216 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

This topic:

[Leggin Ho]

LRM boats outside of teams that use them just promote bad game play in anything other that single QP (even then they don't do much for their side). With the shared lock being allowed you actually reduce the roles of scouts that in lore or even other versions of MW would have been running TAG or Narc's and when you face a team that is set up LRM's and proper scouts they can do a lot of damage, but the OP I think has more of a problem with them being used to promote bad teamwork in QP games by allowing folks to just sit and hide while the rest of their team get's beat on till the LRM boat is last to die, even if they did damage, it's usually spread all over to the point that it did not help the team at all.

[Lugin]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 09 October 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

totally agree, the target sharing hurts new pilots ability to grow and learn, why learn to trade or explore the maps to find good positions to get your own locks when you can just depend on your team to get them for you.

but also target sharing traditionally isnt automatic as it is in MWO, there is a system called the C3 Network in the lore and i think it has a place in MWO if PGI ever wanted to impliment it.

Oh look, another one of these. I REALLY need to copy out the relevant sections of rules.
Spotting for indirect fire in TT is done much the same way as in MWO. Only one unit with LOS declared as spotter, and any number of friendly units can throw indirect-capable fire at the target.

I'd actually venture that the lock riding system we have in MWO is as close to the indirect spotting rules as is feasible.

Actual rules:

Total Warfare, pg 111 said:

LRM Indirect Fire

Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that attack would have a better to-hit modifier.

Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery Skill. Use the following modifiers:

• Range modifier based on the range between the target and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;

• +1 for indirect fire;

• All standard modifiers for target movement;

• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no attacker movement modifier for spotting);

• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless of whether partial cover shields the target from either the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location; see Partial Cover, p. 102.)

Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot spot for multiple targets.

Quote

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Network

but i would say meet halfway because if everyone brings C3 slave units and no on brings a master the network wont work, quickplay being random teams i can see it being totally useless

and you need 3 slave units with 1 master for the system to work, so i say just fudge the timeline a smidge and just give us the C3i which is functionally a Master/Slave rolled into one, just to keep things simple.

http://www.sarna.net...ved_C3_Computer

yes it would end up being mandatory equipment on most IS mechs but this can be a good thing because

1 it encourages high level players that min/max to practice their communication and coord more rather than just depending on the minimap, or take slightly less min/maxed mechs and throw on the C3i or run narcing scouts

2 it increases TTK slightly because its a 2.5 ton 2 slot tax on mechs that want to use it.

3 it gives us a lore based reason for the dorito sharing that currently is "free equipment" on all mechs

4 the list of clan mechs that can equip a C3 can be counted on one hand and they are all jihad era mechs, most of them one offs or "unique" mechs. otherwise the clans do not get C3 at all, which would make for a good tradeoff for what amounts to better tech and mechs.

5 it would encourage the use of Narcs by all sides as a way to share targets without using the C3, and let the clans still have an option for target sharing.

so scounts have options and would be encouraged to run that BAP, C3i and a tag/narc, they could do some serious scouting. and scouts wouldnt get insta pasted by LRMS just because they cant equp the magic jesus box (ECM), strategy and tactics would be more preeminent.

really there are very few good reasons to keep target sharing the way it is over using lore based equipment to further define role warfare.

LRMs can finally be allowed to be good weapons, with high velocity and a good arc to clear cover. so they are useful out to long range and they wouldnt be automatically OP like the previous lurmageddons.

and maybe finally ECM can return to its true purpose of canceling BAP/Artemies buffs, shielding freindly units that have been Narc'd and just increasing lock on time, vs the angel ECM suite that it really is.

Oh look, something else with behavior described by actual rules.

Pst. C3 doesn't affect indirect fire.

C3 only affects range-based targeting bonus/penalty.

Total Warfare, pg 131 said:

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)

The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information.

To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit number at long range.

The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.

TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Minimum Ranges: Minimum range is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Variable Damage Weapons: The range, to determine the Damage Value of a Variable Damage Weapon, is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Stealth Armor: Armor that inflicts range modifiers against attacking units does not confuse a C3 network. While such additional range modifiers apply to the nearest attacking unit, they do not apply to any other units using the network to attack. However, some such systems (notably the Stealth Armor System, p. 142) include their own ECM system; in this case, an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cut off from the network.

So by the rules, all units within a C3 network would function like our UAVs, limited by LOS, for every other unit in the network. But you can't use a C3 network for indirect fire. So if tossed into MWO, targets passed by C3 would need to be differentiated for passed locks (LRM spotting).

Also, you CAN use all C3 masters in a network. Heavy, but could be done.


And while I'm riding the rage, you want to make (standard, not iNarc) Narc better?
Follow the rules for it. It has no duration limit. Once something is tagged by it, it stays tagged for the entire fight, unless the section the beacon hit is destroyed.

Rules:

Total Warfare, pg 138-139 said:

NARC MISSILE BEACON

If a Narc missile beacon attack hits, the Narc pod is attached to the target unit; the target’s player should still roll a hit location to determine exactly where the pod attaches. If that location is destroyed during any subsequent turn, the pod is also destroyed and its effects are lost during the end of the phase in which the location was destroyed.

In all following combat phases, any unit attacking with Narc-equipped missiles adds +2 to the result of the roll on the Cluster Hits Table. This modifier remains in effect for the targeted unit throughout the rest of the battle.

Other Narc pods attached to a target have no additional effect. Other Narc beacons in the target hex do not confuse Narc-guided missiles. The Narc system can be used to aid narc-equipped SRM and LRM missile attacks, but does not affect attacks made with special munitions or launchers.

Critical Hits: Exploding Narc ammo causes 2 points of damage per pod.

Buildings: Narc pods cannot be fired into or inside buildings.

ECM: Narc-guided missiles function like conventional missiles if the narc pod they are homing in on is within the “bubble” of an active enemy ECM suite; they do not receive the +2 modifier when rolling on the Cluster Hits Table (See ECM Suite, p. 134).

Indirect LRM Fire: Once a Narc pod is attached to a target, all Narc-equipped missiles may be fired indirectly at a target without a spotter; all other standard modifiers for Indirect LRM fire apply (see p. 111). In addition, if used in this manner, the Narc-equipped missiles lose their +2 modifier to the roll result on the Cluster Hits Table.

Infantry: A Narc missile beacon cannot be used to attack infantry.

And now I have the start of that reference.txt.

Seriously, it's always LRMs, C3, and people convinced we already have "weight-free C3" in MWO...

[Leggin Ho]

I'm still waiting my turn to throw the dice myself........

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

In lower level play sure

I made it to tier 1, I want to log on and have high level play. Maybe I'm clicking the wrong ready button.

Prosperity Park, on 09 October 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

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?

That's great. MLG e-sports for life, comp is everything.

Tirant Lo Blanc, on 09 October 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

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

It would be great if everyone could aim, but they can't, so we have alternatives like LRMs and Streaks.

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

so they could still be buffed to potentially be potent enough to justify taking in higher tiers.

They work just fine in tier 1. Anything works outside of comp, they're 2 different worlds that don't want to be anything like the other and that shouldn't care about eachother.

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

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).

This actually made me almost change my mind. I'd prefer much bigger maps with many more mechs and indirect fire buffed through the roof, so spotting was as important as shooting and LRM boats were critical targets that had to be located and ambushed. But, this is a dumbed down arena shooter. For what this game is, LRMs might as well get AC20 velocity, no locks and we could call it a day. PGI really ****** this game up.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

How is that a reduction in capacity for scouts.....? Scouts can share information without using the buddy sharing lock, that's what VOIP is for, if anything it puts QP more in-line with comp given that sharing locks isn't how you get useful scouting info in comp (especially since you can't share seismic targets).

I'm not sure why you seem to think it doesn't even without shared locks. It just changes how you get that info (VOIP or text rather than through the game).

Probably map info, where the guy in terms of direction and elevation upon your field of view. Useful with something with immense vertical, or just top or bottom floors.

