136 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 October 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

You are doing mostly "trickshots", at least until the last patch. Using lrms/atm at mostly 200-400m you allready needed to adjust your flightpath and arc to do this and you need some timing to not lose your lock or get it back fast enough.
At 500m+ the arc doesnt matter much.

Now say, what other trickshots you can do with your suggestion that the pre-patch lrms/amts cant do?

I didn't say that we don't have trick-shots before. This idea makes use of the "Trickshots" as the model to introduce more skill into the missile flight. Such as the most basic is to have people shoot at the sky to clear an obstacle, or shoot at the side to make LRMs curve and hit targets from the side. If you are really savvy, you can reduce the minimum range, or pop them on the rear. Of course with immense skill.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Ok so we go with your plan. replacing the current skill set for LRM use with your new format. We now have LRMs that are sufficently difficult to use (with the new "skills" and trick shots etc) that the terribads are capable of surviving the Lurmagedon tier.

So..now what? potatoes can avoid LRMs without the use of counter play since you actually stated the low tier players do not use counterplay therefore I assume this means LRM balance should not be based around counterplay mechanics but some sort of "skill" replacement plan .(yet no proposal to remove the current counterplay elements to compensate?)

No, LRMs can still be sent to their way. This just avoids indirect-fire from being accessible with such a low skill, which is the culprit of many deaths due to focus fire. The increase of the skill-floor for the user, we can assume at the indirect-fire becomes accessible at the same time the skill of the target is sufficiently high to make use at least the basic counter plays, that the hit-chance is relatively retained as before.

No, the LRMs are still balanced based on counterplays, but because they are not as effective as the are in lower-tier, and would present a (near) linear effectiveness, we can buff (or nerf) in terms of the high skill rather than the low skill.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

We now have these LRMs that look like they may require a degree in trigonometry to hit anything. Requiring a "skill" to use (that appears to be advanced mathematics or maybe precognition). The little nublets are no longer in fear of LRMs because...well "skills" I guess?

So does ppc bolts and acs, that's basically triangles. Of course you don't have to exaggerate it, the players don't need to have pin-point accuracy of arcs, they just need enough skill to land. It's not exactly that relevant if you cleared an obstacle by an inch or by a meter away, so long as you cleared it.

Yes, also skill.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Now how do we make these LRMs at all feasible to function against players who do use counterplay? How do we "buff" LRMs to be useful against higher tier players without resetting the whole shebang back to "lurmagedon tier" for the nublets?

We already solved the lurmageddon problem by quelling the efficiency that it has on the lower tier by introducing a harder way to do it, not readily accessible for the low-skilled. Sure they still get hit far more often versus an advanced player, but that quells the amount of LRMs that could be in the air going after them. And that's the aim.

Of course if you still have the opinion that the current changes are a nerf, we can always tweak the current damage output or modify it's efficiency. The effectiveness is pretty much linear, it should reflect relatively equal effectiveness from the high-skill environment and low-skill environment. But all things said and done, I'm not that sure with this new change if it would be completely straight.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

If we opt to increase velocity to reduce reaction time to evade them then Nublets are hit way way more often than advanced players. So this probably won't work.

To be fair, it's not like there's so much reaction time when we're being punched with AC/PPC holes. The idea only really tries to make LRMs harder to indirect fire with low skill -- on an environment of low-skill vs low-skill. There's not much i can do to low-skill vs high-skill.

Also with how the missile flight is set up, the higher the arc, the longer the travel time. That means through indirect-fire -- that allows easy focus fire, the travel-time is longer, and would provide low-skill their much needed window time. Unless of course the low-skill wise-up and shoots straight.

As for the high skill, they would be smart enough to shoot straight than an arc, to minimize travel time. And lets face it, landing a volley versus high skill takes an even higher skill, so it's practically a buff.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

If we opt to make LRMs deal more damage then,well again Nublets will be hit more often than advanced players so they would be getting more damage than the "unbuffed" LRMs we started with but then buffed to effect higher skill targets and it's Lurmagedon tier again.

Do we alter spread? Well again the Nublets being less skilled than advanced players will be hit more often and as such will be taking more damage than the previously unbuffed LRMs caused...Lurmagedon again it seems.

Considering that the indirect-fire causing focus-fire is solved, the skew wouldn't be as that big. If it's near equally effective at high tier, not by an exaggerated skew, that's close enough, that's at an acceptable margin. At least for me.

Likewise, the screen shake -- LRMs would deal more yes. But they would shake noob cockpits less frequently, so it wouldn't be as disturbing.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

We can't balance off counterplay (apparently) because the Nublets don't counterplay. So this won't work.

Not with that attitude.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

So how do we balance for the lowest percentile yet have the LRMs be at all functional against advanced players?

Increase the skill floor.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

I can't think of any technique that improves capability of LRMs vs advanced players that doesn't trigger the exponential effects you want to avoid on lower tier players.

Oh so you can't think of, therefore nobody can? Likewise it doesn't have to be completely be eliminated, just at an acceptable margin -- margin of which allows better consideration of the higher tier in terms of balancing.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

So, I feel that balancing off potato means useless LRMs. or the whole idea is a wash because buffing the new LRMs just rounds back to exponential effectivness vs low tier players yet again removing the whole point in the first place.

Are you sure you just lack the imagination, and the capability of prediction? It doesn't "rounds back", it tries to eliminate -- can still work if it lessens.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

So I guess fundamentally we disagree. I do not see any value in balancing a weapon system so the worst players are less effected by it.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Because trickle up effects means an exponential reduction in performance as the targets become more skilled to the point of nigh uselessness of LRMs in higher tiers.

Conversely any attempts to improve LRMs vs higher skilled targets has an exponential effect on damage received by the lowest skill bracket of players. Removing the initial purpose for the change to begin with.

Unless we solve the equation (mechanics) so it wouldn't be, or less exponential. Which we won't achieve with that attitude.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

This is why I see no discernible value in the proposal.

That's because you're not looking at a larger picture. Such as one culprit of LRM death is focus fire. Hit-chance can stay relatively the same, but the complication of the mechanics to increase skill floor does negate the amount of LRMs the low-skill could take, because there's less LRMs in the air as an indirect fire.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

So I had a thought...

