216 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

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

Then get out of solo queue...

If only that were an option... My point is that you need to address the game we have. The gates are wide open in tier 1 matches and you can't get a CW or group que match outside of NA primetime. Your arguments are perfectly fine for the comp scene, but they just don't apply to the game the other 99% of players play.

[Brain Cancer]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 09 October 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

The indirect fire in TT is not a target lock at all, the spotter calls in the location of the enemy mech and the shooter is firing at a grid square, the rulebook even describes it as such.

Incorrect. The shot is always at a unit in the hex, with area-effect munitions being the general exception (mine-clearance ammo, in the case of LRMs). Artillery is fired at a hex, for example. (LRM indirect fire is in Total Warfare, page 111.

Quote

Since have homing missles, where are my Arrow IV's that these homing LRMs get their guidance system from? and why is a TAG not required equipment for indirect fire from these "semi guided LRM's"? and also, where did we get these massive stockpiles of extremely rare and expensive semi guided lrms?

LRMs actually are self-guided missiles, with the TT boosted guidance systems for semi-guided or NARC-guided (and Artemis for that matter) being upgrades to that. As to where Arrow IVs are? Blame PGI not being able to make weapons more than 12 spaces fit in a chassis.

Quote

I ask this because i was under the assumption that standard plain jane IS LRM's are in fact dumbfire missles, ours are guided.

This assumption is untrue. They're not very "smart" because of the ECM environment (not even taking Guardian ECM into account) in Battletech, it's a lot of electronic warfare) needing robust more than fancy guidance systems, but it's that system that is used as the basis for fancier, more costly munition options for the humble lurm. LRMs load data from the launcher and use that to identify and make corrections to hit their target.

Quote

"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."

"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"

This would again imply that neither the spotter nor the shooter are actually sharing a target lock and that indirect shots with plain jane IS LRMS are in fact a calculated dumb fire shot on a location relayed from the spotter.

LRMs default to launcher data, as that's the most constantly updated (and hence, usually the one providing better in-flight corrections). Secondary (spotter) data is generally considered less reliable and gets lower priority from the system.

Quote

"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."

neither pilot recieves any penalty for the spotter making an attack while spotting for indirect fire in MWO unlike TT, would you like for that penalty to be added?

You actually have a more difficult shot in MWO due to lock instability in most cases, unless your spotter has balls of titanium hanging under his cockpit. If you've ever lurmed, you know the pain of firing at something on the other side of a hill and watching the lock vanish because whoever hit R decided to look somewhere else. Likewise, the penalty of having to keep your face on the target while getting shot at may as well be a defensive penalty to the spotter, versus an offensive penalty to their fire in MWO. (Never mind holding a TAG on someone!).

Quote

no it doesn't but i'm not talking about indirect fire im talking about the fact that all friendlies share all enemy doritos within their LOS at all times, something that C3 does.

you perfectly described exactly how target sharing currently works in MWO, all mechs share all targets within their LOS with all other freindly mechs, kinda sounds to me like they all have some magical 0 ton 0 slot C3 equipment.

All units know where all visible enemy units are if even one of them has LOS, even under double-blind rules. This predates C3 systems in TT by a decade or so of real time and even applies if you're traipsing around on bicycles armed with nothing more than umbrellas and harsh language.

Quote

we have a spotting function it can be used for normal indirect fire with reduced accuracy just like how it works in TT.

It already IS lower accuracy versus direct fire.

Quote

Irrelavent for MWO quickplay where we dont have any advanced knowledge of which pilot has a master/slave unit, thus why i suggest we just simplify it to one unit for simplicities sake.

Because adding another 1.5T penalty to something you mistakenly believe to require advanced technology to perform in Battletech would be a farce.

Quote

iNarc is not in our timeline and so is irelevent, we have durations on narcs so that the weapon itself translates well into a FPS environment while still maintaining its functionality, it would be absolutely stupid to have narcs in this game last the whole match.

Of course, MWO NARC pods also don't get blown off by incoming fire either. But like most any complex piece of equipment in Battletech, PGI loves to kludge things up.