Not to mention that NOT EVERYONE uses VOIP. MWO is not just comp, it's also filled with casuals who just want to take a load-off and have fun.

Sure locks could be neglected as well, but seeing that it's actually far more detailed to do so, as it provides a myriad of other information that could be propagated far quicker than simply yelling it on the comms, it would be far better to just use the Locks than VOIP.

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

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).

https://mwomercs.com...ng-lrms-better/

I'm all for a better LRM, but screwing over teamwork like that is just a disservice to the teamwork aspect of the game itself. Buddy locks does promote bad play, but it also affect the ability of us providing indirect-fire help or any other magic we can pull off.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 October 2017 - 06:18 PM.

[LordNothing]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 09 October 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

totally agree, the target sharing hurts new pilots ability to grow and learn, why learn to trade or explore the maps to find good positions to get your own locks when you can just depend on your team to get them for you.

but also target sharing traditionally isnt automatic as it is in MWO, there is a system called the C3 Network in the lore and i think it has a place in MWO if PGI ever wanted to impliment it.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Network

but i would say meet halfway because if everyone brings C3 slave units and no on brings a master the network wont work, quickplay being random teams i can see it being totally useless

and you need 3 slave units with 1 master for the system to work, so i say just fudge the timeline a smidge and just give us the C3i which is functionally a Master/Slave rolled into one, just to keep things simple.

http://www.sarna.net...ved_C3_Computer

yes it would end up being mandatory equipment on most IS mechs but this can be a good thing because

1 it encourages high level players that min/max to practice their communication and coord more rather than just depending on the minimap, or take slightly less min/maxed mechs and throw on the C3i or run narcing scouts

2 it increases TTK slightly because its a 2.5 ton 2 slot tax on mechs that want to use it.

3 it gives us a lore based reason for the dorito sharing that currently is "free equipment" on all mechs

4 the list of clan mechs that can equip a C3 can be counted on one hand and they are all jihad era mechs, most of them one offs or "unique" mechs. otherwise the clans do not get C3 at all, which would make for a good tradeoff for what amounts to better tech and mechs.

5 it would encourage the use of Narcs by all sides as a way to share targets without using the C3, and let the clans still have an option for target sharing.

so scounts have options and would be encouraged to run that BAP, C3i and a tag/narc, they could do some serious scouting. and scouts wouldnt get insta pasted by LRMS just because they cant equp the magic jesus box (ECM), strategy and tactics would be more preeminent.

really there are very few good reasons to keep target sharing the way it is over using lore based equipment to further define role warfare.

LRMs can finally be allowed to be good weapons, with high velocity and a good arc to clear cover. so they are useful out to long range and they wouldnt be automatically OP like the previous lurmageddons.

and maybe finally ECM can return to its true purpose of canceling BAP/Artemies buffs, shielding freindly units that have been Narc'd and just increasing lock on time, vs the angel ECM suite that it really is.

living legends implements c3 more like c3i. but you cant just have c3i alone under mwo, it would just break missiles for that subset of players that still swears by them. it works in living legends because of the well thought out interactions between various electronic warfare components. mwo just doesnt have that kind of depth. and i honestly dont think pgi is capable of re-produceing it either. what we would end up getting is a half measure that is going to make this community spew sodium cloride out of every available meat hole and a few new ones.

Edited by LordNothing, 09 October 2017 - 06:08 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

it's also filled with casuals who just want to take a load-off and have fun.

This sort of change will not impact them then. This is a stupid argument because it implies that somehow certain balance changes matter to these players but others don't. Providing a more interesting dynamic for LRM users as well could improve those same players. The only people this sort of change actually hurts, is the typical LRM boat that thinks he is useful sitting on the edge of 1000m lobbing LRMs.

Sure locks could be neglected as well, but seeing that it's actually far more detailed to do so, as it provides a myriad of other information that could be propagated far quicker than simply yelling it on the comms, it would be far better to just use the Locks than VOIP.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

I'm all for a better LRM, but screwing over teamwork like that is just a disservice to the teamwork aspect of the game itself. Buddy locks does promote bad play, but it also affect the ability of us providing indirect-fire help or any other magic we can pull off.

