216 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

How would you expect a team of pokers to sychronize their poking? you can't even get them to leave the deployment zone at the same time.

My point was that "passive armor sharing" is not entirely dependent on an opfor to not be organized.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2017 - 02:51 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

MischiefSC, on 11 October 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

I'm always happy to see LRMs on the other team because I know if I ignore him for last he will hide and spew mostly worthless damage and end the match thinking he did well when in fact he dies last because he's the least threat and in so doing contributes to his teams loss.

ATMs? I kill those fast. A good ATM loadout will rip you in half with one volley in the sweet spot for range. They have the potential to be seriously dangerous, LRMs really don't.

That moment when you realise you are trying to chase an ATM mech who is leading and ranging you perfectly. Yeah, I think a lot of us have had that moment occur and re-evaluate ATMs, and the value of AMS with some overload

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

These go hand-in-hand.........

Not necessarily.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

This makes no sense. The reason it isn't as useful is because for scouting purposes it doesn't give you context of force size because unless you spam R your friendlies don't get a good idea of what they are looking at. Now, if lights could press R and lock up ALL enemies in LoS then that would actually help because it cuts down on VOIP noise. Surplus isn't the problem, it is misunderstanding what is actually useful for scouting information (force size and locations).

But the thing is that you can spam R, and get an idea of how many people they are looking at, not all at once but nonetheless they have an idea. Not to mention that it also provide exact location at the battlegrid, general idea of the direction and elevation at your field of view, and target info where it shows holes in the armor, or available weapons -- sure as hell we shouldn't shoot stick people when not necessary.

And it does make sense, people can just jump into the action with only select information, as others are not needed.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

You mean like how other weapons are nerfed because they are too strong in certain cases, or mechs? "Ruining" a weapon for people who can "use" them well is irrelevant.

As if PGI didn't ever nerfed something that didn't deserved it, as if it doesn't happen.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Speaking of which, how are you determining using them well? I'm pretty sure you cannot say Jman5 doesn't use them well and his HBK-4J of olde definitely didn't rely on indirect fire often as he was often leading the pack, especially in PUGs.

Usually with great positioning, or good result, or great damage, or great map control. It's something i usually only see while spectating. PUGs is not exactly necessary such as the video I've shown you.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Where did I say all indirect fire is bad for the game? Where you did you make this leap? The only problem with the CURRENT indirect fire is because shared locks are too easy of a requirement in lower levels of play for a guided indirect fire weapon.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 October 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

Whether you "enjoy" that play style or not is irrelevant if it is bad for the game.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

What are you even talking about? If we wanted new players to improve we should just let them face comp teams all the time right guys!!! No, that's not how it works. Getting gibbed like that isn't something that gets them to learn and instead can turn away players.

How did you think i got up the tier? You want more players, you dumb down the game, you want players to improve is to give them a challenge that will get them to improve. But if they can't even fix their positioning, and get beaten by the worst weapon in the game, how long do you think would these terribads last with people who actually know what they are doing?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

You argument would then be wrong because that assumes that players will get the same angles without LRMs and that they are good shots. You can say it is easy to just point-n-shoot but again, I've seen some terrible aim, I mean, how many still think lights are invincible?.

As opposed of assuming that the players get different angles that and they are bad shots, we don't really go anywhere with your logic. As if a situation can just only go one way. I also have seen good aim, and what about the other many people that doesn't believe that lights are invincible?

My argument is just that players can just get different angles, sure they don't have the luxury of LRM in demand anymore, but all the same the terribad would get creamed anyways.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

It's also a symbol of everything that is wrong with Siege mode "hey let's encourage people to camp and allow them to setup a meat grinder". It is more static than ERLL trading and even more passive of play, this is not really something that should be encouraged.

While you see lousiness, we see teamwork, enough to make the worse weapons actually have a great result.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

"Having each others backs" is not what you should care about, it should be "do whatever it takes to win".

And therein lies the problem, you think that it's only about how you play it. Never mind the part where there are actually people that enjoy and expect teamwork even from random strangers. That's what you do with comp, but MWO is not just comp.

I'm okay of having different set of stats for Comp and Non-Comp, but this greedy approach is isn't okay.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

If the lights don't feel threaten and the result is you still end up dead with no trade in kills then it was still a bad move.