Newbies are hit by autocannons far more often than skilled players. This means there is an exponential effect of AC use on low tier players.

These low tier players are experiencing the Autocannonapocolypse!

I propose a shift in mechanics to compensate for the exponential effects of ACs on low skill players.

As it is now all a player needs to do to hit a target is aim at them and fire.

At higher levels of play there are counterplay options like moving or using cover but the nublets in low tier play do not use counterplay so we must balance for the lowest common denominator.

Given the ease of use of autocannons we need to alter the mechanics to reflect the needs of low tier play.

My proposal is to replace the low skill Autocannons with a new skill based design.

As it stands now the basic functioning of an AC is to aim at the target and maybe have to lead a target to compensate for projectile velocity and target movement. This is a fairly easy task that is a simple matter of eyeballing the lead distance.

My new proposal is that instead of having to lead a target we have the attacker aiming directly at the intended target. The low skill floor leading mechanic will be replaced with a charge up mechanics.

The charge up mechanic is pretty simple.

The longer you hold down on the "trigger" the more the projectile will arc in order to lead the target.

By holding the "trigger" down longer you will "lead" the target by a larger margin.

I also propose that the longer the lead distance needed the lower the damage of the projectile will be (to simulate dodging or torso twisting because counterplay doesn't happen with the lowest skill level players)

I really should have included some charts and graphs and stuff but...meh

This new improved skill based charging arc mechanic will solve the impending Autocannonapocolypse


How does that sound?

It sounds like the poorest satire ever made on the history of the inner sphere. Just as when you were beginning to look reasonable and open to discussion, then you pull this ****.

The problem of your proposal is that the weapon system; the ACs, the PPCs, Gauss, they have no -- or less of a skew than the LRMs, and they are relatively balanced at the high-tiers. LRMs, aren't so much, and it's that immense skew that prevents the much needed buff.

And then there's indirect fire that allows focus-fire on what might as well be "on-demand" with the low skill, something ACs, PPCs, Gauss, or Lasers couldn't do, which contributes a lot in terms of how much LRMs can one poor noob encounters.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 02:20 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

This idea makes use of the "Trickshots" as the model to introduce more skill into the missile flight. Such as the most basic is to have people shoot at the sky to clear an obstacle, or shoot at the side to make LRMs curve and hit targets from the side. If you are really savvy, you can reduce the minimum range, or pop them on the rear. Of course with immense skill.

That's because you're not looking at a larger picture. Such as one culprit of LRM death is focus fire. Hit-chance can stay relatively the same, but the complication of the mechanics to increase skill floor does negate the amount of LRMs the low-skill could take, because there's less LRMs in the air as an indirect fire.

Again, put ams in trialmechs, low tier problem solved.
You allready need to shoot to the sky or side, but i reapeat me ...
Yeah give us back the lrmamageddon with headshooting and backcoring lrms!!111Eleven

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

And that's the thing, you have to put too much skill for too little recompense to your trouble, compare that to other weapons, that doesn't sit well for me. Also why it's not as used in Comp, or as effective in high tiers.

Do you see your contradictions?

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 October 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

Again, put ams in trialmechs, low tier problem solved.

And if it doesn't, then i get a turn.

Kroete, on 20 October 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

You allready need to shoot to the sky or side, but i reapeat me ...

Not necessarily with the inherent angle of firing.

Kroete, on 20 October 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

Do you see your contradictions?

Trick question, there isn't any. You're only assuming that what i'm doing is counter productive, but you're not really even understanding what i intend to do. That's because you're looking at those with such a narrow point of view. Or you didn't read i right -- which ever, or both.

Also out of context.

Quote

"This idea makes use of the "Trickshots" as the model to introduce more skill into the missile flight."

"but the complication of the mechanics to increase skill floor does negate the amount of LRMs the low-skill could take"

This should quell the skew on the low part. If you can already aim, you're cleared for making indirect fires. If you can already bend LRMs, you only need to learn other possible uses. It's skill floor, not skill ceiling.

The skills such as positioning, knowing when to lurm, lurming with your team. etc. is still valid, still still going to work.

Quote

"you have to put too much skill for too little recompense to your trouble, compare that to other weapons, that doesn't sit well for me"

This is the current nature of the weapon in terms of it's balance, a comment, an observation. It's about the output -- the little result, while the first two is about the process itself.

The last part might sounds like nerf, but it does open up the weapon to more buffs since the effectiveness on the lower tier is more in line to the effectiveness of the higher tier. And whether the added damage, velocity, etc. is a buff, it's debatable, but i think it is.

Consider the "recompense for trouble", even if i increase the skill, it's okay so long as i improved the effects that result in better result with input skill. Such as better damage, better velocity, no longer needs sustained missile locks but target locks, smaller spread. Etc.

Again, this is the model:

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 02:12 AM, said:

It sounds like the poorest satire ever made on the history of the inner sphere. Just as when you were beginning to look reasonable and open to discussion, then you pull this ****.

The problem of your proposal is that the weapon system; the ACs, the PPCs, Gauss, they have no -- or less of a skew than the LRMs, and they are relatively balanced at the high-tiers. LRMs, aren't so much, and it's that immense skew that prevents the much needed buff.

And then there's indirect fire that allows focus-fire on what might as well be "on-demand" with the low skill, something ACs, PPCs, Gauss, or Lasers couldn't do, which contributes a lot in terms of how much LRMs can one poor noob encounters.

But is my idea bad? I mean Autocannons are far more effective when employed against low skill targets as opposed to high skill targets.

There is plenty of evidence to support this.

And my idea does solve the issue with low skill "leading" mechanics by requiring a sense of both leading and timing. This will clearly solve the issue with the exponential effects of ACs on low tier targets.

The overall DPS employed against low tier targets will be reduced by two mechanics employed. First the charge up for the leading will increase repeat fire times against a single target and the reduced damage effects on targets that require more lead time in the charge up are rewarded with reduced damage output applied against them. It removes much of the need for low skill pilots to apply counter-play tactics and wraps it all up into one easy package.

I can't see how this is difficult to grasp.

Now my findings do not support that LRMs are more out of line with autocannons. Clearly the data reflects your claim of No or less skew to be false?