Screwing over teamwork......lolwut

First, we are talking about solo queue where there virtually IS NO teamwork. Remember above? How you said people play this to just take a load off? What do they care about teamwork?
Second, that magic indirect-fire is PRECISELY the reason that LRMs are never buffed. There is no good counterplay in the lower tiers against mass LRM fire.

adamts01, on 09 October 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

I made it to tier 1, I want to log on and have high level play. Maybe I'm clicking the wrong ready button.

Then get out of solo queue...

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

This actually made me almost change my mind. I'd prefer much bigger maps with many more mechs and indirect fire buffed through the roof, so spotting was as important as shooting and LRM boats were critical targets that had to be located and ambushed. But, this is a dumbed down arena shooter. For what this game is, LRMs might as well get AC20 velocity, no locks and we could call it a day. PGI really ****** this game up.

None of this makes any sense.

[Formosa The God]

easy, just remove the buddy lock for anyone that does not have a C3 command or slave unit (Cyclops can have command built in), it only works for your lance (so command and 3 other mechs), this would make communicating much more important and those tryhards who refuse to play as part of a team would get no target locks and no sensor info from any other mechs, it would also mean those lights could take a slave system and bam! they are spotters for the lurms.

[InvictusLee]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

First, we are talking about solo queue where there virtually IS NO teamwork. Remember above? How you said people play this to just take a load off? What do they care about teamwork?

So why not just be rid of solo que altogether? I feel like it would solve 100% of the issue you guys are arguing over.

[Dee Eight]

November11th, on 09 October 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

So why not just be rid of solo que altogether? I feel like it would solve 100% of the issue you guys are arguing over.

Because...then the game would die in a day. Easily 90% if not more of the QP audience do NOT use the groups method. How long do you think the game will go on when folks don't want to queue for 30 mins to get a match ?

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

This sort of change will not impact them then. This is a stupid argument because it implies that somehow certain balance changes matter to these players but others don't. Providing a more interesting dynamic for LRM users as well could improve those same players. The only people this sort of change actually hurts, is the typical LRM boat that thinks he is useful sitting on the edge of 1000m lobbing LRMs.

You know what is stupid? Only looking things at a microscope, so much so that you miss the bigger picture.

Not everybody have access, or willing to use VOIP, and shared locks provide a lot more information that it only takes for the receiving end to read, not for the transmitting end to actually find words.

It's not a stupid argument, it's not even an argument, it's an explanation and I'm outlining it. Whether you like it or not, there are features in MWO that isn't fully utilized by certain people, and the reduction of certain features will have an impact to the team, not just the spud.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

How is that a reduction in capacity for scouts.....? Scouts can share information without using the buddy sharing lock, that's what VOIP is for, if anything it puts QP more in-line with comp given that sharing locks isn't how you get useful scouting info in comp (especially since you can't share seismic targets).

I'm not sure why you seem to think it doesn't even without shared locks. It just changes how you get that info (VOIP or text rather than through the game).

If there was a stupid argument, it would be this. Because it neglects to see the quality of information, and the ease of transmission of said information.

It also assumes that because Comp Scene, therefore a feature not used in comp-scene can just go away.

It's also self defeating, as you already outlined that you are providing less information, and lower quality of information. Your capacity is lessened. However, the real question is whether scouts and teams could still function with less information and lesser quality of information. In which teams can do so.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Screwing over teamwork......lolwut

First, we are talking about solo queue where there virtually IS NO teamwork. Remember above? How you said people play this to just take a load off? What do they care about teamwork.

It does happen that people in Solo-Queue can coordinate, not frequently, but they can. And when they do, when people actually respond to drop-calls, it's amazing.

Really? Are you sure you aren't also hurting people who actually have the strategy, and could produce the teamwork that would make use of indirect fire of LRMs? Really? Are you sure you aren't also hurting people who actually have the strategy, and could produce the teamwork that would make use of indirect fire of LRMs?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Second, that magic indirect-fire is PRECISELY the reason that LRMs are never buffed.