Quote

we do have free weight because mechs DO NOT SHARE TARGET LOCKS as we share target locks in MWO. They spot for eachother by relaying a location (grid square) on the battlefield or using a TAG or a NARC and it is C3 that allows mechs to actually share targeting information on an enemy units, kinda like what we have in MWO for free at 0 tons and 0 slots.

Incorrect.C3 isn't merely a target data sharing system, but it also includes the additional equipment needed to allow real-time, penalty-free adjustments based off of a networked sensor system. Indirect LRM fire is a much simpler (and hence, less accurate) system of considerably reduced information-sharing.

Quote

The rulebook even describes it as so. Otherwise why would i need a TAG to spot for semi guided LRMS?

Because "semi-guided" is a TAG-based booster to standard LRM guidance systems. It's not a complete guidance system in and of itself, thus "semi", but it does give a more efficient method of feeding tracking adjustments to LRMs in flight, and semi-guided LRM munitions default back to standard guidance mode without someone painting their target and sending better information.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

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

If wanting a deeper game is "comp greed" then sure, I'll take it.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

And some of us won't.

Then enjoy the shallowness of your gameplay because you refuse to make a weapon useful beyond lower tiers.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

It's not that it kills team-work, but it does hurt the amount of available options.

But the thing is that, MWO is a team-based game, and lessening the options that can foster better teamwork is a disservice.

How? By allowing LRMs to be useful outside of the lower ends? Don't get me wrong, I want an artillery weapon in this game (Arrow IV do want), but I want it to have a higher skill curve such that it isn't spammed in the low end and I also want a usable long range missile weapon so that missile mechs aren't relegated to just splat mechs when it comes to higher end play.

So where exactly is this lessening of options at? Low end? Doubt it, because it is the low end of play, you can get away with A LOT in low tiers, it just won't be as powerful against bad players.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

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

Maybe because you trying to espouse LRM/Scout strats as a shining example of how teamwork should work irks my nerves. You don't need mechanics that are dependent on each other to make mechs dependent their team. Teamwork is required to actually get good at this game. You think PUG super-group would actually be able to play at the same level as most comp teams? Lolno, because that cohesion won't be there and that cohesion is what can make teams (in fact it used to be SJR's sort of claim to fame a long time ago).

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

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.

It needs much more thought because it doesn't really fix fundamental problems with them, it just makes them less spammable for a bit better velocity.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

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.

Counter-play works at both ends, in the lower levels, cover is not really a good counter because most players haven't learned how useful cover can be, that's kinda something you learn (sometimes, not all players learn this). Expecting new players to magically know how useful cover is in this game is how you end up with LRM OP threads, it just isn't a concept that is grasped by most players for some reason.

In high ends of play where cover is an understood concept, it is too strong against LRMs and therein lies the problem, you have a weapon that is way to situational and exploitative of new players not having knowledge of how the game is played. To me that sounds like a bad weapon system and you enjoy having a weapon that exploits new players under the pretense you are being "strategical".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 09 October 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Your arguments are perfectly fine for the comp scene, but they just don't apply to the game the other 99% of players play.

Then fixing LRMs so that they are exploitative should fit you if you aren't seeing high level play even in tier 1. In an ideal world PGI would fix the exploitative nature of LRMs but that isn't going to happen anytime soon given how lock-on mechanics are tied to doritos, so fixing the doritos is a good enough mitigating factor as far as I'm concerned to ensure that LRMs actually get buffed for direct fire scenarios (WTB fire and forget LRMs) so they are useful beyond just those very situational times.

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:43 PM, said:

Then fixing LRMs so that they are exploitative should fit you if you aren't seeing high level play even in tier 1. In an ideal world PGI would fix the exploitative nature of LRMs but that isn't going to happen anytime soon given how lock-on mechanics are tied to doritos, so fixing the doritos is a good enough mitigating factor as far as I'm concerned to ensure that LRMs actually get buffed for direct fire scenarios (WTB fire and forget LRMs) so they are useful beyond just those very situational times.

LRMs and somewhat ATMs are the only options besides direct fire, and I don't want to see that ability crippled, as the game is already dumbed down enough as it is. I just hate this awful arena mode game PGI built. Mechwarrior has so much more potential. Me hanging on to the last piece of non-e-sports weaponry is just as silly as you thinking this game will ever have a good competitive scene. I'd actually lean towards buffing indirect fire, but with serious changes to electronics, such as active/passive radar, no more hard counters with ECM/AP, an invisible TAG, no indicators at all unless someone has a mech targeted and electronics to share that data.... Everything is just so simple and stupid, especially as one rises through the tiers. Or at least when PSR was first introduced, everyone is in the same matches at this point, with the PSR XP bar and dwindling population.

