422 replies to this topic

[Dago Red]

Tesunie, on 09 June 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

You talking about NWN:Online, or NWN 1 and 2? Because NWN 1 was produced before 4th edition came out and was based on 3.5 rule sets. At least as far as I know. NWN:O may be different. Only played that for a short period of time.

http://www.arcgames....mes/neverwinter

This one It was pretty meh.

Loved Neverwinter Nights 2 while the first was just ok.

[Tesunie]

Dago Red, on 09 June 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

http://www.arcgames....mes/neverwinter

This one It was pretty meh.

Loved Neverwinter Nights 2 while the first was just ok.

NWN2 kept bugging out on the first quest... until you updated and patched it. Or so it seemed to me at least. Was kinda a let down and really hampered my ability to play it. So I own NWN2, but I can't exactly say I've been able to "play" it... I should correct that. Too many good games, not enough time to play them all.

[Vellron2005]

Honestly, I don't know how much you guys actually play TT D&D, but if you think that NWN, DDO or any other videogame ever perfectly translated the TT experience into a videogame, you obviously don't play TT much..

There is SO MUCH missing that a videogame can never have, simply cose' its a videogame.. My point is that concessions have to be made in order to make it work, and you can't expect TT rules in a real-time videogame..

Those were all good,or even great games for many, but ask anyone who ever played both the games and TT, which was the better experience, what was more tactical, gave better sense of the freedom, the setting and generally what you could do, and I bet you everyone except the most antisocial munchkin powergamer would say that TT is king.

That is why I don't expect for things to work in MWO as they originally worked in BT TT, nor should they.. God knows most BT tabletop rules and a large part of Battletech as a setting is simply obsolete now.. (tech wise)

[ice trey]

People are mostly grumpy because LRM users often hide in the back at maximum range and don't share armor, expecting the rest of the team to take the damage while they rake in kills and c-bills. When the rest of the team dies early because they sponged up 12 mechs worth of damage into 10 mechs, the LRM'ers get chewed up. Either as the last ones on the field when the rest of the team is dead, or as one of the first because they were lagging too far behind and got flanked with no secondary weapons.

Half of the problem is that PGI made LRMs into a weapons system that is really only effective when used in the way expressed above, which only propagates the problem.

The other half is that PGI set the game up so that there's a huge emphasis on personal achievements rather than team achievements. This games definition of "Teamwork" isn't so much "Work as a team" but "Each player needs to carry harder". Why would anyone press 'r' to hold a lock when not getting the "Kill" means that you have lower KD ratios that can't be bragged about?

Should LRMs be revised to be more effective as direct LOS weapons than they are as IDF weapons, the attached stigma would likely dissipate. The tiny accuracy bonus from having direct LOS to a target pales compared to not taking any damage.

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 13 June 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

Honestly, I don't know how much you guys actually play TT D&D, but if you think that NWN, DDO or any other videogame ever perfectly translated the TT experience into a videogame, you obviously don't play TT much..

I don't think they were talking about the "experience", but far more of the game systems themselves. They were just commenting that D&D had some games that litterally took the rules, and then made a non-turn based game out of it that "worked well".

But yes, I agree with you. Even if the systems were the same, the experience between them were very different. As it is for D&D and NWNs, so it is for MW:O and TT. Not all the rules for TT transferred over well for any of the MW games. As far as I know though, MW2 had the closest actual translation between the rules. Good game for it's time...

[PhoenixFire55]

Vellron2005, on 13 June 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

Honestly, I don't know how much you guys actually play TT D&D, but if you think that NWN, DDO or any other videogame ever perfectly translated the TT experience into a videogame, you obviously don't play TT much..

Nobody is talking about translating playing experience. It was clearly said twice by me alone that I was talking about perfectly translating game rules, nothing more.

[Tesunie]

ice trey, on 13 June 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

People are mostly grumpy because LRM users often hide in the back at maximum range and don't share armor, expecting the rest of the team to take the damage while they rake in kills and c-bills. When the rest of the team dies early because they sponged up 12 mechs worth of damage into 10 mechs, the LRM'ers get chewed up. Either as the last ones on the field when the rest of the team is dead, or as one of the first because they were lagging too far behind and got flanked with no secondary weapons.

Half of the problem is that PGI made LRMs into a weapons system that is really only effective when used in the way expressed above, which only propagates the problem.

