135 replies to this topic

[A Man In A Can]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 February 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

snip

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

This. Is. WRONG.
EVERY. FREAKING. TIME. IT. APPEARS.

I just want to quickly point out that a lot of the confusion about C3 stems from the fact that MW3 decided to give the system the ability to share sensors vs its TT abilities.

So because the ability to share sensors was directly ported into the base abilities of all mechs' sensors in MWO, perhaps we should direct other players who label the sensor-sharing ability as C3 to call it something else (like my term sensor-sharing) from now on? That way, issues like this are less likely to arise.

Anyway, thanks for the poll. I provided my vote.

[Karl Marlow]

I would like e if the Indirect fire thing was removed maybe add it as a more or alternate so type although looking at the lbx I won't hold my breath on ammo switching.

You would have to speed up the missiles a bit but I thinking them direct dumb fire would make them a lot more useful. I suppose in the end that's what the MRMs are going to be.

Edited by Karl Marlow, 01 March 2017 - 01:21 AM.

[Mystere]

Bush Hopper, on 25 February 2017 - 01:18 AM, said:

A weapon system with

a. easy accessible auto-lock
b. supresses movement to a degree where 2-3 missiles boats simply forces mindless peek-a-boo gameplay

is simply mind boggling in a shooter.

I could also argue the same for automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence in a 2017 game.

Oh, and as Koniving has said, lore can be your guide, unless of course you're one of those boneheads who keeps insisting that lore should have absolutely nothing to do with what is allegedly "A BattleTech Game".

Edited by Mystere, 01 March 2017 - 01:31 AM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 25 February 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

LRMs need to be weaker at indirect fire. You should not be able to indirect fire unless the target is TAGGED or NARCED. That helps encourage lights to use those support systems more often.

That would only work if lights were richly rewarded in exchange.

Khobai, on 25 February 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

Lastly the missile warning should be removed. You dont get warned when any other weapon is about to hit you, why should you get warned about LRMs? The exception being AMS, you should still get a missile warning if you have AMS installed. That would help encourage players to use AMS more.

This I agree with. Those who have been here long enough know exactly why we have those stupid warnings --- loud whiners.

[SmoothCriminal]

Answers have already been covered on this thread but my thoughts:

• Nerf (but do not remove) indirect fire (spread/speed/lock)
  
• Buff NARC/TAG bonuses heavily (indirect fire nerfs are all but removed, Direct fire starts to really hurt)- this encourages team/light play. Buff rewards. Non-visible TAG. Betty audio/visual warning for TAG/NARC.
  
• Buff direct fire (spread/speed/lock)

[Weeny Machine]

Mystere, on 01 March 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

I could also argue the same for automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence in a 2017 game.

Oh, and as Koniving has said, lore can be your guide, unless of course you're one of those boneheads who keeps insisting that lore should have absolutely nothing to do with what is allegedly "A BattleTech Game".

You sound as if I were a friend of pixel accurate convergence. Just for the record: I am not.

As for "lore", what do you mean? In TT you needed a dedicated spotter. Currently it is like being in a C3 network

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

SmoothCriminal, on 01 March 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

Answers have already been covered on this thread but my thoughts:

• Nerf (but do not remove) indirect fire (spread/speed/lock)
  
• Buff NARC/TAG bonuses heavily (indirect fire nerfs are all but removed, Direct fire starts to really hurt)- this encourages team/light play. Buff rewards. Non-visible TAG. Betty audio/visual warning for TAG/NARC.
  
• Buff direct fire (spread/speed/lock)

I'm pretty sure that if indirect fire was removed or weakened, nobody would ever take LRMs because this is their only advantage over direct-fire weapons. In the pug queue (where the great majority of MWO games are played) you can't coordinate before a drop to arrange a spotter with NARC/TAG. If they are left effectively as direct fire only, then they're hopeless. Gauss, ERPPC, autocannons and lasers are all vastly better at direct fire.

Edited by The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, 01 March 2017 - 04:08 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 01 March 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that if indirect fire was removed or weakened, nobody would ever take LRMs because this is their only advantage over direct-fire weapons. In the pug queue (where the great majority of MWO games are played) you can't coordinate before a drop to arrange a spotter with NARC/TAG. If they are left effectively as direct fire only, then they're hopeless. Gauss, ERPPC, autocannons and lasers are all vastly better at direct fire.

Yeah, LRM boats cannot equip a TAG or NARC. It is completely forbidden to them, you know!