Rework could also work as well. Like how i suggested lessening the spamability of LRMs?

Making their cooldown higher, and have better significance of each volley, but not spammable, combined with so much more hurdle to make the missile land, would make them more untenable as primary weapons.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

There is no good counterplay in the lower tiers against mass LRM fire.

Yes there is, it's called Cover and AMS.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 October 2017 - 09:18 PM.

[Phlynn]

LRM play with shared locks:
support scouts coming under attack (add to their fire power, chase off/kill the attacker, vision reducing explosions)
support the assaults pushing in (replacing their diminished fire power as weapons are lost due to damage)
support team by forcing enemy scouts and snipers into cover (even when they take a high point beyond mech pitch)
support team by forcing mechs out of cover (by taking an angle to lob over cover or flank and fire)
support team by drawing the enemy towards you while the rest of the team takes a better position

LRM and locking:
easy to buy or use protection (ecm, ams, radar derp, stealth armor, cover - no other weapon group has this limitation)
locking does not indicate when the target is actually blocked by cover (it will still flash red when target is fully covered)
even when locked (red), hit rate still appears to be about 33%
takes time for locks to resolve and mech often required to face-tank to maintain a lock (no fancy torso twisting, peeking)
performance is highly dependent upon teamwork
min range for IS usually requires the mech to keep a distance
not all game modes are LRM friendly (escort is nearly unplayable, conquest and domination are a hard fit)

LRM and the community:
insults and cursing hurled at you on a regular basis (best to wear headphones if playing in a room with small children)
will, at times, have a caller who knows how to use the support builds (got to get that philanthropist achievement right?)
the push to weaken the weapon has been successful, yet people complain when teamed with weak weapons?

Taking away the team lock sharing just means more LRM pilots die to an opponent's alpha strike waiting for the locks to hold and resolve. LRMs are support weapons - some players don't desire to rule the map, just be part of a team.

[Brain Cancer]

Tarogato, on 09 October 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Agree with the OP.

I think people are misunderstanding. Allied missile locks is the problem that makes LRMs imbalanced, not shared targeting in general.

Wait, we're talking about the weapon system you'd never, ever see used seriously in competition as "imbalanced"?

Only if you mean "underpowered because it kills bad pilots easily, they whine, and LRMs get overnerfed". Even my "LRM boats" nowadays carry more ATM tonnage than LRM tonnage. Now, if you want to talk about bad players, be my guest. I see lurmturds every game, and depending on other people's locks is how you manage to make a third-rate weapon even worse...but that's a pilot problem, a timid guy in the pilot's seat who is terrified of taking damage.

If you get rid of indirect fire, it won't get rid of the bad players- you'll just complain more about the guys with AC/2's, light gauss, etc. firing at barely-tickle range because they want to hide in the back and not get shot. Seriously, I had a game today where I kept having my armor barely tickled constantly by gauss hits in my Supernova. WHOOM WHOOM WHOOM WHOOM.

When I get done killing what's in my sigWHOOMhts I WHOOM turn around anWHOOMd see a King Crab.

Standing there at about 1400m, firing quad light gauss at me. Not moving. Not walking forward. Just plinking me.

By the time I'm even in cruddy ATM dink range, he's already being flayed by a Commando with Streak racks. I add in a few missiles as I'm coming in, we blow both his arms off cause gaussbooms, and go find something better to kill when someone on the reds notices the circus and starts pew pewing at the little guy. It's not like he was going to do much missing all his guns, after all.

We eventually find him plodding towards our base at 50kph or so and end the game by finishing him off.

That's the kind of player that uses backfield lurmassaults and parasitically locks on anyone hitting the R key, regardless of accuracy, a need to be close enough to distract the enemy, or any really useful player actions. They won't get up there, they'll never share armor regardless of build, and will inevitably attempt to field something with lots of armor and tonnage (or alternatively, ECM and ERLL lights), the most range possible, and lightly caress your opponents while equating hits with effectiveness.

