220 replies to this topic

[Jiang Wei]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,
what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less so when uses indirectly,
to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are fired indirectly in TT,
wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

LRMs are SUPPOSED to be indirect fire weapons. To make them useless in that regard.... you might as well just take LRMs out of the game.

The only thing that needs to be changed.. SLIGHTLY... is the super high arc. With that insanely high arcing, there is ALMOST no where you can hide behind and not get hit by the LRMS. I think that is what annoys people the most.

Edited by Jiang Wei, 04 June 2017 - 01:27 PM.

[Ruar]

Jiang Wei, on 04 June 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

LRMs are SUPPOSED to be indirect fire weapons. To make them useless in that regard.... you might as well just take LRMs out of the game.

The only thing that needs to be changed.. SLIGHTLY... is the super high arc. With that insanely high arcing, there is ALMOST no where you can hide behind and not get hit by the LRMS. I think that is what annoys people the most.

Actually, if you look at the BT source material LRMs are CAPABLE of firing indirectly, but their primary function is direct fire. They even take a to-hit penalty modifier anytime they are fired in an indirect role. If there is LOS then LRMS HAVE to fire in direct fire mode, they can't be used indirectly even if it provides a higher to-hit chance.

Saying they are supposed to be for indirect fire is inaccurate.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

Actually, if you look at the BT source material LRMs are CAPABLE of firing indirectly, but their primary function is direct fire. They even take a to-hit penalty modifier anytime they are fired in an indirect role. If there is LOS then LRMS HAVE to fire in direct fire mode, they can't be used indirectly even if it provides a higher to-hit chance.

Saying they are supposed to be for indirect fire is inaccurate.

First, how about you use good game design as an argument than using an ancient ruleset from a table top game as a guide for making good gameplay in an online shooter.
Secondly, how is it that the only weapon in the game capable of indirect fire does not have that as a primary function. And accuracy does not dictate function. If that was the case, ER-PPCs where made for brawling.
Thirdly, considering that direct fire lock in the game is already more reliable than indirect lock, you can count that as already simulating the loss of accuracy.
Fourth, mention one instance of a weapon in any game ever where any weapon functioned better when fired indirectly compared to directly to signify that it's primary function is indirect.

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 04 June 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

First, how about you use good game design as an argument than using an ancient ruleset from a table top game as a guide for making good gameplay in an online shooter.
Secondly, how is it that the only weapon in the game capable of indirect fire does not have that as a primary function. And accuracy does not dictate function. If that was the case, ER-PPCs where made for brawling.
Thirdly, considering that direct fire lock in the game is already more reliable than indirect lock, you can count that as already simulating the loss of accuracy.
Fourth, mention one instance of a weapon in any game ever where any weapon functioned better when fired indirectly compared to directly to signify that it's primary function is indirect.

The point about the ruleset was to show LRMs are not primarily an indirect fire weapon. Good or bad game design has nothing to do with assigning a primary and secondary role to LRMs.

The reason the only weapon capable of indirect fire doesn't have that as a primary function is because there is no need in MWO for indirect fire. It's there as flavor and because LRMs did it in BT, but if you look at how the game is actually played and designed then you'll see there is no need for indirect fire. A similar game that needs indirect fire is WoT because you can bounce shots therefore a high armor tank in chokepoints is nearly unbeatable without some mechanism to force it out of position. Artillery provides that mechanism. MWO however doesn't need such a system because the matches are already fluid.

Direct fire is just providing your own lock and is no more reliable than someone else providing the lock in indirect mode. Both direct and indirect have the same level of accuracy in MWO thanks to the homing mechanic.

WoT and artillery. Firing directly was worse than indirect because any movement to track your target caused the CoF to bloom while in indirect mode you had time to let the CoF settle before firing.

[Weeny Machine]

Jiang Wei, on 04 June 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

LRMs are SUPPOSED to be indirect fire weapons. To make them useless in that regard.... you might as well just take LRMs out of the game.

The only thing that needs to be changed.. SLIGHTLY... is the super high arc. With that insanely high arcing, there is ALMOST no where you can hide behind and not get hit by the LRMS. I think that is what annoys people the most.

That is not true at all. In the TT, as was already said, they get not only penalties but...
1. need a dedicated spotter. That spotter cannot fire weapons himself (except of course you are linked in a C3 network)
2. you also get the movement penalties of the spotter on top of your own

Considering all those cons, how can you say with a straight face that LRMs were supposed to be primarily an indirect fire weapon?