My accuracy with AC10s is 76%
AC 20 is 77%
AC5s is 71%
AC2 is 62% (weird I can't explain this maybe AC2s need buffs? a full 10% under performance average)
LB10X is actually really high at 86% (maybe we should look into adjusting LB10X accuracy further?)

conversley my accuracy with LRMs is a mere 41%

Check your own stats and I am sure you will see my findings reflected there as well.

Auto cannons are clearly performing far better than LRMs. And it's even worse than the basic stats make it seem because an LRM volley counts as a hit if even one missile lands. Now taking into account missile spread partial strikes and the effects of AMS LRMs are well below the average damage output of ACs of similar devoted tonnage.

So once we fix the LRMs that are clearly under performing according to my stats (and probably nearly every ones) How do you propose we address the Autocannonpocolypse low tier players are suffering under?

Because as I see it LRMs are probably the least effective weapons when employed against low tier (skill) players and the real culprits are low skill floor Autocannons.

as to "on demand" focus fire I just tested this and as it turns out there are no mechanics to prevent multiple players from firing on the same target with ACs and the worst part is currently all a group of players need to do to accomplish this is select the same target and fire at it.

Conversely LRMs applying focus fire via indirect fire require friendly mechs to target lock for them! AC don't even require locks as we know so clearly there is a skill gap.

So say we have two mechs attacking one mech. In one example we have a mech with autocannons and an LRM mech using indirect fire. The other sample group is two mechs both firing ACs.

With the AC + LRM focus fire only one target is visable to the target and if that target is destroyed the LRMs lose the capacity to indirect fire.

But with the two AC mechs BOTH mechs must be destroyed to prevent damage being done to the target. There appears to be a clear advantage to employing focus fire with ACs over mixed AC + LRMs.

In addition the autocannons have the capacity to be aimed and cause pinpoint damage. This is far more effective than the diffused damage typical of LRM indirect fire.

Do you think we need a mechanic to reduce the effects of autocannon focus fire? Maybe have damage reduction based upon the number of damage sources?

So if there is one player shooting an AC10 at another the damage is normal But if two players are applying damage on the same target at the same time all additional damage applied by the second attacker is reduced by a set percentage. The percentage of damage reduction scales with the number of attackers.

I won't use any specific numbers since I am sure it will require some testing but you may be onto something. Thanks for the insight!

Edited by Lykaon, 20 October 2017 - 04:46 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

And my idea does solve the issue with low skill "leading" mechanics by requiring a sense of both leading and timing. This will clearly solve the issue with the exponential effects of ACs on low tier targets.

Yes "issue", because we're clearly seeing an underpowered weapon at the high tier, but over powered at low tier. *sarcasm.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

But is my idea bad? I mean Autocannons are far more effective when employed against low skill targets as opposed to high skill targets.

Depends on what you want.

If you want to criticize and ridicule my idea, then you're not doing a good job. After all you missed the effect of availability of focus fire due to indirect fire. My idea considers low-skill vs low-skill and high-skill vs high-skill, not high-skill vs low-skill or low-skill alone or high-skill alone. So what if ACs are easier to land when target is exposed? They are pinpoint and not homing which require a bit more skill, unlike LRMs that homes and needs only to be in 45 cone -- now 25 with patch. And then the actual effect of LRMageddon -- that severe skew in effectiveness, unlike acs, and while the ACs are relatively effective on the top tier, LRMs needs a lot of skill just to compensate.

Like i said, inner sphere's poorest satire.

If you genuinely "want" (giving the very much undeserved benefit of the doubt), to modify ACs and have an intended result in mind, yes it could work -- instead of reconfiguring LRMs and having it buffed, it could also work by modifying the rest of the weapon to be as bad as LRMs, and by comparison would be balanced.

And then consider of whether it's actually applicable and needed, as well if we want the weapon working that way. And if you are genuinely pushing for this idea, this is not the place to do it, go make your own thread. I assure you, you will have better constructive criticisms there.

Unless it's actually criticism than an actual idea, further pushing of your idea in my space is tantamount to trolling, topic derailment which is not allowed as per COC, and it doesn't merit any response from me, and will no longer get any.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

Thanks for the insight!

You're welcome.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 05:08 AM.

[Siegegun]

Sorry OP, I think you mean well but this is just a bad idea. Your idea takes the worst weapon system in the game (which just got a nerf!), a weapon system with the most counters hard and soft, and basically makes it harder to use. I am also not convinced it is even needed for the "reasons" you want to change it.

You want to effectively nerf lrms even more. Not a good idea.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 05:00 AM, said:

.After all you missed the effect of availability of focus fire due to indirect fire. My idea considers low-skill vs low-skill and high-skill vs high-skill, not high-skill vs low-skill or low-skill alone or high-skill alone. So what if ACs are easier to land when target is exposed? They are pinpoint and not homing which require a bit more skill, unlike LRMs that homes and needs only to be in 45 cone -- now 25 with patch. And then the actual effect of LRMageddon -- that severe skew in effectiveness, unlike acs, and while the ACs are relatively effective on the top tier, LRMs needs a lot of skill just to compensate.

I missed nothing and actually addressed it.

Shall we examine the availability of focus fire.

By definition focus fire would be two or more attackers applying damage onto a single target.

So clearly focus fire is an example of a lopsided engagement favoring the attackers that utilize focus fire.

Availability is limited by the presence of more than one attacker that can execute an attack against the target.

A direct fire mech + a LRM mech or 2 direct fire mechs both have the same degree of availability 2 mechs or 2 mechs.

Now, Indirect fire may be executed without requiring direct LOS from the LRM carrier but something must have LOS for indirect fire to function at all.

My example from my previous posting...




{So say we have two mechs attacking one mech. In one example we have a mech with autocannons and an LRM mech using indirect fire. The other sample group is two mechs both firing ACs.

With the AC + LRM focus fire only one target is visable to the target and if that target is destroyed the LRMs lose the capacity to indirect fire.

But with the two AC mechs BOTH mechs must be destroyed to prevent damage being done to the target. There appears to be a clear advantage to employing focus fire with ACs over mixed AC + LRMs.}




So there is a distinct mechanic for limiting the effects of LRM indirect fire in fact several. The two direct fire mechs actually have a much higher chance for success at destroying the target because of several contributing factors.

More effective damage application. pin point opposed to diffused LRM damage.

