145 replies to this topic

[Big Tin Man]

You know, a tradeoff based choice like increased speed at the expense of range would be an amazing thing in a complete, meaningful skill tree.

Just saying....

[Tesunie]

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

I would only support a velocity increase for direct fire LRMs, never for Indirect Fire.

It is already a cancer in this game, that makes for some of the most awful gameplay for both sides of the field.


This won't do any of your stated goals to get LRM mechs to the "front lines" & share armor when they can safely lob from 800+ meters.

Q: Why would the LRMs do that? What makes them "magically" go slower in one mode, and faster in the other?
Q: What situations would they "speed up" or "slow down"? Is this as soon as sight is lost? Or determined at the time of launch?
Q: Why must velocity be touched for indirect fire? We have other aspects of LRMs which could be better suited to adjustment for LRM indirect fire, such as spread or tracking strength. Why not adjust those instead? (Then, using NARC and/or TAG would counter the indirect fire penalties.)
Q: Why is it that the worst way to play LRMs is always the most common and most often thought of?
Q: Why is indirect fire a "Cancer" in this game? It's actually always been an aspect of not only war by TT and Mechwarrior in general.


I'd like to also point out that, with ECM, Radar Deprivation and/or AMS, one can easily make LRMs ineffective and/or even prevent indirect fire almost completely. Situation depending.

[Threat Doc]

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

It is already a cancer in this game, that makes for some of the most awful gameplay for both sides of the field.

Awwww, that's cute. Someone's afraid of widdew-ol-LRMs.

Quote

This won't do any of your stated goals to get LRM mechs to the "front lines" & share armor when they can safely lob from 800+ meters.

"share armor"... I will reiterate, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

You don't WANT your SUPPORT elements to share armor, you WANT them covering your *** on the battlefield! You WANT to rely on your support elements to help suppress your opponents, including other LRM elements, so you can get closer. However, you gun bunnies are ALL alike, you couldn't care less about support, as long as you get the kill, you greedy little min-maxer hob-goblins!!! You wouldn't know the definition of team work if it were tattoo'd on your foreheads so every time you looked in the mirror you would have a reminder!!! I am so frickin' tired of thoughtless ignorant gun bunnies!!!

Edited by Threat Doc, 10 April 2017 - 01:36 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

another way to buff Direct fire more so than indirect fire is,
start the lrms going 350kph and have them lose 50kp every 150m, stopping at 150kph
(0-150m=350kph)(150-300m=300kph)(300-450m=250kph)(450-600m=200kph)(600-1000m=150kph)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

"share armor"... I will reiterate, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

You don't WANT your SUPPORT elements to share armor, you WANT them covering your *** on the battlefield!

What's the point in having armor on those "support" elements if they aren't meant to take any sort of damage for the team? There is a reason units like the heavy LRM carrier have almost no armor or speed in TT. Those are TRUE support units, anything less than that and it should expect to take some damage because otherwise you waste tonnage on something in ideal situations shouldn't need it.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

You wouldn't know the definition of team work if it were tattoo'd on your foreheads

Yes, because that isn't what separates the good teams from the bad ones

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

It is already a cancer in this game, that makes for some of the most awful gameplay for both sides of the field.

Honestly it's only cancer because of how the effect multiplies based on how many units have indirect capability, which is why indirect should be harder to get/maintain such that indirect fire can support being buffed.

There is a difference between teamwork and being expected to carry other people, and that's what you seem to want, people to carry "support" players, not actual teamwork.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 April 2017 - 03:15 PM.

[Ultimax]

Tesunie, on 10 April 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

Q: Why would the LRMs do that? What makes them "magically" go slower in one mode, and faster in the other?
Q: What situations would they "speed up" or "slow down"? Is this as soon as sight is lost? Or determined at the time of launch?
Q: Why must velocity be touched for indirect fire? We have other aspects of LRMs which could be better suited to adjustment for LRM indirect fire, such as spread or tracking strength. Why not adjust those instead? (Then, using NARC and/or TAG would counter the indirect fire penalties.)
Q: Why is it that the worst way to play LRMs is always the most common and most often thought of?
Q: Why is indirect fire a "Cancer" in this game? It's actually always been an aspect of not only war by TT and Mechwarrior in general.

I would severely reduce or outright remove indirect fire & auto-aim.

Then PGI could give LRMs a slew of buffs to make them fun and valuable like much higher flight speeds, tighter spreads, etc.

It's a cancer on this game because it creates degenerate gameplay, where bad players think they are contributing while they learn & reinforce their bad gameplay habits.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Awwww, that's cute. Someone's afraid of widdew-ol-LRMs.

You should at least pretend you have an IQ higher than a doughnut and read what I wrote.

I'm not afraid of LRMs, I'm afraid of having LRM scrubs on my team who will hide and be useless convinced they are "supporting" the team while they basically waste an entire slot on a team.

"share armor"... I will reiterate, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

You don't WANT your SUPPORT elements to share armor, you WANT them covering your *** on the battlefield!

There is no such thing as "support elements" that just hide and don't share armor in this game.

Everyone supports everyone else, everyone needs to do damage and everyone needs to absorb fire and when possible share armor.

That is how this game is played and won consistently.