Yeah, IF.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

The difference is how many have angles on him. Shared locks with indirect fire allows for more "angles" or avenues of fire to hit that target, it's that simple. Making direct fire the only way to hit that target automatically shrinks the angles you have to worry about.

The thing is that, even if the LRMs can no longer fire on demand, the terribad would still be in the open getting gibbed. People can still find different angles and we'll see the same thing happen.

If we also did the TAG/NARC only indirect fire, we'd still see the same thing happening only the LRMs are buffed.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

What if I told you, you are never going to get a game that does more than pose as Battletech so arguing about LRMs not being "LRMs" is asinine? Battletech is meant for a turn-based strategy game, things are GOING to have to change to work for a team-based FPS.'

I'd say I get that, but there are many ways other than removing indirect fire to achieve that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Thus you make a strawman to support your argument because never did I say it was going to fix terribads nor have I ever suggested making a leap to removing the homing component. You can think that is the next logical step all you want but it has no connection to what I want.

I did not say it was going to if fix, I said it was going to help. What i said is that the best way to help a terribad is to fix them from what they are. Not the same thing. If anything, you are the one strawmanning.

And i didn't say that you want to make a leap, however following the logical conclusion, that's needed to achieve the goal you wanted to do -- it's not what you want sure, but it's also absurd to do what you want when it doesn't even achieve the goal. It's a reductio ad absurdium, a non-fallacious slippery slope.

Hows about stopping with the philosophical terminology just to make yourself look credible? You sure as hell is incompetent with it. I mean who says? "This is a slippery slope sort of argument, it is fallacious because it doesn't understand the context of the problem with LRMs."

Slippery slope isn't even remotely close to your definition to have a "sort of", that would have been Contextual Error, but i actually got the context right.

You don't make a strawman to support your argument, you make a strawman to take down someone's "argument". You made a strawman yourself -- the irony, and you can't even recognize the argument of your opposition, or know that slippery slopes aren't necessarily fallacious. Do you know even what fallacy fallacy is? And if you don't know, google is your friend.

Argue like a normal person, I'd do the same.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2017 - 04:18 PM.

[PurpleNinja]

What about Streak LRM?
5 damage per missile, 2000 meters max range.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

But the thing is that you can spam R, and get an idea of how many people they are looking at

Only if you are spamming it one per person, otherwise you are giving misinformation through spamming R. Having all enemies accounted for is important and why spamming R isn't useful in comp (plus visuals go out further than sensors which also plays a larger role in scouting, just figured I'd give that tidbit).

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

How did you think i got up the tier? You want more players, you dumb down the game

Sorry this always will be straight up false. Simple =/= Shallow, people want games that are deep and that doesn't mean they have to be complex to be deep.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

As opposed of assuming that the players get different angles that and they are bad shots, we don't really go anywhere with your logic. As if a situation can just only go one way. I also have seen good aim, and what about the other many people that doesn't believe that lights are invincible?

What are you even talking about. This is specifically about lower tiers where shared locks and indirect fire cause a leap in the average level of focus fire a typical low tier PUG team is capable of, where things like aiming and angles are not really skills they are capable. If you are talking higher tiers where LRMs don't work well, well that's kinda the point in fixing that issue in lower tiers such that they can be buffed in direct fire scenarios (what I wouldn't give to get fire and forget LRMs back). Well that and their feast or famine problem with certain situations but again that is sort of due to how they work with shared locks.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

My argument is just that players can just get different angles, sure they don't have the luxury of LRM in demand anymore, but all the same the terribad would get creamed anyways.

Again, the point isn't that they get creamed, it is how fast they get creamed, and reducing the luxury of LRM on demand would help with that, that's kinda the whole point......

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

While you see lousiness, we see teamwork, enough to make the worse weapons actually have a great result.

Sure, camping requires teamwork, it is also lousy play and bad for the game. Again, there is a reason why comp picked up conquest as its mode of choice and its because allowing teams to just camp some edge of the map so they can setup a meat grinder is horrible gameplay. It comes down to who is willing to accept the tie and be bored for the entire timer because artillery isn't good enough to stop these sort of teams as is (hence why I want actual artillery that a mech can mount). Now of course use your argument that normal play isn't comp, but that's exactly what happened in that video you used to display proper LRM batteries.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

And therein lies the problem, you think that it's only about how you play it. Never mind the part where there are actually people that enjoy and expect teamwork even from random strangers. That's what you do with comp, but MWO is not just comp.