[Tarogato]

Brain Cancer, on 09 October 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

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

Yes, absolutely.

You're missing my point, but it's my fault for not elucidating. Notice I said "imbalanced", which doesn't specify whether they are strong or weak. LRMs are imbalanced because they are too strong in potato land and too weak in meta land. I believe the reason for this is because of the ease of shared locks and indirect fire, which is an attractive attribute for care-free low-effort casual play and leads to LRMs being seen en masse in lower tiers (and even higher "tiers"). And then there's the matter of LRMs being obscenely overpowered on a map like Polar Highlands between unorganised teams yet being completely useless on maps like HPG, Mining, and Bog. Again, imbalanced. Why? Because they can so easily be fired indirectly, which is such a massive advantage that they need to be saddled with garbage base stats (velocity, spread) so that they aren't universally overpowered.

I believe the ability to acquire vanilla missile locks indirectly should be greatly reduced, so that LRMs can be buffed into a much more potent weapon system, capable of direct fire and also being worth the effort of supporting with Narc/TAG - think about it, right now running a support build with TAG/Narc is pretty pointless, because LRM boats can already easily get indirect locks from any ally regardless of equipment.

Edited by Tarogato, 09 October 2017 - 10:09 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:43 PM, said:

Then fixing LRMs so that they are exploitative should fit you if you aren't seeing high level play even in tier 1. In an ideal world PGI would fix the exploitative nature of LRMs but that isn't going to happen anytime soon given how lock-on mechanics are tied to doritos, so fixing the doritos is a good enough mitigating factor as far as I'm concerned to ensure that LRMs actually get buffed for direct fire scenarios (WTB fire and forget LRMs) so they are useful beyond just those very situational times.

What's to exploit if an LRM can be completely negated by equipment or simply competent play?

It's somehow OP because lurmtaters can attempt to fire at obscene ranges and splash missiles over most of a map square trying to hit anything with half a brain and negating their own Artemis boosters (if they're not so potato as to ignore them in favor of MORE MISSILE TUBES LOLOLOLOL)?

I mean, we're talking a weapon so weak that by itself, it will lose to an equal tonnage of direct-fire weaponry unless the pilot can somehow not get hit. I had to swap half my LRM tubes for ATM launchers because frankly, LRMs have all the stopping power of spitballs compared to pumping AC or laser fire into an opponent and using any kind of decently ranged Clan missile means you magically stop doing damage at around 120m if you find a red dorito up your nose.

Heck, comp play is all about exploiting the system to maximum effectiveness.

You can't do that with LRMs. If they're exploitive, they're the weakest exploitation ever in MWO, perhaps slightly above collision damage.

[Brain Cancer]

Tarogato, on 09 October 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

Yes, absolutely.

You're missing my point, but it's my fault for not elucidating. Notice I said "imbalanced", which doesn't specify whether they are strong or weak. LRMs are imbalanced because they are too strong in potato land and too weak in meta land.

You cannot balance a weapon based on it being OP against stupid players who fail at basic strategy, equipment use, or situational awareness.

If it can be regularly and effectively countered by readily available gear and expected competent tactics, the weapon is simply underpowered and imbalanced, period.

Balancing a weapon based on what it does to T5 players who don't have basic defensive concepts down is ridiculous. These are people who will complain about being lurmed, yet seeing AMS in the seal-clubbing matches is actually rarer than seeing it in regular play in experienced areas, when it's bothered with at all.

Strap AMS on every T5 player like a training wheel and you'd barely see a complaint about the things from the potato fields. That's how underpowered the weapon is. But we can't. Because T5 players are bad at the game, and it's their below-average skills and knowhow that are used to judge the lurm.

If we did the same thing with what you can do with the average comp build loadout, we'd have halved damage and added cone of fire by now. And we both know how ridiculous that would be. Yet, it's the constant litany of "WE CAN'T HAVE LURMAGEDDON!" that echoes across the forums.