Capacity to aim directly at weakened components. Can't aim an LRM.

The need to destroy block or hinder both mechs to prevent damage being inflicted. If you kill block or hinder the spotter the indirect fire stops.

And then there are other countermeasures that can effect LRM indirect fire. ECM presence, AMS saturation Radar deprivation and of course the reliance on that direct fire "spotter" to actually press "R" and stay engaged long enough for the LRMs to deal significant damage so a higher degree of cooperation is needed ( a skill perhaps? )

So my question is why should 2 mechs not equal 2 mechs? why should the team employing more complicated teamwork for lesser results ( LRM + AC) be further reduced in effect? There is already a reduction in effectivness for indirect fire LRMs opposed to multiple direct fire attackers so why a need for more reductions?

You idea is balance for potato and then what? use magic to balance for high skill? This portion of your plan is hand waving it away as incidental when it is likely to be the most complex undertaking of your proposal.

You state the idea is make LRMs more difficult to employ at lower tiers yet somehow this difficulty does not translate upwards?

How?

As to ACs requiring more skills I do not agree I believe they have different skills but fundamentally fewer skills are needed to employ a direct fire weapon.

Looking at my statistics it would seem that ACs requiring a higher level of skill to be somewhat in question.My average autocannon hit percentages are nearly double my LRM hit percentages and my LRM accuracy is below 50% (and as I stated the autocannons deal 100% damage per hit while LRMs count as a "hit" even if one missile makes contact so the actual damage ratios massively favor autocannons)

I have been told that 41% LRM accuracy is actually on the high end. I have no supporting data for this just a proficient LRM users statement. So I can conclude that if the statement of 41% being good then I am good with LRMs.

So if 41% is good LRM performance what is 70ish autocannon accuracy? if it's bad then it's worse than I thought and LRMs really really suck if it's average LRMs just mostly suck and if 70ish % is high then LRMs only averagely suck.

But ultimatley LRMs suck. So why nerf something that sucks? and then claim that "something" will be done to buff them but not over buff them for low tier but make them require "skills" etc and bla bla bla.

I would love to see numbers from lower tier players ideally from the tier 4 and 5 range. Unfortunatley most of the people I know directly are tier 3+.

I guess I could try and create a "worst case scenario" by making another alt account and actually try real hard with LRMs and see where my accuracy is against the least skilled targets. My belief is I will end up still in the range of 50%.

Edited by Lykaon, 20 October 2017 - 06:23 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

Spoiler

Shall we examine the availability of focus fire.

By definition focus fire would be two or more attackers applying damage onto a single target.

So clearly focus fire is an example of a lopsided engagement favoring the attackers that utilize focus fire.

Availability is limited by the presence of more than one attacker that can execute an attack against the target.

A direct fire mech + a LRM mech or 2 direct fire mechs both have the same degree of availability 2 mechs or 2 mechs.

Now, Indirect fire may be executed without requiring direct LOS from the LRM carrier but something must have LOS for indirect fire to function at all.

My example from my previous posting...

{So say we have two mechs attacking one mech. In one example we have a mech with autocannons and an LRM mech using indirect fire. The other sample group is two mechs both firing ACs.

With the AC + LRM focus fire only one target is visable to the target and if that target is destroyed the LRMs lose the capacity to indirect fire.

But with the two AC mechs BOTH mechs must be destroyed to prevent damage being done to the target. There appears to be a clear advantage to employing focus fire with ACs over mixed AC + LRMs.}

So there is a distinct mechanic for limiting the effects of LRM indirect fire in fact several. The two direct fire mechs actually have a much higher chance for success at destroying the target because of several contributing factors.

More effective damage application. pin point opposed to diffused LRM damage.

Capacity to aim directly at weakened components. Can't aim an LRM.

The need to destroy block or hinder both mechs to prevent damage being inflicted. If you kill block or hinder the spotter the indirect fire stops.

And then there are other countermeasures that can effect LRM indirect fire. ECM presence, AMS saturation Radar deprivation and of course the reliance on that direct fire "spotter" to actually press "R" and stay engaged long enough for the LRMs to deal significant damage so a higher degree of cooperation is needed ( a skill perhaps? )

So my question is why should 2 mechs not equal 2 mechs? why should the team employing more complicated teamwork for lesser results ( LRM + AC) be further reduced in effect? There is already a reduction in effectivness for indirect fire LRMs opposed to multiple direct fire attackers so why a need for more reductions?

Again, counterplay wouldn't be that relevant if it's not utilized, and not utilized due to low skill. So that part is irrelevant to what we have at hand. Yes you aim an LRM, just to lock -- not to target component. Of course if you can focus fire that would saturate the target anyways, it becomes moot.

And as for your question, it's because of that preventing buffs on the high tier, because on the low-tier it's lurmageddon, it's feast. Whether you want to label it as teamwork -- i'd call it parasitism. Again there's the lurmageddon we're trying to address here, so you thinking that "teamwork so it's fair" isn't helping, it just prevents us from addressing the actual problem.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

You idea is balance for potato and then what? use magic to balance for high skill? This portion of your plan is hand waving it away as incidental when it is likely to be the most complex undertaking of your proposal.

No it's not magic, its basic buffs on the qualities such as damage, velocity, etc. Complex? sure, but not invalid.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

You state the idea is make LRMs more difficult to employ at lower tiers yet somehow this difficulty does not translate upwards?

How?

It still translates upward, i never said that it doesn't. However, the high-skill have the skill to make use of it better than the low-skill does. Because i modelled the use based on what the high-skill is already capable of, such as aiming, such as prediction of projectle flight, charge method of the gauss translated as missile-locking. It still utilizes the skill of positioning, of when to lurm, of realizing what counter-plays are in effect. Admittedly, they still have to practice with the new mechanism, to learn more tricks that wasn't originally possible, but it will still produce discrimination between low-skill and high-skill, should produce balanced output on low-skill versus low-skill and high-skill versus high-skill.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

As to ACs requiring more skills I do not agree I believe they have different skills but fundamentally fewer skills are needed to employ a direct fire weapon.