Screwing the guy who's flipping missiles over a hill at 400m while charging in to help you on Grim Plexus will never fix that. It's not the weapon system, it's the timid pilot in the seat firing it.

[Scout Derek]

MadRover, on 09 October 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

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

Yeah but you see, MW4 had a entirely different Radar mechanic too; You always knew where the enemy was within 1000M if they weren't using ECM. 500M I think if they were using ECM.

[Brain Cancer]

ThatNumbGuy, on 09 October 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

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.

Meanwhile, the whole "shared sensors" thing is precisely what TT allows. Every friendly unit can get sensor data, including range, and fire indirectly (with the appropriate weapons) using them as a spotter. You're playing in a tournament with three other people, if your unit can see them, everyone on the team can check it's sheet and if they're using LRMs, use your line of sight to spot for em.

It's not some supertechnical equipment that allows this. LRMs can be spotted for by a squad with rifles, never mind a tank or larger vehicle.

[Lugin]

Brain Cancer, on 09 October 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

It's not some supertechnical equipment that allows this. LRMs can be spotted for by a squad with rifles, never mind a tank or larger vehicle.

More hilarious than that, ejected pilots can do it too!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

You know what is stupid? Only looking things at a microscope, so much so that you miss the bigger picture.

Not everybody have access, or willing to use VOIP, and shared locks provide a lot more information that it only takes for the receiving end to read, not for the transmitting end to actually find words.

They also provide a way to exploit the ease of LRMs and lack of positioning on the lower end of play. I'm ok with getting people to use VOIP to transmit information if it means LRMs get to be more useful in the upper end of play. Discouraging bad play is only a bonus.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

It's not a stupid argument, it's not even an argument, it's an explanation and I'm outlining it. Whether you like it or not, there are features in MWO that isn't fully utilized by certain people, and the reduction of certain features will have an impact to the team, not just the spud.

A reduction of features for an increase in depth, pretty sure I'll take it.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Really? Are you sure you aren't also hurting people who actually have the strategy, and could produce the teamwork that would make use of indirect fire of LRMs?

First, LRMs aren't the only weapon that get better with strategy so let's stop pretending like somehow these are magical weapons with strategy.
Second, this doesn't magically kill teamwork either, so let's stop pretending that it does alright?

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

I get it that you're not much of a team-player?

You do realize I play on a team right? In comp you can't get away with being spud-queue superstars, you actually have to play as a team (just ask Sustained Eye Contact how well that worked for him).

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

It does happen that people in Solo-Queue can coordinate, not frequently, but they can. And when they do, when people actually respond to drop-calls, it's amazing.

It takes the stars to align for both people to coordinate AND respond to drop calls. Never did I say impossible (I may have implied it) but it is extremely rare such that it should not be considered a normal experience.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Rework could also work as well. Like how i suggested lessening the spamability of LRMs?

Making their cooldown higher, and have better significance of each volley, but not spammable, combined with so much more hurdle to make the missile land, would make them more untenable as primary weapons.

I honestly don't know what your rework was but it didn't involve significantly altering the ease of indirect fire and preferrably reworking lock mechanics entirely (MW4 missiles were damn near perfect imo) then I probably didn't pay attention.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yes there is, it's called Covers and AMS. The actual problem potatos getting them to use it.

You will never fix the issue with potatoes not being able to use them, that's kinda the point.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

That's not from me.

Bad quote, my bad, will go back and fix the quote.

Scout Derek, on 09 October 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

Yeah but you see, MW4 had a entirely different Radar mechanic too; You always knew where the enemy was within 1000M if they weren't using ECM. 500M I think if they were using ECM.

It wasn't entirely different, it just wasn't LoS based unless you played the MP3x mod (which offered a VERY similar feature) and there was no target sharing. Outside of that, you could lock on any mech regardless of doritos provided you were active which made a HUGE difference for missiles.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 October 2017 - 08:32 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

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?

