216 replies to this topic

[Bombast]

VonBruinwald, on 09 October 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

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.

As long as we're fixing bad behavior through mechanic changes, I demand that, if a player tries to join a QP match with a mech that goes slower than 50kph, the game tells them to march right back into the MechLab and fix it that second, and not let them out until they've done so.

[Insanity09]

Eliminating sensor data sharing (possible locks) is a BAD idea.

However, I don't think it would be unreasonable to have mechs that actually want/need to use that data for more than simply locating enemy mechs and seeing how damaged they are pack in some extra sensor processing equipment. Perhaps you could only get locks from secondary data if you had either a targeting computer or a BAP.

You would always be able to get your own locks, you could still see where the enemy mechs are. Again, the only change I'm advocating is requiring an extra piece of sensor equipment (of any flavor) IF you want to use secondary sensor data for a lock.

Given that BAP is already a good idea if you rely on LRM's, that doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

[stealthraccoon]

So let me be sure I’m understanding you.
Info share = Good
Share locks = Good
Scouting = Useless
Indirect-fire with no LoS = Bad

Basically you have a preference for direct fire, line-of-sight weapons and you don’t care for second line players using indirect fire as a primary mode of dealing damage. You feel that modifying a weapon system and part of a game mechanic will prevent people from using inefficient builds, such as LRM assaults. Functionally, you want LRMs to work only with personal locks or with a dedicated spotter, such as TAG or NARC.

I think it would be easier if you would just equip an AMS and quit worrying about lousy teammates.

[Mole]

Bombast, on 09 October 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

As long as we're fixing bad behavior through mechanic changes, I demand that, if a player tries to join a QP match with a mech that goes slower than 50kph, the game tells them to march right back into the MechLab and fix it that second, and not let them out until they've done so.

Does this ever actually happen outside of the occasional guy who just has to try and run a lore Urbanmech build?

[Bombast]

Mole, on 09 October 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

Does this ever actually happen outside of the occasional guy who just has to try and run a lore Urbanmech build?

I see Annihilators and Supernova's puttering around at near minimum speeds all the time.

[Xiphias]

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.

Absolutely B. Why should lights literally be the only class that has a weapon designed to hard counter it? Instant streak lock on is garbage. Lights are consistently the weakest class. They should at least have a chance to react without getting 1-2 shot by an auto-lock easy mode weapon.

[Mole]

Why do people in video games always have such a hard god damn time digesting the fact that indirect fire homing missiles actually exist anyway?

[Bombast]

Mole, on 09 October 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

Why do people in video games always have such a hard god damn time digesting the fact that indirect fire homing missiles actually exist anyway?

It's a video game about bipedal tanks. What actually exists hardly matters.

[Bronn of the Blackwater]

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.

I prefer a team mate with normal srm and good aiming... Will kill the light much faster than the streak boat...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Novakaine, on 09 October 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

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.

What are you even talking about......what does lock mechanics have to do with the effective range especially given that you shouldn't be shooting them outside of 600m anyway?

Bombast, on 09 October 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

As long as we're fixing bad behavior through mechanic changes, I demand that, if a player tries to join a QP match with a mech that goes slower than 50kph, the game tells them to march right back into the MechLab and fix it that second, and not let them out until they've done so.

So Annihilators and Whales shouldn't ever be allowed to us given their max engine is 48.6kph?

[Bombast]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

So Annihilators and Whales shouldn't ever be allowed to us given their max engine is 48.6kph?

If we're going to be changing the game to address every pet peeve, yes.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Trissila, on 09 October 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

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.

This is the problem, the become exponentially more dangerous to new players and are a bad experience. This is why many in lower tiers have issues with "LRMs OP!" and what keep LRMs from being buffed enough to actually be considered in higher tiers. In short, the mechanics behind these weapons are flawed and have needed to be redesigned for a while. Short of that however, removing shared locks would also limit their OP capability so they could still be buffed to potentially be potent enough to justify taking in higher tiers.

[H I A S]

Novakaine, on 09 October 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

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........

Team-based means not to abuse your Team for your dmg.
So maybe do some useful stuff and dont harm your teams WR?

Edited by H I A S, 09 October 2017 - 02:58 PM.

[Trissila]

Mole, on 09 October 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

Why do people in video games always have such a hard god damn time digesting the fact that indirect fire homing missiles actually exist anyway?

Nobody debates whether such things exist. They debate whether such things are good for balance in a video game.

Your account is not immediately deleted and you are not permanently GUID-banned from the game the first time you die. All appeals to 'realism' go right out the window.