I'm okay of having different set of stats for Comp and Non-Comp, but this greedy approach is isn't okay.

Again, you don't seem to get it, teamwork is doing what is necessary for the team to win. It isn't about having each others back, it is about what gives you the shortest past the victory. If that means being a meat shield so that a higher skilled pilot can carry you or being the sacrifice in your slow Whale delaying the inevitable as you get left behind so your team can take up an advantageous position while the opfor closes in on you, that's what teamwork is. Yes, ideally you want your damage spread across the board pretty evenly, but not even in comp does that happen. Sometimes, you require a carry from someone while certain people distract, delay, or sacrifice. The more the skill disparity of a team, the more this becomes a requirement because just like in TT, losing a 1/2 pilot in a long range assault is a huge loss compared to a 4/5 in a Centurion.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

The thing is that, even if the LRMs can no longer fire on demand, the terribad would still be in the open getting gibbed. People can still find different angles and we'll see the same thing happen.

How many times do I have to say this before you get it through your thick head. I'm not saying they won't still get gibbed if they stand in the open, but the magnitude of fire they will find themselves facing will be less without indirect fire being as much of a factor.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

If we also did the TAG/NARC only indirect fire, we'd still see the same thing happening only the LRMs are buffed.

Sure, which is why these would probably need to be adjusted (again I know NARCs would HAVE to be adjusted given how long they can last).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Only if you are spamming it one per person, otherwise you are giving misinformation through spamming R. Having all enemies accounted for is important and why spamming R isn't useful in comp (plus visuals go out further than sensors which also plays a larger role in scouting, just figured I'd give that tidbit).

Yeah, in comp. It is however a myriad of other information plus what you could do so in VOIP. But what would a bunch of blinking angled squares in the map tell you? That " an X amount of enemy is there".

The thing is that while it's important, the environment of comp isn't as forgiving as normies, thats why these inefficient and excessive information works for us.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sorry this always will be straight up false. Simple =/= Shallow, people want games that are deep and that doesn't mean they have to be complex to be deep.

Really? You would argue Candy Crush Saga is deep? Or Flappy Bird is deep? They had a lot of players after all. But okay you don't. However there's 7 Billion people on the planet with differing interest, how do you know that people only want deep games?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

What are you even talking about.

I'm talking about your generalization from what you just see. So you see someone with terrible aim, does that mean everyone has terrible aim? Yes the lower tiers generally don't have good aim, but those still exist, and they are the one who do gets to go up.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Again, the point isn't that they get creamed, it is how fast they get creamed, and reducing the luxury of LRM on demand would help with that, that's kinda the whole point.

And again, how meaningful is how long they are creamed. They got creamed for longer, big whoop, like they could appreciate the difference. They're not that good to appreciate fractions of seconds.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sure, camping requires teamwork, it is also lousy play and bad for the game. Again, there is a reason why comp picked up conquest as its mode of choice and its because allowing teams to just camp some edge of the map so they can setup a meat grinder is horrible gameplay. It comes down to who is willing to accept the tie and be bored for the entire timer because artillery isn't good enough to stop these sort of teams as is (hence why I want actual artillery that a mech can mount).

Now of course use your argument that normal play isn't comp, but that's exactly what happened in that video you used to display proper LRM batteries.

And that's the thing, you are arguing from a perspective playing on a very small portion of the game. Since when's the last time the game is only conquest? since when is the last time EVERYONE is a cohesive team?

And that's comp? Siege is comp? Didn't you just say that -- comp picks Conquest? And it's FP, which there's no tier, no buckets, they might not be necesarrily locked in fighting another highly-cohesive comp-team.

That's comp-level teamwork on theb33f, not comp-environment.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Again, you don't seem to get it, teamwork is doing what is necessary for the team to win.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

It isn't about having each others back, it is about what gives you the shortest past the victory.

*looks definition of teamwork at google

Quote

the combined action of a group of people, especially when effective and efficient.

Quote

The process of working collaboratively with a group of people in order to achieve a goal.

Quote

Teamwork is often a crucial part of a business, as it is often necessary for colleagues to work well together, trying their best in any circumstance.

Quote

Teamwork means that people will try to cooperate, using their individual skills and providing constructive feedback, despite any personal conflict between individuals.

Quote

work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.

Quote

cooperative or coordinated effort on the part of a group of persons acting together as a team or in the interests of a common cause.