[Tesunie]

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

"share armor"... I will reiterate, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

Whoa. Slow down there Doc.
(Please insert Bugs Bunny voice over for humor.)
(Humor is slightly intended.)

Sharing armor is a thing, or rather presenting another "threat" the enemy wants to target. I mean, what you say does have some merits, but there is also merits in creating another target that the enemy may shoot at, sparing an ally that very well may need it's armor more (as a good LRM mech could then slink back and use locks as additional support).

There is a methodology to "sharing armor", but there is also a point where preserving armor is a thing as well.

In this case, he's talking about being more effective, than actually charging the enemy alone.

The thought with sharing armor is, which dies faster, the enemy team being able to focus on 3 mechs, or the enemy team having 7-8 mechs in their faces. The more mechs, the more pressure, the more likely the enemy is to spread their shots. This increases the likelihood that more allies will survive.

However, some people do seem to want "share armor" to mean "charge in with me, so you can die first instead of me". So there is that to consider.

Andi Nagasia, on 10 April 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

another way to buff Direct fire more so than indirect fire is,
start the lrms going 350kph and have them lose 50kp every 150m, stopping at 150kph
(0-150m=350kph)(150-300m=300kph)(300-450m=250kph)(450-600m=200kph)(600-1000m=150kph)

Q: How would this actually help direct fire, and not indirect fire? What is the issue with indirect fire, and how does velocity help direct over indirect, over say changing spread or tracking for indirect compared to direct? Also, how would your suggestion help LRMs actually be "long" ranged, considering MRMs are called "medium ranged" and are soon to be in the game?

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

I would severely reduce or outright remove indirect fire & auto-aim.

Then PGI could give LRMs a slew of buffs to make them fun and valuable like much higher flight speeds, tighter spreads, etc.

It's a cancer on this game because it creates degenerate gameplay, where bad players think they are contributing while they learn & reinforce their bad gameplay habits.

I will address you in parts. This part was directed at me, so I actually want to address it specifically, and separately.

Why would you want to remove indirect fire? It's the only weapon that can, and it gives it it's flexibility and justifies some of it's weaknesses. I will also remention, with MRMs coming into the game, what is going to separate LRMs from MRMs?

The "auto-aim" aspect could also be adjusted, and to go off topic a tiny bit (again), we could have LRMs follow the concept of SSRMs, where each bundle of five LRMs could lock onto a component, and their spread could be set so that it is likely that some missiles will still hit a nearby component (or the ground if it's an arm or leg). By bundling it in sets of five, each launcher would maintain effectiveness, as larger spread for larger launchers would no longer be a thing. The LRM5 spam would stop being a thing, and larger launchers start to become more worth their added weight. I will also mention that the homing ability (even what we have in the game) is as much as blessing to LRMs as it is a curse. You can shoot them at targets you can't see, but at the same time you can't determine if it is going to have a larger chance to hit a damaged component, where as aimed shots might remove a weapon arm or other already damaged component. You also need a lock, and need time to get a lock, so they aren't as "twitchy" or "quick to respond" as other weapon systems may be. (Hint: this is one of the reasons SRMs are better than SSRMs. You can aim them at damaged components as well as can fast react click SRMs, compared to having to wait to get a lock, wait to get a missile lock, now I can shoot and hit random spots of SSRMs.)


I can not counter remark on how the typical user seems to use LRMs, even if I comment that it is inefficient and that there are much better uses for LRMs than hiding in the back, waiting for locks, and "spraying and praying" at every lock one sees. I can only mention how rewarding they can be when used in an effective manner, with skill, and within a team and/or build designed to compliment this selection.

I myself use LRMs in apparently a very unique fashion, where they are always complimented with other weapons. I'm also one who works on getting my own locks, not to say I don't appreciate a team that gets locks for me to use as well. I also do not hide in the back, as LRM boats that hide in the back can become overrun and/or useless after the rest of the team dies.

HOWEVER, that is a play style, it is a tactic, and it can be effective given the correct situations. So I wont deny them that, but I can say there are far better uses for LRMs besides indirect only fire.

So, to call indirect fire a cancer is a bit extreme. I rather view it as tactical flexibility and a more powerful innate teamwork aid. Indirect fire should be a thing, and people honestly need to just accept it already. If you honestly don't like LRMs and their indirect fire abilities, take ECM, Radar Deprivation and/or AMS. I hear that the Kit Fox and Nova can each sport triple AMS...

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

You should at least pretend you have an IQ higher than a doughnut and read what I wrote.

I'm not afraid of LRMs, I'm afraid of having LRM scrubs on my team who will hide and be useless convinced they are "supporting" the team while they basically waste an entire slot on a team.

"share armor"... I will reiterate, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

There is no reason for either of you to go to insults to each other. I hear a lot of banter and tough talk as well as insults being tossed around. I would like to believe that each of you are better than that, and you should discuss this in a far more civil manner.

You each bring reasonable points to the table. If you disagree with the other, than do so about the concepts being posted. Not resorting to personal attacks.

[Threat Doc]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 April 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

What's the point in having armor on those "support" elements if they aren't meant to take any sort of damage for the team? There is a reason units like the heavy LRM carrier have almost no armor or speed in TT. Those are TRUE support units, anything less than that and it should expect to take some damage because otherwise you waste tonnage on something in ideal situations shouldn't need it.