You just described the most common mistake I see LRM users do.

Unlike most weapons, which enhance in their designated strengths the more that are piled on, LRMs seem to hit a critical mass on a given mech design before they start to lose performance. Instead of some features (besides indirect) becoming more enhanced, most of the time it just starts to become a larger weakness.

My example is spread. It can work well to counter side shielding and open up holes in the opening volleys or later on to destroy heavily damaged components your opponent is trying to protect (such as an example of a side torso). If a given mech (thinking more or less as a solo design) has too many LRMs and not enough to no direct fire weapons, they can never actually utilize those openings or create them. Thus, they count more and more upon high amounts of DPS to overcome this weakness. (Which is why I'm against boating LRMs so much.)

Combine your LRMs with lasers or other direct fire weapons, and now you maintain flexibility of approach from the LRMs, while retaining at least a (hopefully) reasonable direct fire pin point punch. This leads to more tactical flexibility over a pure build of one or the other. Out of position? Shoot indirectly till you can get in there. LRM sheltered map location (tunnels)? You can still at least go in there and kick some tail without too much difficulty. Near death yourself and already done sharing your armor? Fade back into the team and start relying on indirect fire to at least still contribute more to the match, rather than poke and die for that next alpha of direct fire weapons...


I've had a lot of success with my LRM based builds. I maintain a reasonable W/L with them, and I (thankfully) never cared about my K/D. I actually continue to maintain, as an average, a higher W/L with my LRM based designs than I do with my direct fire builds (currently). I find that they match my desire for more flexibility within a match, as well as my jack-of-all-trades skill sets.

PhoenixFire55, on 13 June 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

Nobody is talking about translating playing experience. It was clearly said twice by me alone that I was talking about perfectly translating game rules, nothing more.

I think he was just addressing all the points, because he addressed player experience as well as rules not always translating properly, such as the case for MW (nearly any) and it's TT counterpart.

[H Seldon]

Tesunie, on 13 June 2017 - 08:03 AM, said:

Combine your LRMs with lasers or other direct fire weapons, and now you maintain flexibility of approach from the LRMs, while retaining at least a (hopefully) reasonable direct fire pin point punch. This leads to more tactical flexibility over a pure build of one or the other. Out of position? Shoot indirectly till you can get in there. LRM sheltered map location (tunnels)? You can still at least go in there and kick some tail without too much difficulty. Near death yourself and already done sharing your armor? Fade back into the team and start relying on indirect fire to at least still contribute more to the match, rather than poke and die for that next alpha of direct fire weapons...

This is exactly how I play my LRM builds as well. I also find that those builds have better WL and KD than my brawler builds. They also tend to be more fun to play.

[Acehilator]

When I use LRMs, I only use Assaults as boats with ARLM60-80. They are my best performing mechs, both regarding W/L and K/D. I cannot make Medium/Heavy boats with less tubes, or Assaults with less tubes and more direct fire weapons work... at all. Pretty ridiculous

[Baba Yogi]

Lrms by its own mechanic will either be underpowered or overpowered. It is the only weapon in the game which can fire indirectly, in some maps there are absolutely no cover whatsoever, so if you are narc'ed in those maps, literally you are ****** due to no mistake of your own. A simple ecm raven will narc your *** from long range and you will be the focus target of entire enemy team unless u go to second line. On the other hand, without support and plenty cover, its effectiveness dwindles into nothing. In either case neither the lrm's reciever nor the lrm carrier has any fault. Weapons effectiveness has been determined solely by factors neither can control

1. Teammates pressing R,
2. Narc/Tag carriers
3. Spotter Lights
4. Maps that give no cover or lots of cover.

So long success of the weapon system lies outside the skill of the pilot, it will never be balanced.

Edited by Lordhammer, 13 June 2017 - 10:51 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Lordhammer, on 13 June 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

Lrms by its own mechanic will either be underpowered or overpowered. It is the only weapon in the game which can fire indirectly, in some maps there are absolutely no cover whatsoever, so if you are narc'ed in those maps, literally you are ****** due to no mistake of your own. A simple ecm raven will narc your *** from long range and you will be the focus target of entire enemy team unless u go to second line. On the other hand, without support and plenty cover, its effectiveness dwindles into nothing. In either case neither the lrm's reciever nor the lrm carrier has any fault. Weapons effectiveness has been determined solely by factors neither can control

1. Teammates pressing R,
2. Narc/Tag carriers
3. Spotter Lights
4. Maps that give no cover or lots of cover.

So long success of the weapon system lies outside the skill of the pilot, it will never be balanced.