What a crock. The effectiveness against an incomplete skillset should never be the point of determination, as it automatically generates an incomplete analysis of the weapon in question. The true measure of the LRM is in every rightful disdain of the thing at high levels of play. We don't nerf the laser or PPC because someone from Lords could casually gank noobs with them, do we?

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

If wanting a deeper game is "comp greed" then sure, I'll take it.

Then enjoy the shallowness of your gameplay because you refuse to make a weapon useful beyond lower tiers.

Depth of gameplay can also achieved other than removing indirect fire. Your proposal isn't the only option, and the disagreement of it doesn't mean that we just enjoy it being shallow or bad.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

How? By allowing LRMs to be useful outside of the lower ends? Don't get me wrong, I want an artillery weapon in this game (Arrow IV do want), but I want it to have a higher skill curve such that it isn't spammed in the low end and I also want a usable long range missile weapon so that missile mechs aren't relegated to just splat mechs when it comes to higher end play.

Other weapons are also spammed, don't be silly. Of course spammed ineffectively, yes i don't want that either. BUT it can be achieved by other means, that doesn't include reducing the amount of other strategies that could be employed. i.e. a competent LRM battery.

You can also still use the LRMs not by Indirect fire or buddy lock right now at comp. And while i get that you want to lose the indirect fire for it to be open to buffs, the thing is that it could still work with indirect fire.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

So where exactly is this lessening of options at? Low end? Doubt it, because it is the low end of play, you can get away with A LOT in low tiers, it just won't be as powerful against bad players.

So it's not lessening the options, because you can get away with a lot of things in lower tiers? What kind of reasoning is that? It's non-sequitur that's what. You removed an option you could do in the battlefield, how is being an environment a lot more forgiving relate to that? 100 - 1 = 99. Are you really saying that 100 = 99?

Maybe you're saying that, there's still a lot of other options that would work. Losing a few isn't the end of the world. Sure okay. But the thing is that, I, and a few others don't want to.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

Maybe because you trying to espouse LRM/Scout strats as a shining example of how teamwork should work irks my nerves.

I really don't care about your nerves. But it's not that it's a shining example, it's just that it's an option to do so, which people can or cannot perform it well. On the idea that many people just couldn't do it right, you want to prevent the people who could do so well.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

You don't need mechanics that are dependent on each other to make mechs dependent their team. Teamwork is required to actually get good at this game.

But it's not like they couldn't coordinate team-work using indirect locks. It's not that we need certain mechanics, but it would be nice to have one -- and it's part of the BT game which people expect MWO to have.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

You think PUG super-group would actually be able to play at the same level as most comp teams? Lolno, because that cohesion won't be there and that cohesion is what can make teams (in fact it used to be SJR's sort of claim to fame a long time ago).

And i never said that. BUT MWO is a team-game, and team-play would still be a significant factor in matches, should it actually happen.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

It needs much more thought because it doesn't really fix fundamental problems with them, it just makes them less spammable for a bit better velocity.

Only if you think Indirect fire support is a problem, which many of us don't really. Less spammable, better velocity, does not need retained lock which is a big plus because you don't need to stare, you forced to be more thoughtful of your volleys which would require a bit more skill than before, and would work less better a primary weapon.

I'm not gonna say that it's going to be a complete deterrent to potato and bad play, but it would have better correlation with effectiveness to skill of use.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

Counter-play works at both ends, in the lower levels, cover is not really a good counter because most players haven't learned how useful cover can be, that's kinda something you learn (sometimes, not all players learn this). Expecting new players to magically know how useful cover is in this game is how you end up with LRM OP threads, it just isn't a concept that is grasped by most players for some reason.

That's still far from covers and AMS being magically inadequate just because potatoes aren't using them correctly, or not using them at all. We don't expect them to magically know, we expect them to learn, as with anything with life.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

In high ends of play where cover is an understood concept, it is too strong against LRMs and therein lies the problem, you have a weapon that is way to situational and exploitative of new players not having knowledge of how the game is played. To me that sounds like a bad weapon system and you enjoy having a weapon that exploits new players under the pretense you are being "strategical".

If the cover is the problem, how would making LRM users get their own locks make Covers less of a Problem? It's not like if they have a sight of you and sent lrms on your way, you couldn't just move back to cover, and the cover would still be as good in blocking LRMs as they are before.