Well, in this game, 'Mechs that are SUPPOSED to be for reconnaissance and spotting, IAW TT, are actually the most dangerous killers in this game... light 'Mechs... due to the preferences of PGI for Light 'Mechs, as it's always been with them. If support elements do not have armor, they die faster. In essence, support elements are REQUIRED to be as close as possible to friendly elements for defense.

Quote

Honestly it's only cancer because of how the effect multiplies based on how many units have indirect capability, which is why indirect should be harder to get/maintain such that indirect fire can support being buffed.

That doesn't make any sense, however. The more forward elements you have that are targeting enemy elements, the better signal your indirect support elements SHOULD have.

Quote

There is a difference between teamwork and being expected to carry other people, and that's what you seem to want, people to carry "support" players, not actual teamwork.

No, that's not what I want at all. I want the respect, as fellow combatants, we DESERVE on the battlefield. We are SUPPORT elements, not your enemies, but that is how, in essence, we are treated. LRM drivers are made into second-class citizens because the weapons we choose to use are the weakest, but most annoying, weapon systems in the game. LRMs NEED to be buffed for that reason.

Understand, however, the real problem is that we're not playing a game where only stock 'Mechs are being used and customization either has to come very slowly, or is entirely disallowed. In the game we are presently playing, munchkins are allowed to load up their favorite combinations of weapons and armor, make the most of them; if that were not true, and players were actually REQUIRED to play using skill rather than brute force all the time, LRMs would not be hated, they would be lauded. However, because it's the most annoying weapon system in the game, ALL BECAUSE OF THE BLASTED IGNORANT COCKPIT WARNING, even if it's the LEAST DANGEROUS weapon system in the game, it's hated and not used.

Ultimax, on 10 April 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

I would severely reduce or outright remove indirect fire & auto-aim.

For the latter, auto-aim... that NEEDS to be removed from direct fire weapons, period. THAT's the TERROR of the game, not LRMs.

Quote

Then PGI could give LRMs a slew of buffs to make them fun and valuable like much higher flight speeds, tighter spreads, etc.

It's a cancer on this game because it creates degenerate gameplay, where bad players think they are contributing while they learn & reinforce their bad gameplay habits.

The bad players happen to be the ones who have to pin point their damage, where your mouse click puts your round on target... it's not skill, it's point-and-click. LRMs actually require more work and skill, because while we are trying to keep up with our unit, in case some little light-drivin' ******* comes to kill us we can run them into the middle of the flock where they can be killed, we have to deal with anywhere from 1.5 to 6 seconds to lock a target before we can fire on them, and if that target is un-targeted by a friendly unit that lock is lost immediately, or if it has Radar Dep, or moves behind a rock or building we have to maneuver around to be able to hit them... from range. It takes some maneuvering time to get there in a fluid battle, and when we are treated as pariah's by our own team...

It's not a lack of skill, not in the least. It requires, at least, a different set of skills and the mastery to make them happen. All we're trying to do is help our team with the weapons we prefer to play with, but all you see us as is skill less and unhelpful, rather than trying to make use of the help we can offer you, without being required to "share armor", making us a much tougher target and allowing you the ability to get at your opponents better. You cut your own throats by disallowing our help, whether you like us or not.

Quote

There is no such thing as "support elements" that just hide and don't share armor in this game.

Everyone supports everyone else, everyone needs to do damage and everyone needs to absorb fire and when possible share armor.

That is how this game is played and won consistently.

That's your misperception, it's untrue, and it's ignorance when you refuse to see anyone who is actually helping you, unless they're actually right on the front line with you... I'm going to tell you in the games I play, it is rarely the gun bunny's who are left standing, it is usually the light 'Mech or the LRM driver who either win the game or die last. As far as I'm concerned, putting yourself on the front line is only half as necessary as having LRM drivers backing you up. The LRM driver who masters his art is twice the warrior any of you gun bunny's are.

Tesunie, on 10 April 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

Sharing armor is a thing, or rather presenting another "threat" the enemy wants to target. I mean, what you say does have some merits, but there is also merits in creating another target that the enemy may shoot at, sparing an ally that very well may need it's armor more (as a good LRM mech could then slink back and use locks as additional support).

I assure you, I get hit just like everyone else, generally as I'm transitioning from cover-to-cover, but if I'm not allowed to deliver my payload, to actually help those of you who run guns only and die long before you should because of the stubborness and stupidity of not placing us and using us to help where we're needed, and understanding it takes a minute to re-position where you need us, where anticipation of needs rather than absolutely brute forcing through the battle is used... there are no commanders in this game, anymore. We all left, or stopped commanding, because it's just a bunch of little children who will go where they want, not using their brains, but brute force only, and anyone who doesn't use brute force, because that's not the way they choose to play the game, are called skill-less. Short-sighted children.

Quote

There is a methodology to "sharing armor", but there is also a point where preserving armor is a thing as well.

In this case, he's talking about being more effective, than actually charging the enemy alone.

The thought with sharing armor is, which dies faster, the enemy team being able to focus on 3 mechs, or the enemy team having 7-8 mechs in their faces. The more mechs, the more pressure, the more likely the enemy is to spread their shots. This increases the likelihood that more allies will survive.