Also, if the missiles are fire and forget once a lock is achieved the TAG is also very useful for such a boat - that is for the ones who do not hide behind a layer of rock at the fringe of the map

[Mole]

I am a fan of the keeping indirect fire but buffing them when in LOS. I like that the best.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Bush Hopper, on 01 March 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

Yeah, LRM boats cannot equip a TAG or NARC. It is completely forbidden to them, you know!

Hmmm... if LRM users have to have LoS to use a TAG, why won't they just use that LoS for a much more effective PPFLD direct-fire weapon? This is the problem with LRMs, if they don't have an indirect fire role then they just become the worst direct-fire weapons in the game and they won't get used. PGI would have to speed them up to A/C speeds to make anyone want to use them.

Edited by The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, 01 March 2017 - 06:29 AM.

[1Grimbane]

why on earth would you actually want dumbfire removed, los is ALL that is needed. WHY USE NARC OR RADAR TO DUMBFIRE,, MIGHT AS WELL LOCK ON WITH THAT KINDA SUPPORT

Edited by 1Grimbane, 01 March 2017 - 08:05 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 01 March 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

Hmmm... if LRM users have to have LoS to use a TAG, why won't they just use that LoS for a much more effective PPFLD direct-fire weapon? This is the problem with LRMs, if they don't have an indirect fire role then they just become the worst direct-fire weapons in the game and they won't get used. PGI would have to speed them up to A/C speeds to make anyone want to use them.

1. You can tag or narc someone and then fire your missiles even when he or you hop away (that's why I said fire and forget). The point is that you cannot brainlessly sit in the back and just switch targets madly without any efforts.

2. That's why I also said that the flight speed needs to be buffed (and grouping) when fired directly.

It would be a versatile weapon - not a one trick pony

[Mystere]

Bush Hopper, on 01 March 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

You sound as if I were a friend of pixel accurate convergence. Just for the record: I am not.

My apologies. That was not implied.

Bush Hopper, on 01 March 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

As for "lore", what do you mean? In TT you needed a dedicated spotter. Currently it is like being in a C3 network

Which I do not have a problem with ... as long as the rewards for the spotter are commensurate.

[1Grimbane]

I like my poor mans rocket arty. leave it alone

Edited by 1Grimbane, 01 March 2017 - 11:56 AM.

[Mystere]

1Grimbane, on 01 March 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

I like my poor mans rocket arty. leave it alone

But, but, but, allegedly it involves absolutely zero skills.

[Horseman]

JC Daxion, on 28 February 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

Step 1, Remove blind fire, UNLESS your target is TAGGED, NARC'd, UAV.

What it already is now, except for the ability to use friendly target locks (no, friendly radar data isn't shared, only targets actually locked by your friendlies).

Quote

Step 2, Add LOS buff, that increases lockspeed, and lowers flight arc. this would make grabbing your lock and faster fire, and increase travel speed (as lower arc means they would get there quicker)

TAG and Artemis serve that niche already.

Quote

You must maintain lock by keeping LOS

You already have to unless you have a spotter, and you need LOS if you want Artemis to work.

[SmoothCriminal]

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 01 March 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that if indirect fire was removed or weakened, nobody would ever take LRMs because this is their only advantage over direct-fire weapons. In the pug queue (where the great majority of MWO games are played) you can't coordinate before a drop to arrange a spotter with NARC/TAG. If they are left effectively as direct fire only, then they're hopeless. Gauss, ERPPC, autocannons and lasers are all vastly better at direct fire.

I see your point and agree - which is why you need a significant buff to NARC/TAG rewards also. Make people want to take these pieces of equipment out.

[Mawai]

Bush Hopper, on 19 February 2017 - 01:47 AM, said:

By the way, to fire indirectly in BT you needed a spotter. Just saying...

Same in MWO actually. You can't indirect fire at a target in MWO unless one of your team mates has a lock on it. However, the shared locks and targeting data are something like the C3 system in BT but which comes for free as part of the MWO game play. Either way, you do need a spotter.

[Ghogiel]

I thnk LRMs should not be able to indirect fire at all unless something is tagged or narced. And then buffed for direct fire.

Edited by Ghogiel, 02 March 2017 - 11:27 AM.

[DavidStarr]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

If you put LRMs into competition with the currently-existing direct fire long range weapons systems they will lose every single time. Players will weigh them and find them wanting compared to an ERLL, an ERPPC, a Gauss or even an AC2/AC5.

That.
Removing indirect fire from LRMs will effectively remove LRMs from the game.