216 replies to this topic

[Escef]

So, when you're being harassed by a light, target the light, and a teammmate with Streaks comes around the corner to help you, what would you prefer?

A. Friendly mech can fire Streaks as soon as the corner is rounded because there is already a fully resolved missile lock.

Or,

B. Friendly must now obtain own lock and resolve missile lock-on against a light that can in all likelihood see the new addition to the fight and evade or disengage.

Edited by Escef, 09 October 2017 - 10:15 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Escef, on 09 October 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

B. Friendly must now obtain own lock and resolve missile lock-on against a light that can in all likelihood see the new addition to the fight and evade or disengage.

This option because having a weapon dedicated to obliterating the weakest class seems pretty silly. Giving the light time to disengage is pretty important for counter play.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 October 2017 - 10:30 AM.

[Dee Eight]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

Again, what role does it encourage? What role somehow becomes a thing with sharing locks?

There isn't a single role that I can think of that actually couldn't be a thing in a world without lock sharing.

Showing the team WHERE on the map the enemy that is being locked is, and how hurt they might be already.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So, while we are removing teamwork-related features, can we also increase the cockpit hitbox to the size of the full Mech's head and give everybody BattleRifles so we can make snap-headshots all day long?

Edited by Prosperity Park, 09 October 2017 - 10:44 AM.

[A Man In A Can]

Mcgral18, on 09 October 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Locks don't make my Gauss Rifles have 4 KM/s velocity

That's what C3 would do in MWO (same time to target as short range being one silly interpretation)

That's only if the system tried to replicate its board game functionality, which I agree, is silly.

But in MW3 and its expansion, C3 was changed to be a system that allowed for allied radar to be used as if it were your own. And it is that system that MWO's shared sensors system (S3 ...hah!) is based on.

So be nice to the guy, he is correct by MW3 standards.

Edit: Silly auto-correct.

Edited by ThatNumbGuy, 09 October 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[Leif Heggland]

No, LRMs are already under performing. I would support adding a tatical data link sim that required a chain line of sight between the lock source and the shooters. That would be much more realistic and encourage LRMS boats to stay with the team. That said it is probably not worth the performance hit the calculations would require.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dee Eight, on 09 October 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

Showing the team WHERE on the map the enemy that is being locked is, and how hurt they might be already.

That's not a role and that's something that can be done without that feature built it, it is just more painful. If it causes LRMs to get reworked to not be stupid, I accept that consequence (since most scouts in QP don't know what they are doing anyway).

[dario03]

Escef, on 09 October 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

So, when you're being harassed by a light, target the light, and a teammmate with Streaks comes around the corner to help you, what would you prefer?

A. Friendly mech can fire Streaks as soon as the corner is rounded because there is already a fully resolved missile lock.

Or,

B. Friendly must now obtain own lock and resolve missile lock-on against a light that can in all likelihood see the new addition to the fight and evade or disengage.

B

[Tarogato]

Leif Heggland, on 09 October 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

No, LRMs are already under performing. I would support adding a tatical data link sim that required a chain line of sight between the lock source and the shooters. That would be much more realistic and encourage LRMS boats to stay with the team. That said it is probably not worth the performance hit the calculations would require.

We can't buff LRMs in their present state without making them overpowered. Right now LRMs are already too strong in low tier play because of shared locks, but very weak in high tier play because of spread, velocity, and hard counters. If we remove (or drastically reduce) shared missile locks as a mechanic, then LRM can be safely buffed to universally usable levels.

Edited by Tarogato, 09 October 2017 - 11:34 AM.

[LordNothing]

Mcgral18, on 09 October 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Locks don't make my Gauss Rifles have 4 KM/s velocity

That's what C3 would do in MWO (same time to target as short range being one silly interpretation)

should also point out that living legends also had really powerful narc and tag. instead of being highly marginalized garbage that it is in mwo. slightly faster lock time is a very crappy thing to spend 5 tons on. seriously undermines a light mech's ability to do one of its primary functions. you might carry a tag with your streaks (this is the only time i use tag in mwo), but it doesnt make any sense with lerms/atms. because if you can hold a tag on a target at 500 meters, why not just bring lasers that can do actual damage without having to fire missiles.

in living legends the tag was just a 'missiles go here now' weapon that didnt even need a lock on behalf of the one firing missiles, any currently unlocked ordinance flying overhead would hit the laser spot wherever it was at the time. narc was the same way, just sticky. this may seem op but you cant lock in passive, so you have to make yourself a target in order to get your own locks and hit anything. new players would always start out with lasers and ballistics because they were easier to use than lerms. and when somone does bring lerms its because they have set up the team work needed to make it effective, at which point they become really powerful weapon systems.

the living legends team at least looked at all the interactions and decided it should be a weapon system for more advanced players. pgi decided to neglect the details to make the system easy to use and ended up with a crutch weapon for noobs. i think it was a mistake to do this. but people would rather have an easy button than to challenge themselves to using that smattering of gray goop between their ears.