Ironically the TT devs had enough forsesight to sidestep the polarizing problem we have here in MWO: LRM boats being somewhere else and easily lending fire support because, as you see, you had to go to quite some lengths to get indirect fire working.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The point about the ruleset was to show LRMs are not primarily an indirect fire weapon. Good or bad game design has nothing to do with assigning a primary and secondary role to LRMs.

First, the rules does not mention primary or secondary purposes. You made that up yourself.
Secondly, yes, knowing a weapons primary function is pretty damn crucial to making good game design. But that explains why you don't care that your suggestion is bad game design. Your priority is something else.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The reason the only weapon capable of indirect fire doesn't have that as a primary function is because there is no need in MWO for indirect fire. It's there as flavor and because LRMs did it in BT, but if you look at how the game is actually played and designed then you'll see there is no need for indirect fire. A similar game that needs indirect fire is WoT because you can bounce shots therefore a high armor tank in chokepoints is nearly unbeatable without some mechanism to force it out of position. Artillery provides that mechanism. MWO however doesn't need such a system because the matches are already fluid.

Then I suggest all mechs just have one HP bar, because there is no need for seperate hitboxes.
Things we need are only part on the minimal viable product. But we should be way past that by now.
It's not a must have, it's a nice to have. But we already have it.

Your argument here could only be used to stop the implementation of indirect fire, but it's already so why remove it. Or to put it your terms: We do not NEED to nerf or remove it.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

WoT and artillery. Firing directly was worse than indirect because any movement to track your target caused the CoF to bloom while in indirect mode you had time to let the CoF settle before firing.

Now, I'll have to take your word on that because I don't know the game, but if that is the case, it's the first I've heard of. But considering the argument below, maybe you just don't know how to use them correctly.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Direct fire is just providing your own lock and is no more reliable than someone else providing the lock in indirect mode. Both direct and indirect have the same level of accuracy in MWO thanks to the homing mechanic.

Alright. That's it. Go actually play LRM mechs. Go. Along with you...
No, no supper for you until you have done you homework and learned how LRMs work in this game. And no deserts.

That paragraph alone clearly shows that you have too little experience with that weapon system in MWO to make any suggestions on it's function. That explains why you reasoning made no sense.

From now on, the only argument I need to show people that you don't know what you are talking about is to mentioned that you said those words.

And let me try to explain why you are wrong. How do you measure accuracy? Well a percentage of hits and misses. So if you miss with more missiles while firing indirect than firing direct then accuracy is lower.
And then take into consideration that my own locks, I can see the enemy mech, I can see where he is going and predict his movement to some degree. That's a lot harder with indirect locks. I only have a radar blib consider plus I simultaneously need to predict the movement of my allies holding the locks, if I even know who has it.
And as you probably don't know either since you clearly don't know how LRMs work, the missiles only track while you have a lock, so if you lose it mid-flight... you miss AKA lower accuracy.

[Savage Wolf]

Bush Hopper, on 04 June 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

That is not true at all. In the TT, as was already said, they get not only penalties but...
1. need a dedicated spotter. That spotter cannot fire weapons himself (except of course you are linked in a C3 network)
2. you also get the movement penalties of the spotter on top of your own

Considering all those cons, how can you say with a straight face that LRMs were supposed to be primarily an indirect fire weapon?

Ironically the TT devs had enough forsesight to sidestep the polarizing problem we have here in MWO: LRM boats being somewhere else and easily lending fire support because, as you see, you had to go to quite some lengths to get indirect fire working.

So what you are saying is that there does not exist a single primarily indirect weapon in any tabletop game? I've tried a few and they all made indirect fire less accurate. And while there were a few weapons in those games designed to be indirect as a secondary option, the majority was used primarily for that purpose despite the less accuracy.

You could also look at it this way. How can the weapon with the highest indirect accuracy in the game not be meant for that especially considering being very inaccurate as a direct fire weapon compared to other weapons.

[Weeny Machine]

Savage Wolf, on 04 June 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that there does not exist a single primarily indirect weapon in any tabletop game? I've tried a few and they all made indirect fire less accurate. And while there were a few weapons in those games designed to be indirect as a secondary option, the majority was used primarily for that purpose despite the less accuracy.

You could also look at it this way. How can the weapon with the highest indirect accuracy in the game not be meant for that especially considering being very inaccurate as a direct fire weapon compared to other weapons.

You lack reading comprehension. Where did I say "any"? Read again.