If anything, it makes cover even more powerful because we can't send LRMs over cover that's not adequate enough to block the LRMs coming from above, thus defeating low cover. If you have LOS of them, then the Cover isn't working so what's the point of LRMs going above said cover then?

You think it evens out because both parties are exposed? The immense range is still going to be a problem with parasitism, especially if the target doesn't have long-range weapons. And while you increase the vulnerability of LRM user for making them get LOS, the terribads would still be vulnerable and would still have a lot of LRMs on their way anyways.

Sure okay, increase of risk to the side of the LRM would make it open for more buffs. But guess what, the terribads will still be terribads, they would still be killed because they can't use cover correctly. We can only do so much to cover for their inadequacy. What's next, are you going to want to remove the LRM homing system too cause terribads are ******? Because homing missiles are a crutch to effective aiming?

You say that you want it to be better, but really it will just make things worse. The efficacy of this proposal is shoddy.

No, it's not that it's "strategical", but it has certain advantages that could be used for certain strategies that allows a (slightly) better diversity of approach.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 October 2017 - 03:14 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

I have learned to live with jerks using it as a beacon of who is almost dead and thus can finally be targeted. If I had a penny for every time I have brawled a target for a period of time, only to have a teammate show up at the very last second (jumping over a hill or just finally moving out of a corner they had been hiding in and looking at target locks), I'd have many pennies.

[Kotzi]

Guess teamwork is lostech. My kill, my damage, my name on the top of a useless epeenpumping list. Thats what matters.

[Shifty McSwift]

Kotzi, on 09 October 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

Guess teamwork is lostech. My kill, my damage, my name on the top of a useless epeenpumping list. Thats what matters.

To a percentage of players for sure, but there's good people/teammates out there too, sometimes they are just levelling crap mechs or in a bad mood too, so it can be hard to find consistency.

[Vellron2005]

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

Sounds like another SRM rusher to me.. dude, the point of the game is not to get shot and die.. it's to kill the other guy and do the objective..

Personally, the LESS damage I can take while killing and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy, the better. LRM boats, snipers and such, are not frontliner tanks.. their armor is not meant for facetanking..

You would not ask an artillery truck to go be a tank or troop transport, would you?

How about instead of crying about how people don't share armor you try to not rush off and die in point-blank ranges against an enemy ERLL firing line?

The role of support mechs like LRM boats and snipers is to - imagine that - support.

You do your job, and we will do ours, and in the end - we win.

if you don't like your assigned task of spotting and face tanking, maybe a brawler is not for you.

Also, keep in mind that many LRM boats (myself especially) actually DO have backup weapons, and once the ammo is spend, actively announce they are without ammo and they can be used as meat shields and point man of a push.. Assault LRM boats are great for this - you unload max damage, and then your team uses you as a shield, and pushes the enemy ALOT more effectively.

Edited by Vellron2005, 10 October 2017 - 12:32 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

Wait let me get this straight? A feature that's already shunned by a deranged few who loath a weapon and are willing to sabotage the team for the most petty of reasons, are now wanting even more team work related features removed.

Isn't MWO meant to be a team based game and not some lone wolf shooter?

Edited by Lupis Volk, 10 October 2017 - 12:38 AM.

[A Man In A Can]

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

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, on 09 October 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

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

I'm well aware of the spotting rules in the board game, and how even the smallest units with LOS can be indirect fire spotters. Don't mess with me.

The point I was making to McGral before either of you chimed in was on this particular bit right here.

Lugin, on 09 October 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

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

Why, Lugin? Let me tell you why.

MW3 and its expansion.

It's as simple as that. In that series of games, a particular two-piece system named C3 Computer (with Master and Slave versions respectively) was given a vastly different ability than the boardgame version. And that ability, decided by Microprose, was the ability to share radar with your lancemates, and by extension, you were able to lock onto targets well outside your radar range, or out of your LOS but within friendly LOS.

Ignoring everything else about the map design, LRM mechanics and gameplay of MW3 and its expansion, this ability sounds remarkably similar to the ability PGI gave all mechs as part of every mechs' sensors.

