422 replies to this topic

[Relishcakes]

Vellron2005, on 01 June 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

Hello all.

This is an open request to PGI, to give us some statistical data about "weapon effectiveness" and overall performance of various weapons.

It is aimed at getting some actual proof of the effectiveness or lack thereof of LRMs.

This love/hate LRMs has gotten to the point of racism, and it's making the community extremely salty, divided, bitter and unhealthy.

I would really like to see PGI intervene and step in, because we LRM users are seriously starting to feel bullied, both in-game and on the forums.

I don't know about you, but I'm kinda tired of all the LRM threads, and the bile being spat there, and also seeing this in-game.

The name calling and insults directed at LRM users are getting to the point of harassment, and despite numerous reporting for harassment and non-constructive behavior during matches, it's only getting worse.

I've seen friendships end and units broken over the LRM issue, and neither side can ever get any ground in the never-ending argument.

So please PGI, I emplore you, give us some statistical data about the usage of LRMs compared to other weapons:

1) Like how many kills do LRMs get compared to gauss, PPC, ERLL, Mediums lasers and such..

2) How much damage dealt compared to other weapon systems?

3) How many top-damage dealers are LRM users compared to non-lrm users?

4) How does all of this relate to PSR Tiers?

5) What does PGI think about LRM boats, and LRMs in general?

6) Average LRM ammo spent vs damage dealt?

7) Average damage done / 5 LRM tubes?

8) Most frequent LRM launcher used?

9) Most frequent mechs with LRM's installed for Clans and for IS?

10) Average number of LRM missiles downed by AMS?

Let's settle this stupid argument with some ACTUAL DATA once and for all!

P.S.

Please, people, don't spam this thread with more love/hate LRMs bile.. plenty of threads already available for that. Voice your opinion of LRMs in one of those..

Here, only statistics and comments of statistics!

PGI please, give us the facts!

I've seen like 3 threads with people shouting BOO LRMS. With ALL of the replies being "lrms arent that bad, git gud." I really wish i could say i saw what you're saying as far as the hate with LRMS. but i dont.

[Baron Zen]

I started to use lrm because instead to blame lrm mad dog spammers in FW I wanted to revenge and out lrm them, btw I don't play with general chat open so I never got insulted for lrm and if I was well, this is the game and I wasn't the first to start the lrm spam, also I giggle when ppl want to brawl in open field maps (even from my side), I think ppl should adapt the strategy and tactic to the map not the map to adapt to ppl strategy and tactic, there are maps for brawl, maps for lrm, maps for flamers, maps for snipe, maps for laser boats, etc, I have a deck for every situation (also for hot or cold maps). I also laugh to foolish ppl which want to do duels in scout mode, seriously this happened, wrong side of the force jedi!!

Edited by Baron Zen, 08 June 2017 - 06:22 AM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Roughneck45, on 08 June 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

Nope.

LRMs are just inferior, by design. Their trade off is the ability to lock on and fire indirectly, which is inferior to the strengths of direct fire weapons if you can aim and position well. You know as well as I do that Lurmageddon wasn't a "meta", it was PGI breaking their game.

You can do fine in most scenarios with LRMs, but the smarter your opponent gets the more dead weight you'll become. So from a pure numbers min/max perspective, LRMs are inferior.

Still trying to figure out what the munchkins are exploiting, considering nearly all the other weapons are "viable" right now. Convergence isn't an exploit.

MWO=/= tabletop

Its okay to admit LRMs are worse, you can still hate the comp scene and understand and admit that fact. I wish LRMs were designed differently, I wish this game had more lore and BT feel to it as well. In my ideal world we would have had better uses for our LRMs, MGs, and flamers, like killing infantry and base defenses.

Nope!!!!! LRMs using spread to replicate Missile Groupings are actually working AS DESIGNED!!! The x2 cGauss/cERPPC poptart that is firing 3 or 4 weapons while jumping... BROKEN!!!!! Pixel perfect convergence is the biggest factor that defines the Meta, if PGI made LRMs all hit CT/HD again from a high arc then they would be the most "meta" thing around. Why? Cause then it would be an usable exploit caused by PGI failure. So it has very little to do with what a weapon system is supposed to do but merely on how terribly PGI has translanted it. These "comp" players running around like they are Kai Allard-Liao... but then they kinda are, over-hyped as fμck!!!