Quote

work done with a team.

No, what you described is how to win, it's most likely "sacrifice" when there's casualty or just some things you couldn't do and most likely regret that you can no longer do. The second part isn't also teamwork, it's efficiency.

I agree, that's how you win -- by doing anything that is necessary, by sacrifices. By taking the shortest path to victory, you are efficient and you maximize your chances of winning.

But that wouldn't be "teamwork", it would be their interest -- to achieve a goal, to win, and to do so efficiently. There's a difference.

Words have definition, we won't get anywhere if you try to redefine words over and over cause we'll end up confused and wouldn't understand one another.

You might be thinking, i'm not interested in winning at all. Not necessarily, it's in the list, but not above teamwork and fun.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

If that means being a meat shield so that a higher skilled pilot can carry you or being the sacrifice in your slow Whale delaying the inevitable as you get left behind so your team can take up an advantageous position while the opfor closes in on you, that's what teamwork is.

That's sacrifice. It's kind of a teamwork, but it's not only about it. That's not the only possible way to achieve teamwork. Likewise it's hardly a teamwork to sacrifice someone that don't wan't to be sacrificed, one that didn't even considered strategizing with one another and at an agreement, that's being a parasite.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

How many times do I have to say this before you get it through your thick head. I'm not saying they won't still get gibbed if they stand in the open, but the magnitude of fire they will find themselves facing will be less without indirect fire being as much of a factor.

As many times it takes for you to understand that the time it takes for them to get creamed wouldn't make much of a difference on people that wouldn't appreciate such difference in TTDs, they already don't appreciate their current TTD with LRMs and couldn't improve themselves therefore Terribad and stuck on the lurmageddon tier.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sure, which is why these would probably need to be adjusted (again I know NARCs would HAVE to be adjusted given how long they can last).

That would probably be a pain to do so, i mean it's a literal "**** you in particular", especially the NARC.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2017 - 07:42 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

As many times it takes for you to understand that the time it takes for them to get creamed wouldn't make much of a difference on people that wouldn't appreciate such difference in TTDs, they already don't appreciate their current TTD with LRMs and couldn't improve themselves therefore Terribad and stuck on the lurmageddon tier.

Ima just respond to this one because it ends up getting to the crux of this issue and I'm tired of this quote-fest.

The fact we have a lurmageddon tier is the exact reason they can't be buffed. The question we have to ask is how do you fix LRMs in such a way that they no longer cause there to be a lurmageddon tier but also useful across all. This is the fundamental flaw with how LRMs work in that they can go from awesome against new players but horrible against good ones. One of the unique differences between it being that it is a guided indirect fire weapon that relies on locks that are shared, emphasis on the guided part because if it weren't guided we wouldn't be having this issue. Ultimately this boils down to guided indirect fire really needs to be nerfed in some way so that it can be buffed to usefulness in the higher tiers without breaking lower tiers. As far as I'm concerned, removing shared locks does just that. That it happens to remove indirect fire from the game while unfortunate, is something I'm ok with accepting for now given that it increases variety at the top end and fixes a balance disparity at the lower end. This is a stopgap solution until a good way to add guided (or unguided, unguided would probably be easier to balance) indirect fire in such a way that it doesn't have as drastic of a balance disparity between low end and high end play.

In the end it comes down to whether PGI (which they won't) sees this as an issue and addresses it or appeases players that want indirect fire regardless of any side effects it may or may not have. I'll concede it does reduce cohesion of teams a little bit when it comes to solo queue, however as far as I'm concerned the ends still justify the means.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 06:25 PM, said:

That would probably be a pain to do so, i mean it's a literal "**** you in particular", especially the NARC.

Not really, they had it fall off after X amount of damage before, they can do it again but with some randomness to it.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2017 - 08:34 PM.

[A Man In A Can]

Not sure if this was mentioned in the whole back and forth arguing over this issue, but what about looking at the missile tracking strength as the midway option to adjust? Specifically, giving LRMs much faster flight times but little to no turning ability when firing, even with buddy locks. The only time they get significant boosts to tracking and act like mwll LRMs is only when the target is tagged or narced.

This significantly reduces the non-TAG non-Narc indirect LRM threat and greatly improves pro-LRM play with one simple stat across three items without removing the buddy locks.

Think you two can agree with that compromise so there can be a united front on this issue, Quicksilver and 6thMessenger?