What i said is that LRMs need more skill to compensate for the output of the ACs. And aiming a pin-point weapon requires more skill, versus one that has a 45 degrees lock cone and homing, -- now 25 degrees. You know, the pin-point weapon has higher skill floor to use in comparison. I'm not saying that they are less effective, but they require a bit more minimum skill.

I mean honestly, don't you think that you have a better hit chance with a shotgun than a rifle if you're just point-shooting? That's basically the LRMs especially when the counterplays aren't being used.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

But ultimatley LRMs suck. So why nerf something that sucks? and then claim that "something" will be done to buff them but not over buff them for low tier but make them require "skills" etc and bla bla bla.

Because i wasn't just nerfing them, i was reworking them. You want +100% damage? sure. But why they suck right now is because PGI refuses to buff them to relevance, because a buff for the high tier makes the weapon overpowered at the low tier. Again, below is what i intend to do.

Spoiler

Siegegun, on 20 October 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Sorry OP, I think you mean well but this is just a bad idea. Your idea takes the worst weapon system in the game (which just got a nerf!), a weapon system with the most counters hard and soft, and basically makes it harder to use. I am also not convinced it is even needed for the "reasons" you want to change it.

You want to effectively nerf lrms even more. Not a good idea.

Thanks for being nice about it though.

I wouldn't call increase in velocity, damage, reduce in spread, and removal of sustained missile lock and only needs target lock, able to send missiles at a straight line that lets effective use at confined spaces and reduces travel time, as nerf. If anything, it's just harder to use.

I want to rework them. Introduce skill floor so they wouldn't be as effective at the low tiers, and because they aren't too effective there, the buff on the high tier would have less or even no adverse effect. Here's the model of what i intend to do:

Spoiler

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 06:49 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

No, LRMs can still be sent to their way. This just avoids indirect-fire from being accessible with such a low skill, which is the culprit of many deaths due to focus fire.

So basically, what you're saying is we should wait till they're out of the newbie pool to slaughter them with focus fire, because that's actually how the game works. No.

Increasing LRM difficulty doesn't make them better weapons. When the issue is "newbies die to LRMs", the solution is "trial mechs with AMS/ECM" so your newbie lurmer also learns about counterplay early, even if it's as passive a thing as multiple LRM players firing at the same target showing "focus fire works". Likewise, build LRM users with TAG or NARC so there's obvious, visible reasons to get your locks. In other words, give newbies the complete package.

And then actually,y'know, make LRMs effective and less flawed. They don't (and shouldn't) be as effective as pure direct-fire weapons that don't auto-spread, but the gap between them is obscene, inappropriate, and just grew again as of last patch.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

Again, counterplay wouldn't be that relevant if it's not utilized, and not utilized due to low skill. So that part is irrelevant to what we have at hand. Yes you aim an LRM, just to lock -- not to target component. Of course if you can focus fire that would saturate the target anyways, it becomes moot.

And as for your question, it's because of that preventing buffs on the high tier, because on the low-tier it's lurmageddon, it's feast. Whether you want to label it as teamwork -- i'd call it parasitism. Again there's the lurmageddon we're trying to address here, so you thinking that "teamwork so it's fair" isn't helping, it just prevents us from addressing the actual problem.

And here is a big issue. You can not ignore a variable just because you don't like that it's present or because it does not fit into your model of an ideal circumstance. Counter-play does exist and it is a large part of the equation of a players evolution of skill.

If you outright ignore the impact of counter-play mechanics for low tier you will with no doubt create a balance issue further down the line when counter-play becomes a large defining characteristic of how mechanics interact.

Players have growth in expertise as they build experience in playing. This is the entire reason for the tier system. So high skill players do not compete directly with low skill players (well at least it's how it is suppose to work anyhow).

When I first started playing MWo I had tons of bad habits. I would reduce speed and sometimes even stop moving all together when I started firing. I thought then that the improved accuracy was worth the reduced defense. My aim was sloppy without the accuracy needed to burn down specific components on a target. I lacked a good sense of battlefield awareness and positioning that I have today. Put bluntly I was a low skill nublet.

How did I improve? Well I learned counter-play techniques and began incorperating them into my routine tactics. There was a need to because without them (counter-play) I was failing.

So the huge issue with your idea, that ignores counter-play is it removes the need for players to grow in their abilities. Skill is not rewarded with superior results. It's essentially participation medals for everyone. Thanks for playing MWo everyone is equal here have a cookie This is not competition it's preschool finger paints!

Well perhaps skill is reward by making the use of counter-play and superior tactics so overwhelmingly superior that the use of counter-play makes LRMs absolutely useless against you. And pretty much any design elements that ignore potent factors in balancing will have similar results.

I think you are severely under valuing the impact of counter-play and it's interaction with mechanics in general and in specific LRMs. Counter-play is a huge design element incorperated into LRMs that is why LRMs have the largest amount of active and passive counters. They were designed around a concept of developing counter-play and team work.

You claim it's a nonissue because it's not present but,it is.Counter-play is ALWAYS present all it takes is for the lightbulb to turn and a player to think ..."hey what if I do this..." and when they do they have evolved thier game and are on their way out of tier.

Here is an example: We have two men fist fighting in the street. Neither one has the upper hand and each is looking to win the fight. In the middle of the street is a baseball bat. Is that bat a nonissue or does the first guy to grab it gain a massive upper hand? Since the bat has always been there for the duration of the fight it has always been a potential variable in determining the results of the fight.

So maybe neither guy goes for the bat, the next hour two different men are fighting in the spot...will one of them use the bat?

So how do you balance the fight for these two guys when there is a baseball bat always hanging around? Do we ignore the bat and assume no one will ever use it or do we take into consideration the "impact" of the bat. (sorry for the pun..I know it was lame) on the conflicts going around around it.

Someone eventually picking up that bat is an inevitability. It will absolutey happen.

Since it is inevitable it is always relevant.


So..unto focus fire and target saturation...I'm not sure what you are saying about my counter point being "moot" Did you understand my compareson?

There are distinct advantages and disadvantaged to using indirect fire vs direct for focus fire. With direct fire pulling ahead in advantage and efficiency and LRM indirect fire having the capacity to minimize the need for ideal positioning but lacking the efficiency.

Multiple direct fire attackers have the edge in pinpoint accuracy and multiple sources of targeting. if there are two direct fire mechs firing there are two mechs that need to be destroyed/countered to prevent damage being done.