However, some people do seem to want "share armor" to mean "charge in with me, so you can die first instead of me". So there is that to consider.

"sharing armor" is a childish concept, it has no place in true tactical or strategic game-play and, as such, has no place in MWO. It's ridiculous and vain and hateful to anyone who doesn't want to play in the sandbox the same way as they do. Most people who play this game, these days, would never have survived as a Roman or, for that matter as a savage in any disorganized tribe in this world's history; they would do at the hands of those tribes. Imbeciles.

Quote

I can not counter remark on how the typical user seems to use LRMs, even if I comment that it is inefficient and that there are much better uses for LRMs than hiding in the back, waiting for locks, and "spraying and praying" at every lock one sees. I can only mention how rewarding they can be when used in an effective manner, with skill, and within a team and/or build designed to compliment this selection.

Such as making FIVE kills in a single game, or SIX -as I did over two years ago. In the five-kill game I had three or four days ago, one of those kills was a Medium 'Mech, a Shadow Hawk, I think, and it was a pure me-only kill. Two of the kills were most damage dealt, and the other two kills were finishing moves, not my own. I did not kill-steal any of them. Of the kills most damage dealt and the finishing moves, all four were still dangerous even though they had been hobbled, and I simply removed them from the field so they wouldn't back shoot you gun bunnies to death... you frickin' welcome, Ultimax.

Quote

I myself use LRMs in apparently a very unique fashion, where they are always complimented with other weapons. I'm also one who works on getting my own locks, not to say I don't appreciate a team that gets locks for me to use as well. I also do not hide in the back, as LRM boats that hide in the back can become overrun and/or useless after the rest of the team dies.

You're not THAT unique, Tesunie, as I do the same. I WORK to support my team, even if they hate me.

Quote

HOWEVER, that is a play style, it is a tactic, and it can be effective given the correct situations. So I wont deny them that, but I can say there are far better uses for LRMs besides indirect only fire.

That's part of what the LRM discussions of late are about... how do we fix direct and indirect fire to be more useful for the team. Personally, I think it's all in vain, as PGI has NEVER listened to the things that should be done to correct the inefficiencies.

Quote

So, to call indirect fire a cancer is a bit extreme. I rather view it as tactical flexibility and a more powerful innate teamwork aid. Indirect fire should be a thing, and people honestly need to just accept it already. If you honestly don't like LRMs and their indirect fire abilities, take ECM, Radar Deprivation and/or AMS. I hear that the Kit Fox and Nova can each sport triple AMS...

Precisely. But, Muggles don't understand that, Tesunie, and are too lazy to get rid of their blinding hatred and do something to actually be part of the team. Who knows, if they had more ECM on the team, there might be more LRM boats up-front... hmmm, there's a thought and a concept.

Quote

I would like to believe that each of you are better than that, and you should discuss this in a far more civil manner.

I'm sick and ******* tired of the unwarranted ignorant hatred, and I won't put up with it, anymore.

I am an LRM boat driver, I was in the tabletop, I was in EVERY SINGLE MechWarrior and MechCommander computer game I've played, and I am here, too. I do not possess a LACK OF SKILL, I possess a UNIQUE SKILL SET, and I'm friggin' great at it, unless blinding hatred gets in the way. Ultimax and QK, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Ultimax]

Tesunie, on 10 April 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

Why would you want to remove indirect fire? It's the only weapon that can, and it gives it it's flexibility and justifies some of it's weaknesses. I will also remention, with MRMs coming into the game, what is going to separate LRMs from MRMs?

Indirect Fire basically incentivices bad habits to form, and most commonly we see this with newer or lower skilled players who are attracted to LRMs because they "feel safe" and because it allows them to feel like they contribute (both tend to be illusions the vast majority of the time).

If you wanted to argue that IDF absolutely required a spotter and/or TAG/NARC then on some level I might agree - but what I want is a full revamp for LRMs to become effective, valuable weapons for all players of all skill levels.

The buffs that would be required to do that, basically mandate that Auto-aim and IDF have to go - or at the very least IDF and DF need to be treated completely differently (such as having different flight speeds, massively different damage concentration on targets, and different cooldown rates).

You can call it space magic for all I care, it's game balance - and LRMs cannot be buffed to where they could be very effective as long as they continue to have crutch mechanics like these attached to them.

Tesunie, on 10 April 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

So, to call indirect fire a cancer is a bit extreme.

It's a cancer because of how it degenerates gameplay.

You have low skill players who lean heavily on it, especially during weekend events, who feel that hiding their armor and think being a "support unit" is an actual thing (it is total nonsense).

You have other low skill players who live in terror of LRMs, won't push, won't cross certain areas of terrain and basically cower and die.

It creates a seriously stagnant and unfun type of gameplay - and it gets worse the more LRMs are in play on both sides.

LRMs need to drop the crutch mechanics and get buffs so they can compete against direct fire weapons, by forcing the users of LRMs to take the same kinds or risks and to have to work to find positioning and line of sight - these are critical aspects of gameplay in MWO and using LRMs frequently will stunt the ability of most players to learn the right set of skills to actually get better at this game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Well, in this game, 'Mechs that are SUPPOSED to be for reconnaissance and spotting, IAW TT, are actually the most dangerous killers in this game... light 'Mechs...