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 04 June 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

First, the rules does not mention primary or secondary purposes. You made that up yourself.
Secondly, yes, knowing a weapons primary function is pretty damn crucial to making good game design. But that explains why you don't care that your suggestion is bad game design. Your priority is something else.



Then I suggest all mechs just have one HP bar, because there is no need for seperate hitboxes.
Things we need are only part on the minimal viable product. But we should be way past that by now.
It's not a must have, it's a nice to have. But we already have it.

Your argument here could only be used to stop the implementation of indirect fire, but it's already so why remove it. Or to put it your terms: We do not NEED to nerf or remove it.




Now, I'll have to take your word on that because I don't know the game, but if that is the case, it's the first I've heard of. But considering the argument below, maybe you just don't know how to use them correctly.


Alright. That's it. Go actually play LRM mechs. Go. Along with you...
No, no supper for you until you have done you homework and learned how LRMs work in this game. And no deserts.

That paragraph alone clearly shows that you have too little experience with that weapon system in MWO to make any suggestions on it's function. That explains why you reasoning made no sense.

From now on, the only argument I need to show people that you don't know what you are talking about is to mentioned that you said those words.

And let me try to explain why you are wrong. How do you measure accuracy? Well a percentage of hits and misses. So if you miss with more missiles while firing indirect than firing direct then accuracy is lower.
And then take into consideration that my own locks, I can see the enemy mech, I can see where he is going and predict his movement to some degree. That's a lot harder with indirect locks. I only have a radar blib consider plus I simultaneously need to predict the movement of my allies holding the locks, if I even know who has it.
And as you probably don't know either since you clearly don't know how LRMs work, the missiles only track while you have a lock, so if you lose it mid-flight... you miss AKA lower accuracy.

At least you try, more than I can say for some.

You are right, the rules do not absolutely say "LRMs are primarily a direct fire weapon with a secondary role of indirect fire". What the rules do say is that you have to fire directly if you have LOS, and that LRMs may be used to fire indirectly if certain prerequisites are met. So I take from that the LRMs are meant to be direct fire weapons capable of indirect fire but that's not their primary role. Then I look at how LRMs are put on various mechs and when you add the two together it's obvious they are meant to be long range direct fire that are capable of indirect in certain situations. Which is how I think they should be designed in MWO in order to make them a solid weapon in more circumstances than we currently see in the game.

Please stop with the fallacious arguments. I didn't say to remove indirect fire. I think it belongs in MWO simply because it was in BT as well. What I'm saying is indirect as a primary role is not needed. Therefore any indirect fire we see in the game shouldn't be all that strong and it should be a flavor thing instead of the foundation of a weapon system. Big difference between removing something completely and having something present but that isn't a major influencing factor in a fight.

The fact you don't know how artillery in WoT effects the game should make you not have dinner and all of that stuff. WoT is the closest game design to MWO. Artillery is the single biggest issue in WoT and they still haven't figured out how to implement it properly after all these years. Either it's too strong and completely OP, or it's too weak and not worth using. It's a direct analog to LRMs in MWO. You really need to go play WoT for a few months to get a true understanding of just how bad strong indirect fire is in these types of games.

I'm going to mostly ignore the condescension in the last part. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of how the weapon works. I've used it in game to the point where I'm capable of getting some decent scores if I choose. I don't like using LRMs though because the maintaining lock limits my mobility and I prefer to be able to move around as I see fit.

Everything you said about indirect fire is great and all, but it doesn't change the fact that direct and indirect have the same exact accuracy at the design level. Any difference in accuracy is a result of player skill. Yes, guessing target movement is part of the equation but that is a consideration for all weapons. Terrain plays a bit more factor in indirect fire because you can't always see what is around your target but the flight path negates some of that terrain by arcing higher. All in all the accuracy between the two isn't based on the mechanics of LRMs but rather how the players themselves react to the incoming missile alarm.


The fact of the matter is I'm right about LRMs should be strong in a direct fire role and capable of indirect. How that is accomplished can be up for debate, but it needs to be done. People insisting LRMs have to be an indirect fire weapon do so because they enjoy having a crutch weapon that allows them to hide out of LOS. Yes, it's comforting to not be shot at or have to expose yourself, but at the same time it's a poor design decision and shouldn't happen except in very few circumstances. Which is why so many people dislike LRMs. They are poorly designed and need to be fixed.

[Savage Wolf]

Bush Hopper, on 04 June 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

You lack reading comprehension. Where did I say "any"? Read again.