A direct fire and an indirect fire attacker however present only one target to destroy or counter and possess only one source for targeting. Clearly more advantageous to the target,they only have to disable/destroy or evade one attacker and not two.

In addition the indirect fire has additional elements reducing it's effects and probability. There is lower risk to the indirect firing mech but there are also a significantly lower rewards.

The advantage of indirect fire is the reduced impact of precise positioning to execute a focus fire attack with a team mate. The LRMs do not need LOS but they must be in range with a clear trajectory to the target and something has to be providing the targeting info.

The disadvantages are lesser effects of damage from diffusal of missile hits on target (less effective damage)

The requirement of a friendly to provide cooperation by granting a lock (team work rewarded with results)

The existence of numberous counter-play techniques and countermeasures reducing LRM effectivness.


So direct fire focus fire is superior in dealing damage and is far more efficient. There is a higher risk involved for direct fire but this is rewarded with better results.

Indirect fire is inferior to direct fire in results (both efficiency of time and damage application) and also highly vulnerable to counter-play. But indirect fire is not constrained by requiring direct LOS. There is a lower risk to indirect fire but there are also lower scaled rewards.

There is a fundamental mechanism for balance right there!

And honestly, I think it is this dynamic you should scrutinize since this may be where you see a disparity in risk/reward.

You call coordinated focus fire parasitism? weird. No really this is probably the most insight you have granted me into your thought process.

A parasite is a distinct organism that gains a benefit at the expense of a host. There is no advantage granted to the host form the parasite.

But in MWo we have teams. The teams are essentially the "host" with actions performed by the team members to benefit the whole (the team)

Since focus fire is advantageous how is cooperative actions to enhance effectivness a parasitic action? I mean I get your perspective (I think) but on the macro scale of the team as the "host" the action of providing supporting damage is a benefit.

An actual parasitic action would be a player on a team running off and hiding to preserve their personal stats over contribution to the team's efforts. The team is now without their mech's capacity to effect the enemy and the motives for the pilot running off only serve their own goals to the detriment of the whole.They contributed nothing but removed plenty.

But attacking the enemy? That is clearly a benefit and definativly not parasitic.

I do think because it's teamwork it deserves superior results. There should be a reward for executing a more complex action for better results that requires coordination between multiple players.

And you do as well. or you would not have issue with "sharing armor" the concept of sharing armor is players cooperating to diffuse damage dealt to a team. It is a superior tactic and as such is rewarded with superior results.

And let me once again point out that Lurmageddon is a concept you continuoulsy bring up as the impetus of your plan. Yet, I have not seen it. You have not shown it and as the centerpiece of your concept maybe we should see if this lurmegaddon is actually a real thing.And that it presents a constant and presitant problem for low tier players.

I have with time permitting been exploring the lower tier game play with an alt account...have not seen Lurmegeddon yet but my sampling is still quite low.

In fact the data I have collected so far is not in favor of your lurmegeddon scenario. The collected player stats I have seen clearly show a difinative biased of performance against LRMs with most players having LRM accuracy stats under 35%.

But seriously I am trying to see if lurmageddon is a thing. I am looking for it but so far it's Bigfoot.

Edited by Lykaon, 20 October 2017 - 01:55 PM.

[Lykaon]

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

So basically, what you're saying is we should wait till they're out of the newbie pool to slaughter them with focus fire, because that's actually how the game works. No.

Increasing LRM difficulty doesn't make them better weapons. When the issue is "newbies die to LRMs", the solution is "trial mechs with AMS/ECM" so your newbie lurmer also learns about counterplay early, even if it's as passive a thing as multiple LRM players firing at the same target showing "focus fire works". Likewise, build LRM users with TAG or NARC so there's obvious, visible reasons to get your locks. In other words, give newbies the complete package.

And then actually,y'know, make LRMs effective and less flawed. They don't (and shouldn't) be as effective as pure direct-fire weapons that don't auto-spread, but the gap between them is obscene, inappropriate, and just grew again as of last patch.

I agree.

Since anyone who actually plays MWo successfully fully knows that the evolution of counter-play is the key to success the solution to bootstrapping nublets isn't in making them a nice padded cell so they don't get hurt but in introducing the elements of counter-play to them as early as possible.

Eventually the Nublet will be faced with opposition that does incorperate counter-play in their tactics. An unprepared Nublet will be push back down in tier (and this is actually a desired mechanic) until they utilize their own counter-play to deal with the superior tactics leveled against them.

Now if we put the Nubs in a padded cell and remove the need for counter-play development they will have no pressures to ever utilize any advanced counter-play tactics. So whenever a Nublet rises to the top of the padded cell tier and graduates they are met by players who have superior tactics in the higher tier. This pushes them back into the padded cell tier again.

Now the problem is, Balancing for the lowest skill levels is essentially building this padded cell and it is a prison. Think of it as a classroom that does nothing to teach applicable skills to it's student. One day it's graduation and they are in the real world and are baffled by how their finger painting skills have no bearing on their accounting job!

[Wolfways]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

As for the high skill, they would be smart enough to shoot straight than an arc, to minimize travel time.

No, due to the slow missile speed and very low damage compared to other weapons high skilled players would still not use LRM's. They would use better direct-fire weapons, as they do now.
The only place where LRM's are better than other weapons is indirect-fire.

Edited by Wolfways, 20 October 2017 - 03:35 PM.

[davoodoo]

Tbh i would leave indirect as it is.

Then i would give direct fire a bit of a buff where it will cluster tightly to where you aim on the mech.
For example lrm20 5.2 with indirect.
You aim at the arm you get 2.6 spread with arm being prime target.
Artemis further improves it and if you got tag you get 0 spread with all missiles hitting the target.

Edited by davoodoo, 20 October 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

Eventually the Nublet will be faced with opposition that does incorperate counter-play in their tactics. An unprepared Nublet will be push back down in tier (and this is actually a desired mechanic) until they utilize their own counter-play to deal with the superior tactics leveled against them.

Now if we put the Nubs in a padded cell and remove the need for counter-play development they will have no pressures to ever utilize any advanced counter-play tactics. So whenever a Nublet rises to the top of the padded cell tier and graduates they are met by players who have superior tactics in the higher tier. This pushes them back into the padded cell tier again.