Edited by LordNothing, 09 October 2017 - 11:58 AM.

[Trissila]

I'm having a hard time parsing this salt.

Are buddy locks the problem because lights can provide targeting data for their LRM launchers from behind the enemy line?

Or are they the problem because enemy lights can target the targeting lights and provide locks for their own team to counter those locks?

If you're in a light and you're getting LRM'd to death, you're bad, end of story. You probably have ECM, you should definitely have Radar Deprivation, and you move at 150+ KPH. There's no reason you can't break LoS other than a staggering lack of situational awareness. If the enemy light is chasing you, you run him back to your team and watch him get roflstomped.

[Novakaine]

And here we go again........... another LRM rant.
Did a bad lurm boat pilot touch ya'll again.
How in the world would any real life battle be won if no one communicated?
Lets just take VOIP and in game chat out of the game.
Then you can really go COD.
Seriously though this a team based game.
Enough already and leave the worst weapon system in the game alone.
We Rocketeers have suffered enough.
And time for my well worn meme........

[Novakaine]

Tarogato, on 09 October 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

We can't buff LRMs in their present state without making them overpowered. Right now LRMs are already too strong in low tier play because of shared locks, but very weak in high tier play because of spread, velocity, and hard counters. If we remove (or drastically reduce) shared missile locks as a mechanic, then LRM can be safely buffed to universally usable levels.

Then we might as well just get rid of the whole weapon system.
That's why they are called Long Range Missles.
Not Reduced Range Missiles, because that what you are effectively advocating.
No meme required.

Edited by Novakaine, 09 October 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[Novakaine]

Leif Heggland, on 09 October 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

No, LRMs are already under performing. I would support adding a tatical data link sim that required a chain line of sight between the lock source and the shooters. That would be much more realistic and encourage LRMS boats to stay with the team. That said it is probably not worth the performance hit the calculations would require.

Oh and another game myth.
Any lurmer worth his salt stays with the group for protection and yes we share armor.
If you're running nothing but a pure lrm boat please stop.
Your just giving the rest of use a bad name

[Mole]

Are people actually being serious when they ask what role lock sharing could possibly fulfill...?

Scouting? Hello? Anybody home? If someone is serious about scouting then lock sharing is EXTREMELY important to them. A scout's weapons are lock sharing, TAG, NARC, and UAVs. The reason we have so few actual scouts is because the rewards for scouting are garbage compared to just killing things.

Edited by Mole, 09 October 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[Joey Tankblaster]

Fun fact. Most of the shared locks comes from fighting mechs and not from scouts.

[Trissila]

Joey Tankblaster, on 09 October 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Fun fact. Most of the shared locks comes from fighting mechs and not from scouts.

And the vast majority of those aren't carrying TAG units, and certainly not NARCs.

So here's the thing: the game already balances between indirect LRM locks and direct locks. An indirect lock, ESPECIALLY one without TAG and/or NARC assistance, has several undesirable properties:

1. It is SLOW. Depending on the exact circumstances, it can take several seconds to acquire lock.
2. The missiles are prone to being dumped, either from terrain complications (not all terrain is accounted for when the launchers arc up for indirect fire) or from the target breaking lock before the missiles arrive on-target.
3. Even when they do hit, the missiles are highly inaccurate and spread the damage all over the target.

By contrast, an Artemis-equipped launcher getting its own TAG lock is going to acquire MUCH faster, the missiles aren't going to be hitting terrain, and they're going to be MUCH more tightly-grouped. It will also be within range and LoS of its other weapons, making it FAR more effective.

Indirect missiles really aren't a problem. If you are getting LRM'd to death by indirect fire, you have made several grievous tactical errors and sustained those errors over a LONG period of time. Indirect fire does not kill quickly by any stretch of the imagination.

[Lykaon]

Joey Tankblaster, on 09 October 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Ok gents,

this is not a rant about LURMs in general but more a rant about LURM pilots. The whole buddy lock feature in MWO is really painful and nonsense from a game design perspective.