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

The fact we have a lurmageddon tier is the exact reason they can't be buffed. The question we have to ask is how do you fix LRMs in such a way that they no longer cause there to be a lurmageddon tier but also useful across all. This is the fundamental flaw with how LRMs work in that they can go from awesome against new players but horrible against good ones.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

One of the unique differences between it being that it is a guided indirect fire weapon that relies on locks that are shared, emphasis on the guided part because if it weren't guided we wouldn't be having this issue.

Exactly why i reasoned that the logical conclusion is that we ALSO touch the homing aspect of the LRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Ultimately this boils down to guided indirect fire really needs to be nerfed in some way so that it can be buffed to usefulness in the higher tiers without breaking lower tiers.

It wouldn't be "guided indirect-fire" if you remove the indirect part. But beside that, we should be aiming to have it do proportional effectiveness with proportional skill applied, increase the skill-ceiling, as of just simply increasing the skill-floor.

Personally, right now while we're brainstorming, i think the real problem here is the homing system, not the indirect-fire, because it's easy to land a hit -- it's not whether you aim properly but whether your enemy is just exposed. It's less about the effort of the user, but more of the mistake of the target. And because terribads can have good hit chance as much as a competent pilot, that creates a disparity with skill of the pilot with respect of the target's skill -- success of use it's negatively correlated to skill. So long the homing exist, i don't think we could simply balance the LRMs. We should make the hit-chance proportional with the amount of skill of the user, not the target.

I think we need more time to think about this, and have more options than black-or-white options. Let me get back to you on how we solve the homing problem.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

As far as I'm concerned, removing shared locks does just that. That it happens to remove indirect fire from the game while unfortunate, is something I'm ok with accepting for now given that it increases variety at the top end and fixes a balance disparity at the lower end.

And all we're saying is that we're (I) not okay with it and would prefer something else.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

This is a stopgap solution until a good way to add guided (or unguided, unguided would probably be easier to balance) indirect fire in such a way that it doesn't have as drastic of a balance disparity between low end and high end play.

Or you know, just fix the guided indirect fire already than going on an unnecessary detour.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

In the end it comes down to whether PGI (which they won't) sees this as an issue and addresses it or appeases players that want indirect fire regardless of any side effects it may or may not have. I'll concede it does reduce cohesion of teams a little bit when it comes to solo queue, however as far as I'm concerned the ends still justify the means.

And the problem is that your perspective is just what it does to comp, not as MWO as a whole, a self-serving means, something that we (I) the normies don't exactly condone.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Not really, they had it fall off after X amount of damage before, they can do it again but with some randomness to it.

I did say probably.

ThatNumbGuy, on 11 October 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Not sure if this was mentioned in the whole back and forth arguing over this issue, but what about looking at the missile tracking strength as the midway option to adjust? Specifically, giving LRMs much faster flight times but little to no turning ability when firing, even with buddy locks. The only time they get significant boosts to tracking and act like mwll LRMs is only when the target is tagged or narced.

This significantly reduces the non-TAG non-Narc indirect LRM threat and greatly improves pro-LRM play with one simple stat across three items without removing the buddy locks.

Think you two can agree with that compromise so there can be a united front on this issue, Quicksilver and 6thMessenger?

Honestly, i was just getting to that as well. In the light of the argument, i came to think more that the issue isn't even the indirect fire, it's the homing systems. And what we should want is to make the hit chance more in line with the skill of use, than the skill of the target evading it -- something i'm still thinking over.

I'd like to compromise, that's really what i want, however we are already on the process of that -- that's what we're discussing about.

ADDENDUM:

After giving things some thought, i have an idea of how we can modify the Homing system, and put skill into the equation.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

I think it would be prudent to tackle how the LRMs track, that how we launch them would affect their hit-rate greatly -- that means to achieve optimal performance should worry on how we sent them to the sky. And to simplify my idea, i will break it down to steps.

Quote

Step 1: Fire and Forget

LRMs don't need constant missile lock or target lock. You just need those to launch a missile.

Quote

Step 2: Manual Missile Locking System

Remember Gauss? How you charge it? The same thing with the LRMs somewhat. To missile-lock, not only you must have target-lock, you need to press the fire button. However the missiles aren't launched when you press the trigger, it's when you release it.

You can have the missile-lock retained at an indefinite time even if you're no longer aiming at the target so long as you have target-lock, and is pressing the fire trigger. To disengage, simply break lock, and the LRMs wouldn't launch.