See up a few posts. We had a 50kph King Crab that apparently needed the weight for more light gauss ammo.

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.

Start a smurf account, get yourself a nice laservomit Hellbringer and tell me how dangerous LRMs are compared to a build that can XL check most newbies in two shots, if they're lucky. When you're done seal clubbing a lance or so every game that way, explain to me why a weapon that spread-damages people slowly to death is a worse experience than the usual comp-level build of the month club.

What LRMs are is an opportunity weapon that becomes more effective as the opponent makes errors, being used at a level where pilot error is a given in large windows of opportunity. Once experience closes those windows to smaller ones, LRMs become average at best unless you're a predictive whiz, and by the time you get to the windows being virtually gone (comp level pokewarrior/mass push), LRMs simply don't exist as a viable weapon.

No weapon should be un-viable at the top, or else the weapon has been understatted. Not that I'm saying LRMs should ever deliver pinpoint frontloaded damage/shortburns like energy/ballistic, but they desperately need more accuracy in the form of velocity, especially considering you can't even surprise someone with lock-on missiles due to Ye Old MISSILES INCOMING.

It wouldn't even take much. Nudge direct fire velocity up a bit. Normalize spread so bigger launchers don't automatically waste damage with near misses even on stationary targets. Give unguided shots a flat-line trajectory so you can't automatically be defeated by tunnel roofs (and OMG, you'd even have to AIM!).

If you wanted to, you could even increase cooldown and increase damage to go with it, removing the ability to spamfire LRMs in those annoying blinding rains.

Until then, the utter disdain for LRMs in high-end play is a big neon sign pointing at it's lacks. Even ATMs are getting some use by comparison!

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

They also provide a way to exploit the ease of LRMs and lack of positioning on the lower end of play. I'm ok with getting people to use VOIP to transmit information if it means LRMs get to be more useful in the upper end of play. Discouraging bad play is only a bonus.

Oh so basically its you and your comp greed. Okay.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

A reduction of features for an increase in depth, pretty sure I'll take it.

And some of us won't.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

First, LRMs aren't the only weapon that get better with strategy so let's stop pretending like somehow these are magical weapons with strategy.

Sure, but having indirect fire, a perk, does affect how we strategize.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

Second, this doesn't magically kill teamwork either, so let's stop pretending that it does alright?

It's not that it kills team-work, but it does hurt the amount of available options. You might not respect other options, but there are people who do.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

You do realize I play on a team right? In comp you can't get away with being spud-queue superstars, you actually have to play as a team (just ask Sustained Eye Contact how well that worked for him).

Could have fooled me, especially how you conversed with us.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

It takes the stars to align for both people to coordinate AND respond to drop calls. Never did I say impossible (I may have implied it) but it is extremely rare such that it should not be considered a normal experience.

But the thing is that, MWO is a team-based game, and lessening the options that can foster better teamwork is a disservice. The tools to coordinate is there, you just take that away and they would even be less likely to be coordinated, and when they do it wouldn't be a good quality. You are only further encouraging people to neglect teamplay on an environment that it already rarely comes by, for a game that actually works with it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

I honestly don't know what your rework was but it didn't involve significantly altering the ease of indirect fire and preferrably reworking lock mechanics entirely (MW4 missiles were damn near perfect imo) then I probably didn't pay attention.

The link? https://mwomercs.com...ng-lrms-better/

Rework could also encompass a significant change in how one weapon is used. Not just some small improvement or worsening of small aspects.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

You will never fix the issue with potatoes not being able to use them, that's kinda the point.

Are you kidding? You talk about how some counterplay isn't good, but really the issue is the fact that they aren't being used. Don't you see, you commented about the criticism of quality of said counterplay, not about whether they are actually being used or not.

And potatoes being able to use them isn't really that bad, i would say the issue is for bad play to still have a good result. Indirect fire isn't necessarily bad play, and while it fosters bad play, actually having the effectiveness proportional with the skill of use would prompt spuds to actually get better as they are rewarded by actually doing things the right way.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 October 2017 - 09:07 PM.