You mean the fact PGI made light mechs more entertaining to play than they would be as pure reconnaissance and spotting units (not that they were all for that, because many were still combat oriented). Sorry, but you are too stuck on the idea of they worked according to lore and completely ignoring how this game needs to work to actually be fun for EVERYONE and not just you wanting to play a giant turret that needs the help of unfun roles to do things.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

That doesn't make any sense, however. The more forward elements you have that are targeting enemy elements, the better signal your indirect support elements SHOULD have.

I don't care about your realism because gameplay DRUMPFS realism.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

No, that's not what I want at all. I want the respect, as fellow combatants, we DESERVE on the battlefield. We are SUPPORT elements, not your enemies, but that is how, in essence, we are treated. LRM drivers are made into second-class citizens because the weapons we choose to use are the weakest, but most annoying, weapon systems in the game. LRMs NEED to be buffed for that reason.

Again, sounds like you expect to be carried. Sorry but indirect fire should not be powerful enough such that it becomes a serious thing, it should be a supplemental concept that is used for psychological warfare (there was a weapon that was really good at this in an MW4 mod) and to prevent camping. I want LRMs to be useful OUTSIDE of indirect fire because the BT universe actually HAS artillery weapons that should be used for this. I don't want the only options for missiles to be extremely contrasted, with a direct fire short range shotgun and a weapon that is only useful for indirect fire and requires carrying. If you want artillery (aka indirect fire) to be a thing, push for the ACTUAL artillery weapons rather than trying to get LRMs turned into an artillery weapon (for example can we please lower the range of LRMs to 630m like it should).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 April 2017 - 09:13 AM.

[Tesunie]

Ultimax, on 11 April 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

Indirect Fire basically incentivices bad habits to form, and most commonly we see this with newer or lower skilled players who are attracted to LRMs because they "feel safe" and because it allows them to feel like they contribute (both tend to be illusions the vast majority of the time).

If you wanted to argue that IDF absolutely required a spotter and/or TAG/NARC then on some level I might agree - but what I want is a full revamp for LRMs to become effective, valuable weapons for all players of all skill levels.

The buffs that would be required to do that, basically mandate that Auto-aim and IDF have to go - or at the very least IDF and DF need to be treated completely differently (such as having different flight speeds, massively different damage concentration on targets, and different cooldown rates).

You can call it space magic for all I care, it's game balance - and LRMs cannot be buffed to where they could be very effective as long as they continue to have crutch mechanics like these attached to them.

So... Because people seem to use them poorly, lets just blame the weapon as being bad, instead of trying to encourage more skillful use of them. Because people develop "bad habits" from using LRMs and never trying to expand their game play, lets punish the weapon system for those people who do use it well?

What you suggest is basically like removing Chun Lee from Street Fighter simply because most new players will choose her and so her lower skilled play of fast kicking, without any consideration to those players who have developed skills beyond that ability, but use all her abilities for full effect, including her lesser known energy ranged abilities, or other abilities most players don't know about.

Okay. Then lets remove AC2s as those encourage people to stare at their opponents, and they don't deal as much damage as they feel they do. Then, lets remove CERLLs, because their long burn times results in the same thing. Those are bad habits, and everyone should be shield twisting. If they aren't, than they are learning bad habits and that need to be addressed.

How far do we take this? Until the only weapon left in the game happens to be whatever is "flavor of the month"?


If Indirect fire for LRMs was only possible with NARC or TAG, you may as well kiss that ability goodbye completely. TAG and NARC are very uncommon to see in QP/PUG drops. Some of us use LRMs not as boated weapons, but something to compliment their builds. So, for you this would mean nothing, if not mean "safety" from additional weapons piling into you when you expose yourself too long. For me? My entire play style, or rather at least the one I find myself best at, would disappear. And no, I don't sit out back and wait for locks. I go out and get my own locks, I use my direct fire weapons as well as my LRMs. I'll use LRMs as I get into position (especially on slower mechs), and I also use LRMs as a "parting gift" when I'm about to break line of sight to the enemy from my own locks.

Remove indirect fire, and I might as well kiss most of my assault builds good bye as I toss them into the trash compactor. Some of which has remained untouched since I bought them years ago. Such as my Stalker, Battlemaster (does need rework, something went wrong with it recently), Atlas 1 (I have two others, but not saved in Smurfy yet), King Crab, Hunchback 4J (and 4SP), Griffin 3M, Huntsman (Prime and A), Raven 4X and 3L... Basically, a vast majority of these mechs would probably have to go. Sure, I have other mechs with no LRMs on them... but seriously? These mechs are designed as much for direct combat as for indirect combat. Remove indirect, and you'd just be eliminating an entire tactical option and style of play.

Just because some people "don't do it well" doesn't mean it should be removed from the game completely. If you removed indirect from LRMs, you would have to give them some MASSIVE buffs in exchange. Otherwise, what's going to make them different from MRMs?


Sounds like you wouldn't actually know this, but LRMs do require skills to use well. And lots of skill. Actually, in the higher tiers of play, using LRMs in that area requires typically more skill and effort than direct fire builds do, especially if one is going for damage.