1) Get your own locks by being 400-600 meters from the enemy on most maps.

2) I use other's Narcs and tags, but never carry my own. I don't actually need any.. (not trying to sound cocky, but I really don't)

3) If there's no locks, just wait until the brawl starts, you'll get plenty of locks.. The locks provided by early-warning scout lights are not very useful anyway, since they are often out of range of LRMs, and are "unstable", plinking inconsistently, and are easily lost.

4) Maps with little cover are LRM heaven, true, but even Polar has it's cover. You gotta use it though.. Maps with lots of cover make it difficult for LRMs, but even on HPG, if a target is not in the basement, you can LRM it.. Again.. skill and knowledge of the map in question is key..

Edited by Vellron2005, 14 June 2017 - 03:15 AM.

[Medicine Man]

I get most of my kills in my LRM mechs. But only if I work for them. I have to actively move to counter the enemy's cover. I have to do a lot of my own spotting. Most of my LRM builds have their own bap, tag and narc. I would much rather have a scout wingman targetting for me though. Much more efficient especially if they are running a counter ecm.

I drive other types of mechs too. I'm good with everything but sniping as I don't have the patience for it. Also the lack of arm weapon convergence for long range ballistic sniping really pisses me off. But I digress.

Basically if you are a lazy LRM driver you won't get much of an advantage from using LRMS against people who know what they are doing. But if you move and actively play your LRM boat you will really hurt people.

As for people who complain that LRM drivers are freeloading that is nonsense. The LRM driver is doing damage which splashes all over the target weakening him for others to destroy or cripple. Not only that but LRM's force people into cover which allows brawlers mechs to get into position to pummel enemies at close range when used properly.

At the last for those who still whine about the lack of armor sharing and the supposed safety of being an LRM boat play it sometime. Have fun being to far from your group nice and safe when the light mechs come and visit the very obvious position where all those LRMS are coming from.

Edited by Medicine Man, 14 June 2017 - 07:15 AM.

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 14 June 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

4) Maps with little cover are LRM heaven, true, but even Polar has it's cover. You gotta use it though.. Maps with lots of cover make it difficult for LRMs, but even on HPG, if a target is not in the basement, you can LRM it.. Again.. skill and knowledge of the map in question is key..

Actually, you can LRM even in the basement as well as under the docks in Crimson. Just have to really press that minimum range a lot closer. 200-180m will still get the job done. But in those situations, I'm certainly happy to have my significant direct fire payload (for an LRM mech).

[Baba Yogi]

Vellron2005, on 14 June 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

1) Get your own locks by being 400-600 meters from the enemy on most maps.

2) I use other's Narcs and tags, but never carry my own. I don't actually need any.. (not trying to sound cocky, but I really don't)

3) If there's no locks, just wait until the brawl starts, you'll get plenty of locks.. The locks provided by early-warning scout lights are not very useful anyway, since they are often out of range of LRMs, and are "unstable", plinking inconsistently, and are easily lost.

4) Maps with little cover are LRM heaven, true, but even Polar has it's cover. You gotta use it though.. Maps with lots of cover make it difficult for LRMs, but even on HPG, if a target is not in the basement, you can LRM it.. Again.. skill and knowledge of the map in question is key..

1- That is not the unbalanced part, you show a part of yourself thus opening yourself to counter-fire like everyone else to deal damage. This is balanced. I argued about the unbalanced part of the weapon system which is the sore thumb. Ability to fire without exposing yourself.

2 - Narc carriers are not meant to be lrm carriers tbh. You need a fast mech with ecm or very low profile thus a light mech, to effectively use narc which contrasts with attributes lrm carriers prefer. But when you are narc'ed it is big glowing sign that says shoot me. You cannot always stand around buildings that cover from every angle. Matches dont work that way. Basically its too easy to use for completely shutting down any enemy that is hit by it. He has to play around that big disadvantage for idk 30-40 seconds. Narc's strength is enabling an OP mechanic of the LRMs without any drawback. Atm it is too much.