This system allows missle-lock while still pointing at some place else as you adjust the launch of your missiles. Think of it as a bow that you release the string to shoot.

Quote

Step 3: Manual Hyperbolic Arc by Poor Steering

Have you ever noticed how the LRMs are FORCED to go up, and then on the peak of the arc, and THEN the homing kicks.

My idea does away with that, the LRMs now fly straight, and will home on the target at the start of the shot -- ALL THE TIME. However, while it homes to targets, it has poor steering to correct the flight-path.

Think of it as gravity with a shell shot on the sky, the higher you aim the sharper the angle you achieve and the higher the arc, but it's attracted to your target than the the ground. Also the longer the missiles take to their intended target. You shoot up and a bit to the side, the flight-path would be an angled arc.

This means that for indirect-fire to occur, one must shoot to the sky, or direct fire to occur to shoot straight. This also means that at a farther range the arc-ing fire would have better hit chance, while also the closer the range the straight-fire would have better hit-chance.

Depending on how you launched it, it can also steer around obstacles like a boomerang, hitting targets from unlikely angles.

Quote

Step 4: Break-Away Distance

The amount of distance it takes to increase the spread of the volley at a certain amount, in relation to the deviation of the target from the original LRM's flight-path.

Whenever you shoot your ACs or PPCs, you must put a lead for moving targets, as well as aiming. This simulates the need for lead, as it increases the spread of the missiles based on how closely you put the flight-path on the target, and should the target deviates so much depending on how you made the LRMs fly towards it then the LRMs spread can increase sharply.

Supposed that a target is moving, but you launched the missiles away the direction of the LRM as it moves, then the LRMs would spread expands as it homes and hits towards your target, depending on how far it deviates away from the original trajectory.

Quote

Step 5: Specific Stats:

Damage: +100% (Doubled)
Spread: Normalized to that of LRM5s.
Cooldown: +50% (fires slower)
Velocity: +240 (to 400)
Ammo/ton: - 33.3334% (Less Ammo)
Break-Away Distance: 240m
Break-Away Multiplier: 2.0 (200%)

So, what do you think of this homing system? Does it finally give the LRMs the need for skill-to-effectiveness ratio? Any specific stats i need to readjust?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 01:16 AM.

[Stinger554]

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

Some good stuff

My primary problem with this is the computational requirements to calculate the LRM spread and where those calculations are done. Are they're servers capable of handling those calculations on top of all existing calculations? What happens when there are 100+ missiles in the air at once? Will they're servers be able to handle calculations for all those missiles or only like 50 at a time?

Stuff like that is important to consider given what you're talking about.

Personally I'd be okay with them removing Buddy lock by default and by doing so remove indirect fire from LRMs without using Tag or Narc. Plus it'd give them a reason to add C3 units into the game You want indirect fire equip a C3 slave/master unit that costs tonnage + slots.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimately I want LRMs that function like in MW4 (including streaks, so that they make more sense).

I don't agree with doubling damage, reducing spread, and only increasing cooldown by 50%. You would have an LRM20 that does 40 damage with minimal spread and only a 6.45s cooldown, that's absurd, even with less ammo.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 October 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I don't agree with doubling damage, reducing spread, and only increasing cooldown by 50%. You would have an LRM20 that does 40 damage with minimal spread and only a 6.45s cooldown, that's absurd, even with less ammo.

double damage is absurd

but the damage per missile absolutely needs to be increased so LRMs pierce armor better. the cooldown should logically be increased by the same proportion to keep the overall dps the same.

so say 20% more damage per missile and 20% longer cooldown. thatd be fine I think.

LRM velocity also needs to be increased so LRMs can actually hit things at long range. Artemis needs to be buffed as well. And LRMs ability to hit indirect targets should be limited to tagged or narced targets only. LRMs should not be able to indiscriminately indirect fire.

Edited by Khobai, 12 October 2017 - 10:00 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

If you want absurd, consider that rocket launchers now actually DO hit for 2 damage per missile, up from the 1 they do in TT.

LRMs don't need anything in that range, as at that point you have guided SRMs. 1.2 per missile max, and you might even go 1.2 IS/1.1 Clan at that. But the biggies are velocity and spread. You effectively get more damage by reducing spread (damage is now more efficient) and increasing accuracy (as more damage actually hits).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brain Cancer, on 12 October 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

If you want absurd, consider that rocket launchers now actually DO hit for 2 damage per missile, up from the 1 they do in TT.