I just hate those LURM pilots who do not share their armour, intel and firepower with their team in a meaningful way.

We already have lock after direct sighting, TAG-laser, UAVs and NARC. This is enough. I really don't see the necessity to promote a playstyle which favours cowardeous hidding in the third row waiting for others to do the job (e.g. locking up targets).

Buddy lock destroys role warfare. Lights on a scouting mission just get cought by an enemy light, locked up and lurmed to death. It's senseless.

What is the point of this design? I am fine with a substantial buff for LURMs if buddy lock is removed.

Get rid of buddy lock ASAP.

My 2 cents

"buddy lock" as you call it is one of the few examples of role warfare we do have.

LRMs are a long range support weapon that in order to perform even remotely well require the long range portion of their functionality be intact.

This means indirect fire is a neccessity or else why even bother with the LRMs at all? Seriously put just about any other missile weapon on the hardpoint for better results.

So let's look at how quick play works...

Do you bring a TAG if you are not loading LRMs? probably not.

Would you take a UAV over a coolshot or arty strike if you are using a laser vom build? Probably not

How often do we see NARC deployed? would you take a NARC on a heavy or assault mech brawler to get locks for friendly LRMs? probably not

So, what you are actually asking is "buddy locks" be removed and any LRM using mech needs to move into close proximity of the enemy to deploy a UAV then withdraw to clear minimum ranges and any potential obstructions select a target,wait for a lock and fire and also pray that the enemy didn't shoot the UAV down or the UAV expires before any meaningful damage is done.

I think we can agree that's not viable.

How about TAG. So without " buddy locks " the LRM carrier needs to get it's own locks and we can presume it will use a TAG.
So now we have a weapon system (LRMs) with literally dozens of ways to defeat or confound in direct competition with weapons that have no such limitations.

So, I take my LRM boat out of cover and point my tag laser at a target wait for a lock and fire my missiles at the astoundingly unimpressive speed of 160 meters per second at the guy who shoots back with an autocannon that requires no lock is uneffected by ECM or AMS and has a velocity of around 1000 meters per second...oh did I also mention it pinpoint front loads it's damage instead of dispersed non focused damage like LRMs.

Why would anyone do this? it's idiotic to accept those terms of an engagement because you will not win.

So I think we can agree this is not viable as well.

So um...NARC. Well NARC is the middle ground of the UAV and the TAG with no actual benifits to recommend it either.

You need to approach within close range similar to a UAV deployment but not as close. So it has similar issues to using a UAV for an LRM carrier.

You need to get direct LOS to fire and hit a target with a NARC and as a result place your mech in a very unfavorable competition with direct fire weapons that will tear you to bits in an exchange so this isn't ideal.

And, NARC is a missile and a slow moving one at that and can be effected by AMS. So for best results a NARC needs to fired as close to the target as possible and well...try LRMing at 90 meters away from a target.

So how viable is a NARC on an LRM boat? not very.


So if team mates (like yourself) can't be bothered to provide "buddy locks" how do we expect players to run support equipment that does not directly improve their own circumstances? Would you pull out an SRM6 for a NARC? Trade that coolshot for a UAV? take off a medium laser for TAG? No,you wouldn't.

So what buff would LRMs need to remove the "buddy lock"

Flat trejectory to reduce flight times
Increased velocity to compete with other direct fire weapons
Removal of lock on mechanics because it's a detriment and un needed delay with the trajectory and velocity change

And ...um...wait don't we have a missile system that already does this?

So finnally remove MRMs as obsolete because of the lower range compared to the "new" LRMs

Edited by Lykaon, 09 October 2017 - 01:09 PM.

[Bombast]

Joey Tankblaster, on 09 October 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Fun fact. Most of the shared locks comes from fighting mechs and not from scouts.

That's true. And I'd argue that's something that should be fixed by giving mechs variable sensor ranges, or changing how far away a mech can be to share (A brawling Warhammer wouldn't be able to share with a Gauss Boat sitting 600m back, but a Jenner could, for example).

The answer, to me, is not to bin the whole thing, but to make it a factor in choosing a mech.

The examples in this post are not to be taken as exact changes desired, only as rough ideas.

[VonBruinwald]

I'm all for removing shared-locks...

As long as we also remove the ability to reverse, because I'll be damned if lurming at 500m is unacceptable while a try-hard gauss-PPC meta-build sits a further 500m behind me humping a hill.