That's because I also possess context comprehension. I took your reasoning and applied it to other similar cases. The result was that in any example I found, it left no weapons as primarily indirect fire, even obvious ones like artillery and mortar. So I provided the "any". You didn't have to.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Ruar,
exactly this,

im looking to give LRMs a buff to all forms of play that arnt unassisted indirect fire,
if you look at my comparison stats, you see -0.3m to -1.1m spread, thats not much, but its something,
and if your going to be using Artemis & TAG and staring on a 10Ton system it should be Viable,
and if your going to be having a Team mate NARC & TAG then again it better be Viable,
right now LRMs are kept bad because Indirect fire can be OP vs less Skilled Players,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 04 June 2017 - 03:17 PM.

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 04 June 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

@Ruar,
exactly this,

im looking to give LRMs a buff to all forms of play that arnt unassisted indirect fire,
if you look at my comparison stats, you see -0.3m to -1.1m spread, thats not much, but its something,
and if your going to be using Artemis & TAG and staring on a 10Ton system it should be Viable,
and if your going to be having a Team mate NARC & TAG then again it better be Viable,
right now LRMs are kept bad because Indirect fire can be OP vs less Skilled Players,

When I first read your post it seemed like you still wanted to use the homing mechanic. I think that absolutely has to be removed before LRMs can be fixed for either of their roles.

Direct fire I think they should just be MRMs that go faster, have a shallow arc, and do less damage (which might be accomplished through LRMs having fewer missiles per launcher).

Indirect should fall to a geographic point instead of on a mech.

Direct fire dispersion is harder to predict and probably needs to be tested starting at a decent amount and then tightened until a good balance is reached with other direct fire weapons at 800-900m.

Indirect dispersion should be fairly big and stay that way. It should be an area effect weapon meant to deny avenues of approach, force people out of firing line, or create panic while trying to bleed off heat.

Edited by Ruar, 04 June 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[Ken Harkin]

No.

Next?

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

You are right, the rules do not absolutely say "LRMs are primarily a direct fire weapon with a secondary role of indirect fire". What the rules do say is that you have to fire directly if you have LOS, and that LRMs may be used to fire indirectly if certain prerequisites are met. So I take from that the LRMs are meant to be direct fire weapons capable of indirect fire but that's not their primary role. Then I look at how LRMs are put on various mechs and when you add the two together it's obvious they are meant to be long range direct fire that are capable of indirect in certain situations. Which is how I think they should be designed in MWO in order to make them a solid weapon in more circumstances than we currently see in the game.

So, your argument for why it's only secondarily indirect is because it requires certain prerequisites? But did you not also just mention the same for direct fire? LOS is a certain prerequisite of firing them directly. So do none of the weapons have a primary fire?

Or is your argument that because you CAN use them for indirect fire secondarily, that they must be so. Okay, problem is that I CAN also use them primarily for that purpose. So are we both right?

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Please stop with the fallacious arguments. I didn't say to remove indirect fire. I think it belongs in MWO simply because it was in BT as well. What I'm saying is indirect as a primary role is not needed. Therefore any indirect fire we see in the game shouldn't be all that strong and it should be a flavor thing instead of the foundation of a weapon system. Big difference between removing something completely and having something present but that isn't a major influencing factor in a fight.

And I also said nerf.
So let me repeat your argument again from my perspective. We do not need to nerf indirect fire. Hell, we do not need to alter it at all.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

The fact you don't know how artillery in WoT effects the game should make you not have dinner and all of that stuff. WoT is the closest game design to MWO. Artillery is the single biggest issue in WoT and they still haven't figured out how to implement it properly after all these years. Either it's too strong and completely OP, or it's too weak and not worth using. It's a direct analog to LRMs in MWO. You really need to go play WoT for a few months to get a true understanding of just how bad strong indirect fire is in these types of games.

Why? We had Lurmageddons in MWO. I know we don't need the weapon to be OP, but that counts for any weapon. But we are not in a lurmageddon. It's just seeing some use again after a long period of being too weak to use.
We just need to treat it like all other weapons that over or under perform and fix it if needed. And here it is not.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

I'm going to mostly ignore the condescension in the last part. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of how the weapon works. I've used it in game to the point where I'm capable of getting some decent scores if I choose. I don't like using LRMs though because the maintaining lock limits my mobility and I prefer to be able to move around as I see fit.

Yeah, someone who dislikes a weapon putting in the effort to learn the weapon. Possible, but through your numerous errors so far, it sounds more likely that you aren't exactly an expert.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Everything you said about indirect fire is great and all, but it doesn't change the fact that direct and indirect have the same exact accuracy at the design level.