That's because they are one-shot launchers and just like in TT fairly useless.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 October 2017 - 11:22 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Ultimately I want LRMs that function like in MW4 (including streaks, so that they make more sense).

"They make more sense"? Don't you mean balanced?

Fire and Forget with missiles today is exactly unfair, we do have indirect guided missiles such as ICBMs -- which North Korea is still laughably trying. Portable ones are cruise missiles.

Stinger554, on 12 October 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

My primary problem with this is the computational requirements to calculate the LRM spread and where those calculations are done. Are they're servers capable of handling those calculations on top of all existing calculations? What happens when there are 100+ missiles in the air at once? Will they're servers be able to handle calculations for all those missiles or only like 50 at a time?

Stuff like that is important to consider given what you're talking about.

I'm not a server technician to know, or even if a computer technician is the guy that knows that.

But if they can calculate damage drop off, I'm fairly certain they can adjust the spread.

[Lykaon]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

My point was that "passive armor sharing" is not entirely dependent on an opfor to not be organized.

But in quickplay it totally is.

There no passive action anyone on your team can ACTIVELY take to FORCE the opfor to target multiple enemy mechs.

Just because 6 mechs are visable doesn't force the enemy to engage 6 mechs. The ONLY reason passive armor sharing works at all is disorganization and a lack of co-ordinated focus fire and manuver.

The counter play to flushing a poking enemy force out of cover is fairly simple but requires co-ordination.) One example would be a manuver called a denied flank advance. It's Basically an advancing "L" formation with the lower portion of the "L" protruding forward preventing flanking and escaping while the "spine" of the "L" is your mobile fire line pressuring the enemy out of cover as you advance. The Lower "L" protrution will eventually be on the side of the enemy exposing them from cover and forcing them to be flushed in a predictable direction (away from the flanking force).

Sounds more complicated than it is.It's basically Lights and mediums flank one side heavies and assault advance forward.

But this requires co-ordination that is unpresidented in quickplay. But doing it does counter cover campers quite handily and seizes the initiative breaking standoffs.


My point is that "sharing armor" in quick play is useful and does help. But we need to stop fooling ourselves into believing it's a grand strategy and some sort of brilliant tactic.

It's not. Passive armor sharing is just a by product of disorganized play and only as effective as the OPFOR's lack of co-ordination.

Passive armor sharing actually (and ironicly) thrives under the same circumstances that LRM boating succeeds in. Low organization low co-operation enviorments.


But to clearify, Passive armor sharing DOES work and DOES work best against a disorganized enemy force. I just don't see it as the absolutely mandatory rule of warfare and I do not see a LRM boat not "armor sharing" as some unforgivable sin because they are still contributing to armor preservation by dealing damage.

Damaged mechs die faster,dead mechs deal no damage. seems real simple to me. Claiming that an LRM boat is doing nothing to preserve armor resources because they are hiding is B.S. because of this simple fact...

A mech that is destroyed quicker has less time to deal damage. Damage not done at all is superior to diffusing damage over multiple targets.

And my last point to be made is in quick play we do not choose who our team mates will be or what they bring. If we get an LRM boat THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE! no point in wishing for something else we must work with what we actually have.

An effective team will attempt to maximize whatever resources they have. So if you get the LRM boats consider maybe holding locks when you can. Keep the knowledge of the presence of friendly LRMs in mind when you manuver, Consider keeping that asset shielded from close quarters attacks and don't be afraid of making suggestions to the LRM team mate like "could you move up with the team please we can't cover you back there" (but be nice since the old addage catching more flies with honey applies)


Pretty much every time I see a thread like this one I notice a few things right away.

Most players can't see the potential for indirect fire.

Most players don't notice proficient LRM use when it happens only the bads

Many times it's just a thinly veiled "nerf LRMS cause I don't like them" plead.

Brain Cancer, on 12 October 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

If you want absurd, consider that rocket launchers now actually DO hit for 2 damage per missile, up from the 1 they do in TT.

Did you take into account that MWo doubled the armor and structure values on mechs? Because by that measure they are doing scaled damage tot heir TT counterparts.

Edited by Lykaon, 12 October 2017 - 03:52 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

"They make more sense"? Don't you mean balanced?

