258 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

KinLuu, on 19 January 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

Yes, to be a viable choice for higher tier gameplay, LRMs definately need buffs. Especially regarding their time to target.

But, if you do that, they might become the finger of god in lower tier gameplay.

Homing weapons are always tough to balance.

, flat, fast trajectory. Ac20 speed. Tracking still with locks, faster but no tracking without. Indirect fire requires TAG/NARC and works like it does currently - slower, arched trajectory.

Lower heat a bit, speed up cooldown to nudge DPS so they're closer to SRMs. Still inferior for DPS but long range.

That would be viable to start. More like a direct fire weapons but still unique, as such far less a source of bad habits.

[KinLuu]

Wouldn't that practically turn LRMs into a worse version of Lasers?

Edited by KinLuu, 20 January 2017 - 12:46 AM.

[MovinTarget]

KinLuu, on 20 January 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

Wouldn't that practically turn LRMs into a worse version of Lasers?

If there is no arc it would force lurm boats to expose themselves.

Conversely, they would not be a "worse laser" more like a "worse ppc" (in IS case anyway) as you can shoot your load like a poptart... so long as someone is holding the lick for you when you drop back down...

[MischiefSC]

MovinTarget, on 20 January 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

If there is no arc it would force lurm boats to expose themselves.

Conversely, they would not be a "worse laser" more like a "worse ppc" (in IS case anyway) as you can shoot your load like a poptart... so long as someone is holding the lick for you when you drop back down...

, also, tracking, screen shake and that whole tracking a locked target thing.

LRMs are good for people who can't aim. Think of it like streaks with 1k range that move as a cluster and can miss instead of spread out.

Bluntly it let's you use the locking system instead of aim (a big draw for folks) and have them be pretty viable (unless you aim good enough for direct fire).

[The Boneshaman]

don't tell me what to or what not to bring to FW. I'll do what I want when I want. So their.

[VorpalAnvil]

The Boneshaman, on 20 January 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

don't tell me what to or what not to bring to FW. I'll do what I want when I want. So their.

Lack of capitalization, punctuation and misuse of words really only serves to make the DF case stronger. And you'll also excuse me if I balk at the suggestions of someone who's been playing for six years and sports a 0.71 KDR.

[MovinTarget]

The Boneshaman, on 20 January 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

don't tell me what to or what not to bring to FW. I'll do what I want when I want. So their.

VorpalAnvil, on 20 January 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

Lack of capitalization, punctuation and misuse of words really only serves to make the DF case stronger. And you'll also excuse me if I balk at the suggestions of someone who's been playing for six years and sports a 0.71 KDR.

Not entirely sure he was serious, Vorpal...

[MischiefSC]

Well, he's right. We all bring what we want and do what we want.

Some us bring what wins and do what wins, some bring what fails and do what fails.

That decision is up to everyone. However if someone decides to bring failure and do failure, how can the complain if the result is failure? How can the be surprised if the teammates they are burdening with those failures say "hey, dude, can you please tone the fail down a bit"?

I'm always up to carry as much as I can in FW
I'm close to a 4.0 w/l. I need a "they ain't heavy, they my puggles" tag on my mech. Someone brings lurms they won't hear boo from me in a match. You'll never, ever see me berate pugs in a match.

Just don't lie and tell me and everyone that the bucket of fail you've bolted to your robbits is actually good. You want to boat fail, do it. I'll still congratulate you on your kills, try to call the drop to include you as best I can and carry you every match.

Just quit lying to everyone about why your stats are what they are. There's nothing anyone with a 3+kdr is doing that anyone else can't do. It's a will issue, not a skill issue. You want to boat fail, great. Do it, own it, start each match saying PLEASE CARRY ME! We'll have a giggle together and play the match.


Just quit being resentful when we say we need you to move up and share armor or we point out that you're sandbagging the team. You need to and you are. Own it, move forward.

We're going to carry you regardless.

Edited by MischiefSC, 20 January 2017 - 06:26 PM.

[MovinTarget]

@MischiefSC

You're totally right, it borders on comical... some of the guys here are like old farts in the retirement home, can't hear a thing the other one says no matter how loud they shout at each other...

The need to mandate weapons usage... the ability to be impervious to logic... both views are entitled to exist, yet both are flawed in this scenario.

[ccrider]

This whole thread is still going and not one person has had the decency to say " Atlas D got armor quirks! Ccrider is gonna be soooo happy! 2 asrm6s, ac/20 and 2 med pulse in the ct. He's gonna zombie like a boss!"




Sorry, didn't read any details of any posts that didn't pertain to me.

Edited by ccrider, 20 January 2017 - 07:22 PM.

[Ober Affengeil]

DavidStarr, on 13 January 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

So what exactly is the problem with LRMs? Is it that you're not sharing armor with the team and help the enemy team focus your teammates better?
Those are definitely valid concerns, but then, how come I don't feel that I'm handicapping my team when I bring LRMs to regular QP? These concerns apply there as well, but I don't feel as if I hinder my team by bringing my team. On the contrary, even.

Granted, nowadays I prefer "combat" LRM mechs that have decently strong backup weapons and actively participate in the battle, staying 300-600 m from the enemy, using the backup weapons all the time and taking hits regularly (e. g. LRM30 + 4xML Tempest; LRM40 + 2xUAC/2 EBJ). But I also blow dust off my LRM60 CPLT-C4 with just a TAG, and have loads of fun killing enemy mechs and winning.

I think only one kind of LRM mechs really deserve to be frowned upon: assaults. Moreover, it is my impression that LRM mechs contribute more the lighter they are. I do about the same damage (400-500 per game) with a 50 ton Hunchback-4J as with 70 ton Tempest.