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 08 June 2017 - 06:39 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Why'd I even respond lol. You do you man. I hope they make the MW game you are talking about someday.

Edited by Roughneck45, 08 June 2017 - 06:37 AM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Roughneck45, on 08 June 2017 - 06:35 AM, said:

Why'd I even respond lol. You do you man. I hope they make the MW game you are talking about someday.

Just be correct when you respond is all

[Roughneck45]

I am correct. Your arguments are bad. I examine the game for what it is. You observe it for what you want it to be.

Reminds me of our current political climate. How can you have a rational discussion when you can't agree on the reality and facts in front of you?

Edited by Roughneck45, 08 June 2017 - 06:48 AM.

[VanillaG]

Roughneck45, on 08 June 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

Nope.

LRMs are just inferior, by design. Their trade off is the ability to lock on and fire indirectly, which is inferior to the strengths of direct fire weapons if you can aim and position well. You know as well as I do that Lurmageddon wasn't a "meta", it was PGI breaking their game.

You can do fine in most scenarios with LRMs, but the smarter your opponent gets the more dead weight you'll become. So from a pure numbers min/max perspective, LRMs are inferior.

Still trying to figure out what the munchkins are exploiting, considering nearly all the other weapons are "viable" right now. Convergence isn't an exploit.

MWO=/= tabletop

Its okay to admit LRMs are worse, you can still hate the comp scene and understand and admit that fact. I wish LRMs were designed differently, I wish this game had more lore and BT feel to it as well. In my ideal world we would have had better uses for our LRMs, MGs, and flamers, like killing infantry and base defenses.

I would be fine with pinpoint convergence if you had to have a target lock to get it, but being able to poke out of cover and blast an alpha with pinpoint accuracy has nothing to do with skill. Almost every FPS has three different types of weapons spreads; running is largest, walking is in the middle, and zoomed in/sighted is the smallest. All MWO has is free zoomed in pinpoint aiming while running which is somewhat broken. You should have to work/build to get that pinpoint convergence, not just assume that get it for free.

If I was king for a day, I would only allow pinpoint convergence with a target lock, low heat, and lower speed. Without those three things you would still hit a mech but your damage could be spread to different components or even miss. You could use the following modify the convergence so you are not subjecting yourself RNGesus:

• Heat - anything above 70% heat decreases convergence
  
• Speed - anything above 66% max speed decreases convergence
  
• Targeting Computers - increase convergence and decrease lock time
  
• Target Info Gathering/BAP/cAP/Command Console - decrease lock time

Basically you require ALL weapons to have a lock to get max performance. You can snap shoot without a lock but you will be spreading your damage and potentially missing, similar to the dancing reticle when you jump . LRMs will still have indirect fire but they still spread their damage so they are not super overpowered. This would push MWO back towards more of a simulator, which I am not sure PGI wants to do.

[Roughneck45]

VanillaG, on 08 June 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

I would be fine with pinpoint convergence if you had to have a target lock to get it, but being able to poke out of cover and blast an alpha with pinpoint accuracy has nothing to do with skill. Almost every FPS has three different types of weapons spreads; running is largest, walking is in the middle, and zoomed in/sighted is the smallest. All MWO has is free zoomed in pinpoint aiming while running which is somewhat broken. You should have to work/build to get that pinpoint convergence, not just assume that get it for free.

If I was king for a day, I would only allow pinpoint convergence with a target lock, low heat, and lower speed. Without those three things you would still hit a mech but your damage could be spread to different components or even miss. You could use the following modify the convergence so you are not subjecting yourself RNGesus:

• Heat - anything above 70% heat decreases convergence
  
• Speed - anything above 66% max speed decreases convergence
  
• Targeting Computers - increase convergence and decrease lock time
  
• Target Info Gathering/BAP/cAP/Command Console - decrease lock time

Basically you require ALL weapons to have a lock to get max performance. You can snap shoot without a lock but you will be spreading your damage and potentially missing, similar to the dancing reticle when you jump . LRMs will still have indirect fire but they still spread their damage so they are not super overpowered. This would push MWO back towards more of a simulator, which I am not sure PGI wants to do.