In MW4, Streaks are just missiles with instant lock time (whether it be SSRMs, the made up SMRMs, or one mods SLRMs). There is no random hit mechanics or anything like that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 October 2017 - 02:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

In MW4, Streaks are just missiles with instant lock time (whether it be SSRMs, the made up SMRMs, or one mods SLRMs). There is no random hit mechanics or anything like that.

That's more of balance choice than actual "making sense" -- or maybe it "makes sense" with the balance climate of the game. Although as how we do our balance in MWO, it's probably best to do some testing.

[Lykaon]

Khobai, on 12 October 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

double damage is absurd

but the damage per missile absolutely needs to be increased so LRMs pierce armor better. the cooldown should logically be increased by the same proportion to keep the overall dps the same.

so say 20% more damage per missile and 20% longer cooldown. thatd be fine I think.

LRM velocity also needs to be increased so LRMs can actually hit things at long range. Artemis needs to be buffed as well. And LRMs ability to hit indirect targets should be limited to tagged or narced targets only. LRMs should not be able to indiscriminately indirect fire.

Double damage is absurd and starts to put the effectiveness of MRMs in question and also takes some of power out of ATMs by compareson.

LRM damage is not the only means of improving armor piercing. And I would actually question IF armor piercing is a thing LRMs should do well.

Tightening groupings by a considerable margin for artemis aided direct fire will put more LRMs onto a smaller target area with fewer missed missiles per volley. That may be enough. And I see no problem with having to invest in Artemis to gain benefits approaching other direct fire weapons. Possibly even link even more velocity to Artemis launchers for direct fire as well.

Messing with cooldowns is tricky because Lock on mechanics are very different from snap fire direct fire weapons. Add in ECM effects delaying lock on and radar derp droping locks with ease and we have a wide variance of what an effective cooldown period actually is in practice as oppose to an on paper scenario. As it is a 4 second cooldown for a PPC means it can effectively fire every 4 seconds while a lock on weapon may be in a situation where it has a chance to attain a lock every cooldown cycle. It's not the same.

it's not as cut and dry as basic math may want it to be. 20% is not of equal value to lock on weapons as it is to direct fire.

One of the biggest issues is LRMs in MWo are not all that long ranged when compared to many direct fire weapons.

Missile weapons terminate when they reach their max range. they do not have the benefits of the extreme range bracket. Without skill nodes or quirks LRMs can not damage anything outside 900m but since the 900m includes total travel distance effective LRM range is probably closer to 700m - 850m when the trajectory is taken into account.

With that in mind there are a whole slew of direct fire weapons that can engage targets fairly compitently beyond 850-900m.

Even a basic I.S. large laser has a 900m extreme range As does the plain old AC10. Weapons generally considered "mid range" are capable of trading shots with LRM carriers under common battlefield conditions. Conversely using the default ranges of table top battletech as a compareson a Large laser would have 6 hexes less range at 30m per hex than an LRM launcher. Even an AC5 and PPC falls short of LRMs in Battletech.

Now when we take into account how badly the LRMs perform when placed in a face to face engagement against normal direct fire weapons and we start to see where some extra range padding may be nice to have.



Now the problem with requiring indirect fire to ONLY be possible with using NARC or TAG is neither of those means of assisted targeting will be taken by nearly anyone in quick play. Nearly nobody is going to sacrifice their personal offense by taking a NARC launcher over an SRM6 or a TAG instead of a medium laser. I would be suprised to find players taking UAVs over coolshots and arty strikes.

NARC and TAG carried by the LRM carrier it's self posses problems because both of those systems are DIRECT FIRE. and obviously incompatable with the needs of remaining in defilade. Not to mention the range constraints of using a NARC effectively.

So with few bringing NARC or TAG on spotter platforms fewer people will take LRMs leading to an even lesser percentage of NARC and TAG deployed on spotters meaning indirect fire is just not a viable option in quick play.

This is the reality of what is being suggested.

Now expanding what spotting equipment is to include Targeting computers Probes and command consoles (yeah like these get used with any frequency) as well as granting spotting capabilities to mechs as an innate ability or a purchased skill node...well that could possibly work as long as spotting assists PAID! pay a puggy and they will do it.

Edited by Lykaon, 12 October 2017 - 04:30 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

or maybe it "makes sense" with the balance climate of the game.

It makes sense given this is not a turn-based strategy game as well as the balance of the game.