I run my pug Dire Wolf with 2x CLRM5s, only because I'm using 2xCUAC5 and 8xCERmed. That and Dire Wolves are sloooooow. I all but abandon them when I've closed the distance.

[Ober Affengeil]

Inappropriate1, on 18 January 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Jawohl Mein Führe!!!!! Ve do vat you order! LONG LIVE THE LEADER SNAZZY!! (Marshal Music in the background.)

I see what you did there.

[MovinTarget]

It really doesn't matter... if they don't bring lurms boats, they'll bring something like this (yes, this is a FP screenshot)



We don't need weapons limitations for FP, as I've said before, we need an "attunement" process to ensure the people that want to play FP know how to play...

[Albino Boo]

MovinTarget, on 20 January 2017 - 07:03 PM, said:

@MischiefSC

You're totally right, it borders on comical... some of the guys here are like old farts in the retirement home, can't hear a thing the other one says no matter how loud they shout at each other...

The need to mandate weapons usage... the ability to be impervious to logic... both views are entitled to exist, yet both are flawed in this scenario.

I sorry both views are not entitled to exist. When you drop you are signing up to be part of a team game. In real life if you join a team and won't behave cooperatively towards the joint goal of winning you will get bitched at. If you want to do what you want why play a team game? There are literally thousands of single player games where you can do what you want, why not play them.

[Widowmaker1981]

the biggest trouble with LRMs is that they seem effective at first compared to being really bad at aiming with direct fire weapons and not knowing when/where to expose, so players use them and that means they don't learn how to use the effective weapons properly ever, and as such never really improve past the max level of LRM effectiveness. Which is low, especially considering that any map with tall geometry makes avoiding them incredibly simple.

I know, i used them back in the day, and was decent with them. But eventually i realised they were holding me back, so i ditched them.

[MovinTarget]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

I sorry both views are not entitled to exist.

Until PGI changes things so that players are either forced to group up before they can drop (one of my recommendations) or create requirements that limit poor design choices from being dropped in FP... They are entitled to exist because there is no actual way to prevent them from occurring...

[Albino Boo]

MovinTarget, on 21 January 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

Until PGI changes things so that players are either forced to group up before they can drop (one of my recommendations) or create requirements that limit poor design choices from being dropped in FP... They are entitled to exist because there is no actual way to prevent them from occurring...

Its not specific to MWO, its common problem with pvp online games. The side that wins on average is the side that actually cooperates and the side that loses on average is the side that has the most I will do what I want. I'm just tired of people rationalising selfish behavior just becasue something is online.

[MovinTarget]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

Its not specific to MWO, its common problem with pvp online games. The side that wins on average is the side that actually cooperates and the side that loses on average is the side that has the most I will do what I want. I'm just tired of people rationalising selfish behavior just becasue something is online.

I agree, however there are some measures that can be taken..

1- Its team-based game - there shouldn't be solo drops in FP, you should have groups of at least 2
2 - No trial mechs.
3 - Someone in a nother thread was talking about having BV in MWO. While I'm not convinced that an ideal implementation of BV can be found, if it *were* then instead of weight floor/ceiling there could be a BV floor/ceiling... both for total deck and perhaps for balance purposes, per mech as well...

[FreeFragUK]

MovinTarget, on 21 January 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

I agree, however there are some measures that can be taken..

1- Its team-based game - there shouldn't be solo drops in FP, you should have groups of at least 2
2 - No trial mechs.
3 - Someone in a nother thread was talking about having BV in MWO. While I'm not convinced that an ideal implementation of BV can be found, if it *were* then instead of weight floor/ceiling there could be a BV floor/ceiling... both for total deck and perhaps for balance purposes, per mech as well...

In regards to Point 1 - While MWO is a team orientated game this proposal would negatively impact FW as not everyone is able to group up. I've joined in on FW several times solo and tailored my drop deck to try and maintain a the suitable load out possible. Unfortunately it simply isn't always possible to form a group for many players, even a 2 man group and even utilising open comms servers such as the House Steiner TS Server. This would alienate, in all likelihood, a significant portion of players.

Point 2 - I fully agree with barring trial mechs from FW.

Point 3 - I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other. I'm not sure how well BV would translate into MWO but in the same breath if BV, or a similar system, could be implemented successfully this may go a long way to contributing to a more balanced experience.

I would just highlight that one issue with attempting to balance IS vs Clans in MWO is a very similar problem to balancing Allies vs Germans in a WW2 game when trying to maintain a 1:1 player ratio. In the lore the Inner Sphere were simply outmatched; comparatively their technology was behind the curve and the capability of the majority of their pilots just simply failed to compare. IS ground the Clans down enough to bring them to the peace table through weight of numbers and some truly fortuitous campaign results.

Personally I have no issue with LRM's in FW (or any other mode), I've seen them used incorrectly many times in all game modes but the same can be said for many weapons within the game. As with all weapons in MWO, when LRM's are used correctly they can be devastating but when used incorrectly they contribute little to nothing.

I would argue the much bigger issue is the usage of mechs where people simply fail to understand their role on the battlefield and how to apply them correctly but again this is a matter of learning the correct application.

As an expansion to Point 2 my other suggestion would be to enforce a requirement where, in addition to no trial mechs being allowed, that no mech can be brought onto the field where a pilot has not procured all of the basic pilot skills for said mech.

[MovinTarget]

Oh geez yes. That too...

If FP is supposed to be endgame play, why would someone be trying to level 1-4 mechs in it?

I understand what you are saying about point #1, but as has been demonstrated numerous times, there are many people that will solo drop in fp to troll, farm, or expect to get free counseling for their daddy issues from teammates. It would just be better if people grouped up first so they know who they are dropping with. If you are as flexible as you say, it should not be that difficult find a pool of players with whom you can drop...

Edited by MovinTarget, 24 January 2017 - 04:07 AM.