Thats all well and good, and if you want to discuss how the game should be designed, like ZUUL is, we should start another thread.

What I've been saying, is that in the current iteration of the game, LRMs are inferior to direct fire weapons.

Edited by Roughneck45, 08 June 2017 - 07:22 AM.

[Luminis]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

My point is that the "metas" are always a DIRECT result of a Rule not being followed.

Do you really think there would not be a dominant strategy at all if Gauss Rifles / PPCs / Lasers just hit random locations on the enemy 'Mech?

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

So MWO is in the worst state that BT was ever in

MWO isn't BattleTech. Neither in name nor in design. And that's true for the preceding MechWarrior games as well. MechWarrior games are set in the universe of BattleTech, but since they're not turn-based strategy games with a considerable influx of RNG, they're not BattleTech. Heck, I'll go out on a limp and argue that that's why they're called MechWarrior in the first place.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

So when "comp" players call something Trash what they really mean is that it is not an exploit they can abuse to their munchkin hearts desire.

What they mean is "it's not the best way to win" and that's it. The meta being an exploit is your train of thought.

And long story short, it seems like I was right: By your account, it's an exploit / broken / bad GM / weak GM if it's unlike the TT.

Mystere, on 08 June 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

It can be done. But the first step is to remove the automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence system.

Sure, that shifts power away from the PPFLD. Does that mean lore friendly, bracket-firing 'Mechs with loads of redundant weapon systems become the norm among comp players? I highly doubt that.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

These "comp" players running around like they are Kai Allard-Liao... but then they kinda are, over-hyped as fμck!!!

Yowza. Your hatred for comp players is real, eh?

[Tesunie]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

It is their failure point, they had a responsibility & did not do it.

As stated before, TT=/= First Person Shooter.

This game still takes an amazing amount of it's rulesets from TT and is heavily influenced by it as well. But at the same time, TT is a turn based dice strategy game. There, dice determine if you hit or miss. MW:O is not that, and skill is suppose to determine where you hit, but some random number generator (dice).

I also would like to mention that no MW game created to my knowledge has ever followed the TT source rules 100%. They never can. The game styles are just too different.

Now, this doesn't mean we can't discuss how we would like things to be altered and adjusted, but at the same time there is a thing called "unreasonable expectations". To demand that MW:O should follow every TT rule possible is one such "unreasonable expectation". It can't. No MW I can ever recall ever did, and none of them ever will. The game formats are just too vastly different.

So, don't blame PGI for where they went different from TT. That's unreasonable and will always end in failure. I'm not going to say PGI is perfect (far from it), but at the same time they have done well with this game (my opinion). Since they booted IGP from the scene, the game has vastly improved by leaps and bounds.

If anything, the new defunct IGP should get your ire, not so much PGI. I believe that IGP was the one who bought the game engine and told PGI to use it (it only makes sense when you think about it, as Cryengine really isn't a good platform for this style of game and PGI has had to write up a lot of coding to make it work). Maybe... There is a reason MW5 is being released in a different engine altogether?


If you are looking for a live action TT game, don't look here. You probably will be more interesting in the game Hair Brained Schemes is creating instead, which is in closed beta/alpha. It's suppose to be an almost direct TT placed into game format (similar to the MechCommander series). On that note, PGI actually gave their mech designs and renderings to them to use, which I think should be considered when you talk about PGI, as I get the sense that PGI really does love BT. Otherwise, they could have withheld those resources, but they didn't.

[Mystere]

Luminis, on 08 June 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

MWO isn't BattleTech. Neither in name nor in design. And that's true for the preceding MechWarrior games as well. MechWarrior games are set in the universe of BattleTech, but since they're not turn-based strategy games with a considerable influx of RNG, they're not BattleTech. Heck, I'll go out on a limp and argue that that's why they're called MechWarrior in the first place.

And this is where I knock into people's cranium that BattleTech is more than just the TT game.

[Mystere]

Tesunie, on 08 June 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

As stated before, TT=/= First Person Shooter.

This game still takes an amazing amount of it's rulesets from TT and is heavily influenced by it as well. But at the same time, TT is a turn based dice strategy game. There, dice determine if you hit or miss. MW:O is not that, and skill is suppose to determine where you hit, but some random number generator (dice).

