to say or weigh in on?

By all means, but you may have to leave most of my novels out of that post. Otherwise, it may turn into a whole trilogy...
(I need to learn to type smaller posts. )

Overall, it's the reason behind the action that can determine if it really is a greifing action or not. Someone who always fights without a lock may just not care, be a bad team player, or may not know what it is he's missing out on. On the other hand, someone who normally always gets locks, but doesn't for a match (appearing to be less skilled than they are) just because they know there are LRM users on their team is doing an intentional action against them (or rather, is not playing "as they normally would" in that specific match.)

The one being griefed doesn't even need to know that they are being griefed for it to still be griefing. It's all about the intent behind the actions that can make a difference. I mean, an accidental team fire event, or even team kill in a heated brawl, isn't a form of griefing. Going out of your way to get that TK, or intentionally (while in that heated brawl) hitting that teammate is griefing (even if it can't be discerned between if it was intentional or not by the now dead teammate).

(And I'll leave this here before I create another novel for you... )

Oh, and if you do make the topic, link me. I don't mind debating it. It is an interesting topic, because it's all based on perspective and how one defines the terms. (It's very subjective to interpretation.)