3 - When both teams form frontlines, thats when the spotter is most useful. Although almost noone in the game plays this role well so its rather a rare occurance, but it is essentially same as having a narc. All you need is an ecm light with decent camo flanking enemy line.

4 - Dude there is no cover in PH, noone ever fights near buildings, and trenches dont provide any cover against lrm's projectile vector. You should pray that your team has 1 ecm mech, otherwise you are dead with no fault of your own. Against maps with a ton of cover however carrying lrms is detrimental, any other weapon would do more in direct contact. Dakka is much better at suppressing, and lasers deal far more focused fire.

As i said earlier and proved atm. It has an unbalanced mechanic, it is either too good or too bad. And fault relies solely on its indirect fire mode.

[Mystere]

Vellron2005, on 14 June 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

2) I use other's Narcs and tags, but never carry my own. I don't actually need any.. (not trying to sound cocky, but I really don't)

Well, you should. It's the most effective way of telling your team whom to shoot!

Medicine Man, on 14 June 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

As for people who complain that LRM drivers are freeloading that is nonsense.

That's always been just an excuse used by folks covering up their own deficiencies.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

LRM users often hide in the back at maximum range and don't share armor, expecting the rest of the team to take the damage while they rake in kills and c-bills. When the rest of the team dies early because they sponged up 12 mechs worth of damage into 10 mechs, the LRM'ers get chewed up. Either as the last ones on the field when the rest of the team is dead, or as one of the first because they were lagging too far behind and got flanked with no secondary weapons.

Half of the problem is that PGI made LRMs into a weapons system that is really only effective when used in the way expressed above, which only propagates the problem.

This is, in fact, the least effective way to use LRMs. Firing at long range is terribly inaccurate, relying on parasitic locks only makes this worse, and the combination minimizes your chances of getting kills or even much damage.

That you see it a lot points only to the fact that there are so many terrible missile boaters, not that this is anywhere near the optimum use of same.

[Dago Red]

Brain Cancer, on 14 June 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

This is, in fact, the least effective way to use LRMs. Firing at long range is terribly inaccurate, relying on parasitic locks only makes this worse, and the combination minimizes your chances of getting kills or even much damage.

That you see it a lot points only to the fact that there are so many terrible missile boaters, not that this is anywhere near the optimum use of same.

I'm kind of on the LRM's are pretty much the worst overall weapon system to put on a mech train but I have two mechs than run them for you know when the mood strikes.

And both of those pack enough backup lasers that usually half my total damage is from direct fire and I stick close enough that the missiles rarely have to go more than 400 meters.

Terrible boaters shame us all.

Plus it's hilarious to watch lights try and play the corner the LRM boat game and then bail when they realize that I'm packing 5+ medium pulses and a decent torso speed.

Edited by Dago Red, 14 June 2017 - 01:28 PM.

[LowSubmarino]

Good luck trying to kill a cheetah with full survival tree that is no potatoe with your 5 impressive medium pulses hehe. Good luck. Before the skill tree....maybe. If the player is abysmal. Tier 10. or 15.

Now??

Haha.

Not so much.

[Dago Red]

oneda, on 14 June 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

Good luck trying to kill a cheetah with full survival tree that is no potatoe with your 5 impressive medium pulses hehe. Good luck. Before the skill tree....maybe. If the player is abysmal. Tier 10. or 15.

Now??

Haha.

Not so much.

A: Not actually that impressed with Cheetah's all around.

B: Never claimed I pack for a proper brawl just that it's better than sneezing at them which seem to be the standard potato solution to getting light hunted.

Plus you know once people are opened up by the LRM's the pulses do a nice job of scalping off the weakened and open components.

C: A shocking number of LRM boat hunting vultures seem to bail when they realize they are at ANY risk rather than just getting the free kill they were wetting themselves with excitement for.

D: Being within 400 meters of the front line means not usually being outside of allied support range. Funny that.

E: I started by saying it's a weak weapons system but variety is the spice of life and one can make the most of them.

[MischiefSC]

5 MPLs will pull both arms off a cheetah very effectively - at which point its just 2 SPLs and 28 tons of frustrated impotence.

The bigger question is why bring the LRMs at all.

Then again I've got a lurm C4, EBJ and Highlander I take out for giggles and to reap the tears of bads sometimes.