On the note of velocity, I don't see how that helps encourage or discourages direct over indirect fire. No one has been able to explain this to me. I still believe that adjusting spread and tracking (accuracy) would be far more reasonable things to alter for an indirect fire mode than velocity ever would. LRMs should move at the same velocity for indirect or direct fire, but their accuracy and spread should/could be affected between the two firing modes. To go all "TT" here (which this game is heavily based off, but obviously isn't exactly taken from), indirect fired LRMs suffered a to hit penalty. This could be represented with a tracking and spread penalty for indirect fired LRMs. It would not only be more fitting, but also would make any indirect fired missiles more likely to miss.

We could also, on the case of indirect fired weapons, adjust their rewards in game, making it less rewarding to "hang back and beg for locks". One suggestion I had was to let a portion of the damage that LRMs deal be assigned to any teammate who was spotting for the attack, with the exception of if the LRM user themselves was spotting (then they get full credit for all damage). In the linked post, I gave a place holder of 50% damage split. This could, of course, always be adjusted.

Ultimax, on 11 April 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

It's a cancer because of how it degenerates gameplay.


... (More opinion stuff here) ...

LRMs need to drop the crutch mechanics and get buffs so they can compete against direct fire weapons, by forcing the users of LRMs to take the same kinds or risks and to have to work to find positioning and line of sight - these are critical aspects of gameplay in MWO and using LRMs frequently will stunt the ability of most players to learn the right set of skills to actually get better at this game.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to. I believe however that indirect fire provides more tactical choices to be made, and can provide more direction to game play when used well.


The last part I kept I want to address specifically.
So, you don't think LRM users take risks? Those that boat the system end up being useless within 180m. A single light mech can sneak up to them, and then take them time and farm them for damage, because if they boated they have completely no defense against anything within 180m. (This, kids, is why we shouldn't boat LRMs.)

They also then depend upon locks, which you may not consider risky, but compared to the faster reacting weapons (which is just about any direct fire weapon), LRMs need to get a lock, hold it till missile lock, see if the flight path of LRMs is clear, if so then check range, will it be likely to hit? Okay, all math is calculated, release the swarm! "Oops. Lost lock now, that's a wasted volley" is a very big risk.

Oh, and with ECM in the game preventing all lock capabilities, some of it is by game mode now and can't be easily countered (actually encouraging LRM players to hang back even more on those game modes)... and don't forget about AMS people keep not wanting to take that, if taken enmass can stop almost all but the heaviest of LRM attacks...

You sir are very wrong about LRMs not having to take risks. Just because those risks are not the same doesn't mean they aren't taking risks. Part of that is why I don't boat LRMs, because of the big risks in doing so. As you can probably see from my builds above I left for you...

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Again, sounds like you expect to be carried. Sorry but indirect fire should not be powerful enough such that it becomes a serious thing, it should be a supplemental concept that is used for psychological warfare (there was a weapon that was really good at this in an MW4 mod) and to prevent camping. I want LRMs to be useful OUTSIDE of indirect fire because the BT universe actually HAS artillery weapons that should be used for this. I don't want the only options for missiles to be extremely contrasted, with a direct fire short range shotgun and a weapon that is only useful for indirect fire and requires carrying. If you want artillery (aka indirect fire) to be a thing, push for the ACTUAL artillery weapons rather than trying to get LRMs turned into an artillery weapon (for example can we please lower the range of LRMs to 630m like it should).

I could agree with much of what you said... except this part.

Indirect fire should be threatening enough that people should want to avoid it, just like any other source of damage dealing. That doesn't mean we can't adjust parts of LRMs to make it less effective and to have indirect fire less rewarding. However LRMs are very capable (and are much better) when fired directly compared to the often misconception of "they can only be used indirectly", which I see happening a lot with LRMs.

I also would like to note that LRMs in TT have an optimum range of 660m, but a x2 weapon range (this game uses the double weapon ranges rule) of 1320m. For game balance, having a max range of around 1000m at full damage (different from other weapons) is a reasonable game balance decision, but it might be nicer to have it match other current standing weapons? Maybe LRMs could lose tracking and spread as the go past 660m, making them less accurate and less likely to land missiles on target (or at least far less) at longer ranges. Almost a direct mimic of direct fire weapons.

Of course, I'd like to see what MRM ranges are, so that LRM ranges could be adjusted to better fulfill their role as "long" range missiles. At least in comparison to other missiles. (Though, currently long range is really close if not past 1000m now in the game. So there is also that to consider.)

[Kin3ticX]

I find it rather hard to hold locks so I switched to direct fire weapons which are easier (no lock needed)

[Tesunie]

Sorry about the latish response. Figured I'd respond to this when I was awake...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

I assure you, I get hit just like everyone else, generally as I'm transitioning from cover-to-cover, but if I'm not allowed to deliver my payload, to actually help those of you who run guns only and die long before you should because of the stubborness and stupidity of not placing us and using us to help where we're needed, and understanding it takes a minute to re-position where you need us, where anticipation of needs rather than absolutely brute forcing through the battle is used... there are no commanders in this game, anymore. We all left, or stopped commanding, because it's just a bunch of little children who will go where they want, not using their brains, but brute force only, and anyone who doesn't use brute force, because that's not the way they choose to play the game, are called skill-less. Short-sighted children.