Similar enough to make an analogous statement like "we have weight-free C3 in MWO". And it would be justified as long as it is in reference to the MW3 version of the system.

That's all I was saying.

But since you two brought board game rules into the mix, paraphrased or quoted, it clearly shows C3 needs to be disambiguated (because C3 can also mean the VOIP that PGI released a while back) for proper inter-community relations on the topic.

Now, as for PGI's shared sensors system, I feel it functions like a spliced combination of both TT indirect (free for everybody but LOS only, and multiple friendly mechs can indirectly attack one target just like direct fire attacks) and TT C3 rules (why ECM has/had some of the effects it does/did with friendly mechs and personal sensors, as one example), with MW3's C3 as a model for introducing the combined mechanics into a MW title for the first time.

And because PGI wanted their MW title to have indirect fire shared locks mechanics from its very inception, with multiple elements of the core franchise supporting the ability to do so, the desire to remove it is practically heretical.

So no OP, you shall not have buddy locks removed simply because you feel it promotes bad behavior. Both buddy locks and bad behavior are here to stay from the very beginning. Your task now is to decide for yourself how else to deal or not deal with these two things knowing they won't change.

Edited by ThatNumbGuy, 10 October 2017 - 12:41 AM.

[MischiefSC]

So let locks share location information but have LRMs require a TAG or NARC lock to enable indirect fire.

Conversely I'd be in favor of a Sensor quirk for 'scout lights' to have every mech, locked or not, that they see show up on allied radar. Then you've got very useful scouting. There's a lot of sensor related tricks you could put into play to add value to scouting. The only real important issue is keeping it from making LRMs a problem, because the whole indirect fire thing is a game balance pile of ****.

[Joey Tankblaster]

Quote

So let locks share location information but have LRMs require a TAG or NARC lock to enable indirect fire.

Conversely I'd be in favor of a Sensor quirk for 'scout lights' to have every mech, locked or not, that they see show up on allied radar. Then you've got very useful scouting. There's a lot of sensor related tricks you could put into play to add value to scouting. The only real important issue is keeping it from making LRMs a problem, because the whole indirect fire thing is a game balance pile of ****.

This!

Quote

Wait let me get this straight? I feature that's already shunned by a deranged few who loath a weapon and are willing to sabotage the team for the most petty of reasons, are now wanting even more team work related features removed.

Isn't MWO meant to be a team based game and not some lone wolf shooter?

A NARC Raven intentionally tagging targets for his team - this is teamplay.

A Scout intentionally dropping UAVs to draw the attention of his team on the enemy - this is teamplay.

A LURM boat using TAG to mark its target and other LURMers can use this information - this is teamplay.

A brawler locking up his target to find the damaged section, passively passing this information to a LURM-boat sitting 600m behind him - this has nothing to do with teamplay.

[Lupis Volk]

Joey Tankblaster, on 10 October 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

A brawler locking up his target to find the damaged section, passively passing this information to a LURM-boat sitting 600m behind him - this has nothing to do with teamplay.

So pressing R isn't teamplay? Riiiight.

[Escef]

Xiphias, on 09 October 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

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.

Streaks don't instantly lock on. And a fresh Locust can facetank 36 Streaks and run away. Don't tell me it can't, because I've seen it happen a few times. Just yesterday I was tooling around in a Streak24 Griffin and it took me at least 4 volleys to drop a Cheetah. That's almost a full ton of ammo, plus weapons recycling 3 times, plus time to reacquire missile lock at least once while we were dancing around. Plus the damage I took from the Cheetah, plus the damage from the brawler Timby that tried to save him. (Thankfully, any LRM assets his team had weren't focused on me.)

This myth about how Streaks hard-counter lights just doesn't go away, for some reason. Tell you what, load up a mech with Streaks and hit the testing grounds, tell me how many volleys it takes you to drop stock lights.

[MischiefSC]

Lupis Volk, on 10 October 2017 - 12:42 AM, said:

So pressing R isn't teamplay? Riiiight.

He's pressing R for his own benefit, not the teams.

The complaints are about eliminating role warfare and keeping scouting valuable. Doing this would absolutely lend value to role warfare and keep scouting valuable - even more so than it is now.

What's the problem with the idea? What negatives come of requiring TAG/NARC for missile locks?