If that was the case, then they failed to deliver on that design. Because the mechanics says otherwise. And do you have a quote somewhere where PGI says this is what they designed for?

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Any difference in accuracy is a result of player skill. Yes, guessing target movement is part of the equation but that is a consideration for all weapons.

Yet, more so for LRMs than other weapons because the target is permitted a lot more movement before impact and is even warned of the incomming blow.
And why are you talking about other weapons when the crux of the matter is if there is difference in this factor between direct and indirect fire with LRMs. Why is predicting an enemy you can see as easy as predicting an enemy you cannot see through the eyes of an ally you also have to predict on top of the enemy?
I could even simplify it to that. Direct fire: predict one person. Indirect fire: predict two.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Terrain plays a bit more factor in indirect fire because you can't always see what is around your target but the flight path negates some of that terrain by arcing higher.

How the hell does the arching fire negate my lack of information about the reliability of the lock? Do your missiles have cameras on them so you can see above?

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

All in all the accuracy between the two isn't based on the mechanics of LRMs but rather how the players themselves react to the incoming missile alarm.

So after all that you conclude with mentioning yet another difference? Well, thanks I guess.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is I'm right about LRMs should be strong in a direct fire role and capable of indirect. How that is accomplished can be up for debate, but it needs to be done. People insisting LRMs have to be an indirect fire weapon do so because they enjoy having a crutch weapon that allows them to hide out of LOS. Yes, it's comforting to not be shot at or have to expose yourself, but at the same time it's a poor design decision and shouldn't happen except in very few circumstances. Which is why so many people dislike LRMs. They are poorly designed and need to be fixed.

All this just to stop the potatoes from performing poorly? How does this fix that? Making a bad strategy worse doesn't change anything. If they didn't like to perform poorly they already wouldn't be doing it. So explain to me, how this fixes potatoes and also explain why it justifies nerfing the people doing it well. Oh, right. The need thing. Guess I need to use that argument to ruin other playstyles I don't use.
Or do you even know of the good LRMers, the aggressive LRMers? Oh, right...

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Direct fire is just providing your own lock and is no more reliable than someone else providing the lock in indirect mode. Both direct and indirect have the same level of accuracy in MWO thanks to the homing mechanic.

...you don't know how the weapon actually works when used correctly.

[Ruar]

I'm not doing this in yet another thread Savage. We disagree. We have differing opinions. We both feel we are right. Please stop the multi-quote, drawn out responses. It's not changing anyone's mind and I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you come up with something new. Especially when you do that stupid multi-quote thing... it's childish because you are just nit-picking partial statements and ignoring the section as a whole. There's a reason to write in paragraphs.

The TT lore doesn't support your postion. MWO game play doesn't support your position. The majority of the forum users don't support your position. Just accept that you support your position and move on.

Back to the topic, looking forward to seeing your response Andi.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

I'm not doing this in yet another thread Savage. We disagree. We have differing opinions. We both feel we are right. Please stop the multi-quote, drawn out responses. It's not changing anyone's mind and I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you come up with something new. Especially when you do that stupid multi-quote thing... it's childish because you are just nit-picking partial statements and ignoring the section as a whole. There's a reason to write in paragraphs.

Yeah, it's fine to disagree and it's obvious that we do. Problem is when one has an opinion based on misconceptions and do not know the facts. The difference in accuracy between indirect fire and direct fire is not a matter of opinion. It's fact. And your refusal to be corrected when you are objectively wrong means it's not about debating a solution, it's about getting your way at the expense of others.

So yes, I went for all your arguments and tried to show how extreme they were, how inaccurate, which is easy when they are not based on facts

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

The TT lore doesn't support your postion.

....
....
....
So? Is there a point to this?
And I even explained that it actually does. Even when I don't care. I care about good game design and TT is not the place to find that for an online shooter.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

MWO game play doesn't support your position.

My position is subjective. But it's based on MWO gameplay as an aggressive LRMer. Yours? At best it's based on your experience as a passive LRMer.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

The majority of the forum users don't support your position.

Oh, you have numbers? Or is that just intuition? Mine says, it's pretty split on the subject. But then intuition isn't very accurate so I know I know nothing. You do not.
Also, the forums does not represent the playerbase as a whole. It's only a vocal minority.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Just accept that you support your position and move on.