On the remark of "getting hit" the concept with armor sharing isn't actually to share your armor, but more so to be "another target" to try and confuse the enemy. If only one mech can be seen by two, that single mech automatically gets focused fired on. If two mechs are seen by two mechs, than there may be some focus fire, or they may spread their damage between the two different targets, making it so more fire power remains active. If three mechs are seen by two mechs, than not only are the two mechs out numbered now, but they may spread they shots between three different mechs, causing that much less damage to a specific mech. It's basically the reason why animals run in herds or flocks. They confuse predators so they don't know which one to go after, thus increasing all of their survival.

I'll also agree that a team needs to use what they have, not what they want to have. If they have dropped with an LRM boat who will do nothing but sit out back, than at least try to help them, but not to the expense of the team either. Sometimes, you do need to call an ally a loss, as trying to save them can be more detrimental to the team than letting them go. (This also applies to Rambo and the lone rusher squads. Sometimes, you can't go in and try to save them either, just hope you can support them enough for it to make a difference in your favor.)


As my own unit has stated, they don't care if I use LRMs (even if they prefer otherwise), as long as I am up with them and not hiding in the background. When they call for a push, they expect me to be behind them on it, as another possible target to take damage and to deal damage right back. Thus, I use LRMs with them, and I've always been shoulder to shoulder with them. They have had no complaints, especially not after I've done second or third best damage and match score in a medium mech...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

"sharing armor" is a childish concept, it has no place in true tactical or strategic game-play and, as such, has no place in MWO. It's ridiculous and vain and hateful to anyone who doesn't want to play in the sandbox the same way as they do. Most people who play this game, these days, would never have survived as a Roman or, for that matter as a savage in any disorganized tribe in this world's history; they would do at the hands of those tribes. Imbeciles.

Mostly, read above. However, the concept isn't to share hits exactly, but instead to instead share the potential of being a target. If the enemy can't focus one target down, than everyone has a better chance of surviving. If a mech can survive longer, that's typically longer that their weapons can deal damage.

The principal of sharing armor is useful in not only individual survival as a team, but also individual match performance, as each individual can survive longer to continue to deal damage.

I will state, if you have LRMs and are critically wounded, than yes. Hide in the back and continue to deal what damage you can. You are better to the team alive and dealing damage, than dead. (Only exception would be if you are trying to stop the enemy from capping a game winning objective, such as your base...)

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

You're not THAT unique, Tesunie, as I do the same. I WORK to support my team, even if they hate me.

I say that mostly as, when I talk about LRMs, most people assume boating them and nothing else. They tend not to have seen my style of LRMing in a match (because they probably never dropped with me), and I've had very few people comment that they use it in a similar manner.

I'm also not infuring that I'm unique as in one of a kind, but unique as in "one of a few". As the vast majority use LRMs in what I would consider "the worst way possible", which is to sit out back and wait for teammates to get locks for them. Though it is a strategy, and it is a tactic, and it can work... There are better ways to use LRMs in this game.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

That's part of what the LRM discussions of late are about... how do we fix direct and indirect fire to be more useful for the team. Personally, I think it's all in vain, as PGI has NEVER listened to the things that should be done to correct the inefficiencies.

There are a lot of suggestions out there. Some of them are good, others make no sense. And yet others, as seen here, want to remove indirect completely (because "it's not fair that I can take damage but not deal it back to them").

Of course, this is PGI's game, and they ultimately have to decide how they want it to work out.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Precisely. But, Muggles don't understand that, Tesunie, and are too lazy to get rid of their blinding hatred and do something to actually be part of the team. Who knows, if they had more ECM on the team, there might be more LRM boats up-front... hmmm, there's a thought and a concept.

I doubt that. More ECM would probably just remove more LRM boats as either they would be dealing less damage (due to lack of locks) or they would be dieing a lot easier (because they can't defend themselves). I say this because people would (and do) boat only LRMs as a weapon, with no backups or alternative weapons for "when things go south". As such, the inability to get locks due to how ECM currently runs in this game would just render them inert, and not in a good way as people would still continue to play that way and "dismiss" the bad matches because "I can do over 1000 points of damage sometimes".

I may like LRMs, but I'm not going to pretend to be blind to what other people do with them, nor and I going to ignore their weaknesses.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

I'm sick and ******* tired of the unwarranted ignorant hatred, and I won't put up with it, anymore.

I am an LRM boat driver, I was in the tabletop, I was in EVERY SINGLE MechWarrior and MechCommander computer game I've played, and I am here, too. I do not possess a LACK OF SKILL, I possess a UNIQUE SKILL SET, and I'm friggin' great at it, unless blinding hatred gets in the way. Ultimax and QK, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

You may be sick of the way they treat you, but lashing out really isn't going to validate what you say either. I get what you are saying, and it is a different set of skills to be effective with LRMs compared to other weapons.

Use facts to counter them. Counter their points with points of your own. Once a discussion falls to attacking the person instead of the concept, no one really is listening anymore. And that doesn't help anyone, on either side of the debate.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tesunie, on 11 April 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Indirect fire should be threatening enough that people should want to avoid it, just like any other source of damage dealing.

Where did I say it shouldn't do damage though? It shouldn't be a seriously effective method of dealing damage, but it SHOULD do enough damage to cause people to panic if they sit in one place for too long, that's why I mentioned psychological warfare (it has to do a decent amount of damage to count towards that).