Now the problem is, Balancing for the lowest skill levels is essentially building this padded cell and it is a prison. Think of it as a classroom that does nothing to teach applicable skills to it's student. One day it's graduation and they are in the real world and are baffled by how their finger painting skills have no bearing on their accounting job!

No it's not building a padded cell, it's changing the game so that those who doesn't get it aren't exploited that easy. Think of it as creating another lower class so that the even less skilled are placed at their proper environment to grow. They will still encounter indirect fire, it's not impossible, just is a bit higher up the skill environment.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

And here is a big issue. You can not ignore a variable just because you don't like that it's present or because it does not fit into your model of an ideal circumstance. Counter-play does exist and it is a large part of the equation of a players evolution of skill.

And again, the low tier. Why they are nabbed there is precisely that they are not using counter-play effectively. If i started taking account of the counter-play more than what is actually happening there, then it wouldn't be representative.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

If you outright ignore the impact of counter-play mechanics for low tier you will with no doubt create a balance issue further down the line when counter-play becomes a large defining characteristic of how mechanics interact.

Really? Would cover become impotent -- lrms passing through cover like the armor-piercing projectile it's not? Would AMS become impotent? Would ECM become impotent? If anything ECM would be stronger cause we have to reacquire that lock every time -- so i actually need to nerf the ECM.

"No doubt" as in you just think that it does. Those counter-plays still work just as well as they do before.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

So the huge issue with your idea, that ignores counter-play is it removes the need for players to grow in their abilities. Skill is not rewarded with superior results. It's essentially participation medals for everyone. Thanks for playing MWo everyone is equal here have a cookie This is not competition it's preschool finger paints!

No it's not, it's making another set of classroom, of lower grade, so that low-skill are pitted with something more in line with their skill-set.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

I think you are severely under valuing the impact of counter-play and it's interaction with mechanics in general and in specific LRMs. Counter-play is a huge design element incorperated into LRMs that is why LRMs have the largest amount of active and passive counters. They were designed around a concept of developing counter-play and team work.

No, i am not undervaluing it, i am merely taking account of what variables relevant. Yes we all know that about LRM counterplay.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

You claim it's a nonissue because it's not present but,it is.Counter-play is ALWAYS present all it takes is for the lightbulb to turn and a player to think ..."hey what if I do this..." and when they do they have evolved thier game and are on their way out of tier.

Of course it's present. But then they are the ones frequently out of position, so we have to account for that.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Here is an example: We have two men fist fighting in the street. Neither one has the upper hand and each is looking to win the fight. In the middle of the street is a baseball bat. Is that bat a nonissue or does the first guy to grab it gain a massive upper hand? Since the bat has always been there for the duration of the fight it has always been a potential variable in determining the results of the fight.

So maybe neither guy goes for the bat, the next hour two different men are fighting in the spot...will one of them use the bat?

So how do you balance the fight for these two guys when there is a baseball bat always hanging around? Do we ignore the bat and assume no one will ever use it or do we take into consideration the "impact" of the bat. (sorry for the pun..I know it was lame) on the conflicts going around around it.

Someone eventually picking up that bat is an inevitability. It will absolutey happen.

Since it is inevitable it is always relevant.

This idea moves the baseball bat further. Sure getting the baseball bat is an inevitability, but what the idea does is to have the other guy prepared for the baseball bat, instead of getting smacked instantly the moment the baseball bat was grabbed. Being a game, it should consider both sides after all.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

So..unto focus fire and target saturation...I'm not sure what you are saying about my counter point being "moot" Did you understand my compareson?

Yes.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

There are distinct advantages and disadvantaged to using indirect fire vs direct for focus fire. With direct fire pulling ahead in advantage and efficiency and LRM indirect fire having the capacity to minimize the need for ideal positioning but lacking the efficiency.

But again, the low-skill could not make use of the direct-fire efficiently at it's state, the LRM that has a lower-skill floor is their go to.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Multiple direct fire attackers have the edge in pinpoint accuracy and multiple sources of targeting. if there are two direct fire mechs firing there are two mechs that need to be destroyed/countered to prevent damage being done.

I honestly think that's a pretty tall order for low-skill, even entry-level pilots.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

A direct fire and an indirect fire attacker however present only one target to destroy or counter and possess only one source for targeting. Clearly more advantageous to the target,they only have to disable/destroy or evade one attacker and not two.

Destroy with what? The bad aim they have?

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

In addition the indirect fire has additional elements reducing it's effects and probability. There is lower risk to the indirect firing mech but there are also a significantly lower rewards.

Which is the counter play the lower-tier isn't that wise enough to make efficent use of.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

The advantage of indirect fire is the reduced impact of precise positioning to execute a focus fire attack with a team mate. The LRMs do not need LOS but they must be in range with a clear trajectory to the target and something has to be providing the targeting info.

As if 900m is not an enough range, and with the out-of-position low-skill players maximizing the exposure time, flight time is less of an issue.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

The disadvantages are lesser effects of damage from diffusal of missile hits on target (less effective damage)

So direct fire focus fire is superior in dealing damage and is far more efficient. There is a higher risk involved for direct fire but this is rewarded with better results.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Indirect fire is inferior to direct fire in results (both efficiency of time and damage application) and also highly vulnerable to counter-play. But indirect fire is not constrained by requiring direct LOS. There is a lower risk to indirect fire but there are also lower scaled rewards.

There is a fundamental mechanism for balance right there!

Yet somehow, we have a lurmageddon tier. It's also not as strong on the higher levels, so much so that we've regarded it as bad weapon. And whether you think that indirect fire is balanced with direct fire, the weapon isn't, it's underpowered on the high tier cause PGI don't want to make it overpowered at the low tier.

I will give you all of those, but we're still no where near solving the issue.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

The requirement of a friendly to provide cooperation by granting a lock (team work rewarded with results)

Of parasitism. Honestly those "locks plz" people.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

The existence of numberous counter-play techniques and countermeasures reducing LRM effectivness.

And they only work if they're actually being used.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

And honestly, I think it is this dynamic you should scrutinize since this may be where you see a disparity in risk/reward.