It can be reasonably argued that those dice rolls are mere abstractions to simplify a game suitable for play on a table top. As such, when converting a TT game into an FPS, it is important to identify the original principles being abstracted.

A literal translation, on the other hand, is one of the most moronic -- or the laziest, or even both -- thing that can be done by any developer.

[Mystere]

Luminis, on 08 June 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

Sure, that shifts power away from the PPFLD. Does that mean lore friendly, bracket-firing 'Mechs with loads of redundant weapon systems become the norm among comp players? I highly doubt that.

Well, that all depends on whether we get [1] an X vs. X arena shooter or [2] something more substantive that contains battle scenarios as game modes and fought using lore-based formations, coupled with the maps fought on.

[Luminis]

Mystere, on 08 June 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Well, that all depends on whether we get [1] an X vs. X arena shooter or [2] something more substantive that contains battle scenarios as game modes and fought using lore-based formations, coupled with the maps fought on.

Well, MWO clearly is [1] and it's not going to change any time soon I don't think [2] makes for a very good first person shooter with any semblance of competitive play.

[Mystere]

Luminis, on 08 June 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Well, MWO clearly is [1] and it's not going to change any time soon I don't think [2] makes for a very good first person shooter with any semblance of competitive play.

And that's where I think we differ. You seem to associate "competitive" with eSports. I don't. I see it at the "meta" level.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Mystere, on 08 June 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Well, that all depends on whether we get [1] an X vs. X arena shooter or [2] something more substantive that contains battle scenarios as game modes and fought using lore-based formations, coupled with the maps fought on.

Living the Dream!!!!!!!

Tesunie, on 08 June 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

As stated before, TT=/= First Person Shooter.

Go play an actual FPS like BF4 or CoD then play MWO, you will realize what an asinine statement that is. Next go play a Tactical Shooter like CS:GO then play MWO, you will realize that you are getting closer but MWO fails to even truly be a Tactical Shooter because the TTK is way too high. "Comp" players in a broken exploited system get it a lot closer to being just a Tactical Shooter but my whole point is there are way better Tactical Shooter games to choose from which use superior game mechanic design not broken game mechanics being exploited by munchkins until the game holds very little to do with the game it is designed to be. This is supposed to be a Simulator with the fun part of a Tactical Shooter added in, that is what an accurate translation of the game mechanics would create.

But seriously... all I am saying is that PGI has failed at a fundamental level of game design to just COPY the existing game design. Which is what makes the "comp" players munchkins exploited a broken game system... you can try to argue around that all you want but when an overall ruleset that has been around for decades going through multiple itertations while finally being condensed into one streamlined system, is being ignored then the "comp" scene is the result. They are playing an entirely different game than the other 95% of the player base because of their dedication to being the biggest munchkins they possibly be & PGI is a horrifically terrible GM who can not enforce the game mechanics properly.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Gross Caricature of the game it is supposed to be

You're T1 and probably have been playing for ages. This, right down to it's beta-era core would never be like Battletech. The ownership really isn't even capable of designing something in the spirit of it, because MWO code is lostech. You should know this. It will never be. The designer in charge isn't up for even tweaking what we have in remotely that direction, but you can always buy another Mechpack and hope.

Harebrained's game is as close to Battletech as anything modern will get.

[Mystere]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

Living the Dream!!!!!!!

I am no Don Quixote de La Mancha!

[Luminis]

Mystere, on 08 June 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

You seem to associate "competitive" with eSports.

Not quite. Competitive as in "human players competing for the win". Which is the nature of pretty much any player vs. player game or game mode, really. I mean, what do you want to do? Ban them from playing what's best so things stay lore friendly?

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Brain Cancer, on 08 June 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

You're T1 and probably have been playing for ages. This, right down to it's beta-era core would never be like Battletech. The ownership really isn't even capable of designing something in the spirit of it, because MWO code is lostech. You should know this. It will never be. The designer in charge isn't up for even tweaking what we have in remotely that direction, but you can always buy another Mechpack and hope.

Harebrained's game is as close to Battletech as anything modern will get.

They could at least fix the more serious of the Rule violations... I want my JumpJets to be actual maneuvering devices not poptart crap that only the newer Clan mechs can even use to do that much cause they are the ones with the initial acceleration "bug"!!!