Tesunie, on 11 April 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

I also would like to note that LRMs in TT have an optimum range of 660m, but a x2 weapon range (this game uses the double weapon ranges rule) of 1320m.

Missiles have not been given the x2 weapon range rule (SRMs and SSRMs are not so lucky), except for LRMs which were special because of their indirect fire capability (which is why they have been a pain to balance since the beginning).

Tesunie, on 11 April 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

(Though, currently long range is really close if not past 1000m now in the game. So there is also that to consider.)

Extreme range is around 750-800+, but that is not something LRMs should be shooting for being masters of (honestly that is where ATM extendeds and extended LRMs can be useful). 500-750/800m is where LRMs should try to be useful.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 April 2017 - 01:40 PM.

[Tesunie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Where did I say it shouldn't do damage though? It shouldn't be a seriously effective method of dealing damage, but it SHOULD do enough damage to cause people to panic if they sit in one place for too long, that's why I mentioned psychological warfare (it has to do a decent amount of damage to count towards that).

I agree to some effect. There is a reason I mentioned it should still remain "threatening". There is also a reason I recommend indirect fired LRMs have an increase to spread as well as possibly worse tracking (or just one or the other even). This leaves them still able to deal damage, but it might be less or even be more likely to miss. Unless of course TAG or NARC is involved, which their bonuses could be a 100% counter to the indirect penalties.

It's kind of a cross between several suggestions, and is a compromise middle ground. I feel it would be a solid balancing mechanic, but of course I would prefer to test it before just adding it into the game.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Missiles have not been given the x2 weapon range rule (SRMs and SSRMs are not so lucky), except for LRMs which were special because of their indirect fire capability (which is why they have been a pain to balance since the beginning).

I do agree. The LRM indirect abilities, which is coupled with it's homing abilities, has made them very difficult to balance. Change something a little too much, and it's too powerful/good. A little to much the other way, and nearly useless. There are plenty of ways they can be balanced still, but it's all a matter of finding the correct balance.

I also would like to remark here that we would need to make a change (whatever it may happen to be) and stick with it for two weeks to a full month to gather data. Some possible changes were added into the game, only be to removed a few days later because of the whine and the flood of LRM use (as everyone wants to check out the new weapon changes).

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Extreme range is around 750-800+, but that is not something LRMs should be shooting for being masters of (honestly that is where ATM extendeds and extended LRMs can be useful). 500-750/800m is where LRMs should try to be useful.

Currently, LRMs are considered most useful within 400m (closer to minimum is better), with a max "effective" range of about 600m. Anything past 600m is honestly pushing your luck and hoping it will hit (though it still can). So currently, they seem to be a little short of where you would consider to be optimal range for LRMs.

(For the record, I wasn't actually trying to push for the increased range, it was a stray thought and just something I "wanted to point out" more than "have in the game". If you get what I'm saying.)

[mouser42]

mrm boating in a few months so no worries

[Tesunie]

mouser42, on 11 April 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

mrm boating in a few months so no worries

That.. Kinda is my worry.

What's going to distinguish the LRMs once MRMs come in? For the moment, that is indirect and homing capabilities. But, will that be enough to make it remain useful when MRMs come out?

Edit: I will mention that I am looking forward to MRMs. They will be a nice alternative to the missile problem. If you have missile hard points, it's either short range or long range that requires locks to work. It will provide a reasonable mid range weapon to place into that slot, something we've been needing.

Edited by Tesunie, 11 April 2017 - 04:57 PM.

[M T]

Lets get rid of the dreaded weapon already.

Why do we play this game if we do not want to aim in the first place?

[Ultimax]

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

... the most dangerous killers in this game... light 'Mechs...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

...due to the preferences of PGI for Light 'Mechs, as it's always been with them.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

I want the respect, as fellow combatants, we DESERVE on the battlefield. We are SUPPORT elements...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

For the latter, auto-aim... that NEEDS to be removed from direct fire weapons, period. THAT's the TERROR of the game, not LRMs.

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

The bad players happen to be the ones who have to pin point their damage, where your mouse click puts your round on target... it's not skill, it's point-and-click...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

LRMs actually require more work and skill...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

The LRM driver who masters his art is twice the warrior any of you gun bunny's are...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

"sharing armor" is a childish concept, it has no place in true tactical or strategic game-play and, as such, has no place in MWO....

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

But, Muggles don't understand that, Tesunie...

Threat Doc, on 10 April 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

I do not possess a LACK OF SKILL, I possess a UNIQUE SKILL SET, and I'm friggin' great at it, unless blinding hatred gets in the way. Ultimax and QK, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Your unique skill set is the ability to damage your own credibility harder in a single post, than I could possibly muster with a week's worth of effort.

Well done.

Edited by Ultimax, 11 April 2017 - 05:29 PM.

[Tesunie]

Ultimax, on 11 April 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Your unique skill set is the ability to damage your own credibility harder in a single post, than I could possibly muster with a week's worth of effort.

Well done.

And yours is the ability to not recognize other's skills, because they aren't what you like.

Well. Now that we have the obligatory "attack the person" phase over, can we move to combat resolution phase? (Sorry, bad TT joke.)