And you should accept when you have some misconceptions. If you come up with arguments based on actual game play in the game, we can try again. Maybe then it will be about solutions and not exposing fundemental flaws in logic.

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Back to the topic, looking forward to seeing your response Andi.

Ah, yes. Should see how well he does.

[Brain Cancer]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,
what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less so when uses indirectly,
to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are fired indirectly in TT,
wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

An LRM will always be an inferior direct fire weapon due to the way it functions.

It's pretty darn simple.

Increase velocity. This directly buffs accuracy and effective range to target, as LRMs already become increasingly accurate as you close due to having to maintain locks. About a two-second travel time is "accurate" (320m right now), three is "effective" (480m), and four+ second travel time (basically anything past 500m, and definitely 600m) is generally begging your opponent to get out of the way. Even upping it to 240 means you get an accurate/effective reach of 480/720 instead of 320/480. Make indirect fire suffer a velocity penalty for taking the long route to a target vs. a flatter one (see below) and you give LRMs an inherent indirect fire penalty without screwing them completely. I'd go with 200 indirect, 240 direct fire mode.

Normalize spread. Everything hits in the LRM 10 cluster we have now.

Change dumbfire to horizontal rather than arcing shots. This allows LRM use in tunnels and the like and makes direct fire in general more useful, as you can at least saturate an area with rockets. Change direct fire to a flatter arc that maintains full velocity, indirect fire to it's high-arc as now, but with lower velocity.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 04 June 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

so your saying MWO should never change because people will complain?
im ganna say no, it doesnt matter how many complain or how loud they complain,
i feel this change will help the system, and that this needs to happen to more forward,

look how many people complained about the Skill tree,
and we still got it, and you know what, many of the complains were unfounded or exaggerated,
Change has to happen, and people need to know nothing that stays the same forever lives forever,

You mean like this?

https://mwomercs.com...o-shc-h-change/

Remember why you started that thread in the first place? Because our Clan Heroes were announced and they started out as okay in general (I was thinking of buying a couple of them). But after a bunch of babies started crying in this forum about them being OP, three of them were nerfed just days later (definitely not buying any now and do not know anybody that is). PGI givith and PGI takith away, and all because a bunch of people cried about them. So do not tell me that PGI stands firm in the face of people crying to them because they cannot take what they do not like. I saw it happen. I remember.

No, it does not need to happen. That is simply an opinion, nothing more.

Yes, we still got the skill tree despite the countless number of people declaring that they are leaving the game (mainly long-time players that did not want to spend hours upon hours remastering hundreds of mechs with a skill spiderweb that is not user friendly since we have to select each node one-by-one and cannot create any templates to copy and paste onto their other mechs to make it so much easier) because of it. That is why PGI is still frantically doing damage control. The fact that PGI announced the next mech pack (with some pretty good mechs) only two weeks after the last one was announced (just a few days after the new skill spiderweb dropped, coincidentally) along with a mech sale at the same time (also coincidentally) and now we have a month-long series of packed events the likes of which I have never seen the entire time I have been on the game, it speaks volumes. So that was not exactly a good example for you to cite, especially with words like "unfounded" and "exaggerated". That was sure not how all those players that have been with you for many years and spent many hundreds of dollars felt.

How exactly does the old "change is inevitable" argument support your opinion here? Also, LRM's already got nerfed twice in as many months and since you like change so much, how about if you guys change the target for your nerf bat already?

Conclusion: Leave LRM's alone. They are unique as is thanks to their ability to indirect-fire (and we all know how much you want them to be unique) and soon we will be getting ATM's which are like LRM's except that they cannot be fired indirectly. So we will have ATM's for our LOS long-range missiles and LRM's as our long-range LOS optional missiles (even though they are not as good without LOS). Hmm... You know what would make them more unique? If instead of LRM's being worse without LOS (as they are now) they were just as good if not better than when they do have LOS. Now that would really make them unique like you wanted.

P.S. More and more, I wonder if this interview is actually genuine. It certainly seems to be accurate in regards to PGI's behavior.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 07 June 2017 - 07:51 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Jep Jorgensson
true true, though i feel this would be a net Gain for MWO,
i can acknowledge the need for a rework of the Targeting system and how Targeting in MWO works,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 08 June 2017 - 05:26 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 08 June 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

@Jep Jorgensson
true true, though i feel this would be a nex Gain for MWO,
i can acknowledge the need for a rework of the Targeting system and how Targeting in MWO works,

Not everyone agrees with your assessment (obviously). So I suggest focusing your efforts elsewhere.