[Trissila]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

This is the problem, the become exponentially more dangerous to new players and are a bad experience. This is why many in lower tiers have issues with "LRMs OP!" and what keep LRMs from being buffed enough to actually be considered in higher tiers. In short, the mechanics behind these weapons are flawed and have needed to be redesigned for a while. Short of that however, removing shared locks would also limit their OP capability so they could still be buffed to potentially be potent enough to justify taking in higher tiers.

Unless and until they are buffed to have zero travel time, zero lock time, and infinite ammo, they will be entirely irrelevant compared to lasers. And even then they will still be vastly inferior in terms of tonnage/crits.

Indirect fire is the entire reason for them to exist. You take the compromise that your direct fire with them is pretty bad -- even with TAG+Artemis -- in exchange for having the option to indirect-fire and soften targets up before they have LoS of you.

I was new to the game a month and a half or so ago. I had LRMs figured out in about a week, tops. I am not some amazing god of gaming, just an average person of average intelligence and ability. It's not unreasonable to expect people to improve to that level. Some people will never want to invest any effort into getting good at a game, but those people are not who things should be balanced around.

[Cold Darkness]

2 things:
why is buddylock mechanic taking blame for lrms being strong in low level play? the first natural conclusion would be the underdeveloped aiming capabilites of the lower level players, which naturally promotes the homing weapon, which doesnt deal with bad aiming while also profiting from the enemys bad aim.

since there are comments about "buffing them is possible when buddylocks are removed": how would you suggest to buff them so there is >any< reason to actually use them instead of >everything< else. all while not making them overpowered for lower level games again.

maybe some people should consider these two things in this repeat-thread. as if the weapon is at fault for hiding lrm boats instead of the playermentality. at least one person pointet out that gauss/ppc boats do exactly the same thing since ages ago. they are essentially the lrm boats of higher tier quickplay games. its mostly a playerissue.

[Chados]

LRMs don't need changes. Piggyback locking and indirect fire is just fine. The mechanic helps new pilots get used to the game, and rewards front line LRM skirmishing. I prefer MRMs on the missile front now but there was a time LRMishing saved the game for me. That time has passed, and I now primarily run the superior direct-fire modes available to us, but I certainly wouldn't want to see PGI pull up the ladder after those of us who needed that mechanic to learn the game and overcome its vertical learning curve.

To me, and in my personal opinion, LRMing is every bit as valid, if not more so, than gauss/PPC stealth-armor hillhumping from 900m away. Both end up being the last mech in the QP game but the LRMer has a chance to learn better. The l337 k3wl sniprz will always be that idiot who is always running away and hiding for eight minutes at the end of a 12-2 roflstomp while the rest of the team, now dead, is hollering at him on chat to do something other than hiding.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Trissila, on 09 October 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

Unless and until they are buffed to have zero travel time, zero lock time, and infinite ammo, they will be entirely irrelevant compared to lasers. And even then they will still be vastly inferior in terms of tonnage/crits.

That's not true given that IS dakka still remains relevant. They just have to do enough sustained damage to bother taking over something like dakka and have decent enough velocities. Then of course there is the old trick that missile boats used to use in MW4 with mechs like the Mad Dog, where unlike pure direct fire weapons, you could abuse missile arcs to actually maintain more of yourself in cover while still unleashing your firepower, especially if they become fly-and-forget like they were a long time ago.

Basically, removing indirect fire opens quite a few doors to buffs that could make missiles potent in more situations.

Trissila, on 09 October 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

Indirect fire is the entire reason for them to exist. You take the compromise that your direct fire with them is pretty bad -- even with TAG+Artemis -- in exchange for having the option to indirect-fire and soften targets up before they have LoS of you.

Indirect fire isn't the reason for them to exist, missiles having a weapon that can be used outside of extremely short range is a reason for them to exist. You don't need indirect fire to be a thing for them to be useful at long range. I mean, ERLL Supernovas like they were used during the WC would be great targets for a single LRM mech they were fire and forget (because of better damage to heat ratio than ERLL and targets are standing in the open).

Trissila, on 09 October 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

I was new to the game a month and a half or so ago. I had LRMs figured out in about a week, tops. I am not some amazing god of gaming, just an average person of average intelligence and ability. It's not unreasonable to expect people to improve to that level.

You are new here, most players really aren't even average skill level players compared to your typical game, I really want LRMs to be buffed, but I also don't want new players to get a taste of LRMaggeddon like has happened in the past and immediately quit. Plus, LRMs have needed better mechanics since the beginning so that they require a bit more skill to use (like MW4 lock mechanics).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 October 2017 - 03:38 PM.

[naterist]

Good idea OP

[MadRover]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

Plus, LRMs have needed better mechanics since the beginning so that they require a bit more skill to use (like MW4 lock mechanics).

Yeah MW4 had a nice lock mechanic. Not too sure about the others though.