I criticize that too, but until the weapon becomes open for relevant changes, we can't really achieve much.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

You call coordinated focus fire parasitism? weird. No really this is probably the most insight you have granted me into your thought process.
A parasite is a distinct organism that gains a benefit at the expense of a host. There is no advantage granted to the host form the parasite.

No, i call what uncoordinated focus fire. People just waiting for locks behind, those.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

But in MWo we have teams. The teams are essentially the "host" with actions performed by the team members to benefit the whole (the team)

We have teams, but they are not necessarily cooperative.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Since focus fire is advantageous how is cooperative actions to enhance effectivness a parasitic action? I mean I get your perspective (I think) but on the macro scale of the team as the "host" the action of providing supporting damage is a benefit.

What is parasitic is the guy uninterested with teamwork, but still cashes in the work of the team despite being uncooperative. Sure, yes, they still get to lower the hp of the target -- that's some contribution. But it's a **** move just using your teammates as meat-shields without their consent.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

I do think because it's teamwork it deserves superior results. There should be a reward for executing a more complex action for better results that requires coordination between multiple players.

Well, i agree. But if it results with a problem, such as the weapon being significantly less effective at high tier even comp, yet very effective at low-tier, then we need to do something. This idea doesn't prevent teamwork from being done at all, it just increases the skill floor so that it requires more skill to do so.

Wolfways, on 20 October 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

No, due to the slow missile speed and very low damage compared to other weapons high skilled players would still not use LRM's. They would use better direct-fire weapons, as they do now.
The only place where LRM's are better than other weapons is indirect-fire.

But it opens the LRMs buff relevant to the higher tier, because it is less at risk of being overpowered at the lower tier.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 05:01 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

So basically, what you're saying is we should wait till they're out of the newbie pool to slaughter them with focus fire, because that's actually how the game works. No.

As if we can't change how the game works. It's just a bunch of mechanics working together to provide an experience.

Of course if the issue is that you don't want to -- on the basis of what the game should prescriptively work, well sure i guess. But there's still going to be the issue like the LRMs not that relevant on the higher tiers.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

Increasing LRM difficulty doesn't make them better weapons.

Of course not. However it's for increasing the skill floor so it's not to skew the global data like that, and allows relevant buffs on the higher tier.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

When the issue is "newbies die to LRMs", the solution is "trial mechs with AMS/ECM" so your newbie lurmer also learns about counterplay early, even if it's as passive a thing as multiple LRM players firing at the same target showing "focus fire works". Likewise, build LRM users with TAG or NARC so there's obvious, visible reasons to get your locks. In other words, give newbies the complete package.

Of course, sure sure lets put AMS on every trial mechs. But if it doesn't work, then lets give this a try.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

And then actually,y'know, make LRMs effective and less flawed. They don't (and shouldn't) be as effective as pure direct-fire weapons that don't auto-spread, but the gap between them is obscene, inappropriate, and just grew again as of last patch.

Yes i agree. But until that lurmageddon tier is quelled, PGI won't do ****. I don't intend them to completely contend with direct-fire, but as you said the gap is obscene.

Lykaon, on 20 October 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

And let me once again point out that Lurmageddon is a concept you continuoulsy bring up as the impetus of your plan. Yet, I have not seen it. You have not shown it and as the centerpiece of your concept maybe we should see if this lurmegaddon is actually a real thing.And that it presents a constant and presitant problem for low tier players.

But seriously I am trying to see if lurmageddon is a thing. I am looking for it but so far it's Bigfoot.

If you're just doing it right now, maybe the lock-on cone affected it.

I really don't care of what you don't see, i mean i've met people who agree with me. Why wouldn't you take my word or their word? Why would i take your word? The idea is operating on the axiom that it's a given. Do you know what an axiom is?

So why would you bother responding to this thread? If it doesn't exist, point out that it doesn't, and move on with your life. My concern is the idea, of whether it will work or not.

As if we didn't discussed on indirect fire and it's effects on the lower tier before: https://mwomercs.com...-get-rid-of-it/

Right now we're only going on circles -- you arguing the merit of good play, the philosophy of fairness etc., me clarifying my position and idea over and over cause you don't get it. I get that you'd want to retain some things, cause you think it's fair. We're not going to achieve any solution if we don't criticize the sacred things.

If you don't want to balance by potato, that you don't want to even consider them. Fine, disagree, then get out.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

Of course, sure sure lets put AMS on every trial mechs. But if it doesn't work, then lets give this a try.

Yes i agree. But until that lurmageddon tier is quelled, PGI won't do ****. I don't intend them to completely contend with direct-fire, but as you said the gap is obscene.

I look at it this way.

If lurms are pandemic in the underhive, the reason is clear.

Counters common to other levels of skill simply aren't being used, because the only places an LRM user could be a walking apocalypse are places their counters are either un-used or don't come with the combat environment.

Potato-level counterplay is counters that take no thought. That defaults to AMS. LRMs and their corresponding equipment exist in T5 and are placed on robots as a matter of course. AMS is...not. Like, not at all not.

Take the FS9-S(C). An MPL boat ready for newbie consumption.

Dual AMS mounts. Of course, the build doesn't use either of them, because AMS is for newb- oops, but these are supposed to be for newbies. Getting lurmed. Nothing.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c5e889c2e2609d4

We can fix that. Even the JR7-IIC(C) can squeeze in some pewpewAMS.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...30f7b225a838dcd

Or nutech VND-1AA(C).

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...002938c0860ad66

It just takes a little thought, and then the newbie fields are thoroughly salted with counterplay training wheels.

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

I look at it this way.

If lurms are pandemic in the underhive, the reason is clear.

Counters common to other levels of skill simply aren't being used, because the only places an LRM user could be a walking apocalypse are places their counters are either un-used or don't come with the combat environment.

Potato-level counterplay is counters that take no thought. That defaults to AMS. LRMs and their corresponding equipment exist in T5 and are placed on robots as a matter of course. AMS is...not. Like, not at all not.

Take the FS9-S(C). An MPL boat ready for newbie consumption.

Dual AMS mounts. Of course, the build doesn't use either of them, because AMS is for newb- oops, but these are supposed to be for newbies. Getting lurmed. Nothing.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c5e889c2e2609d4

We can fix that. Even the JR7-IIC(C) can squeeze in some pewpewAMS.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...30f7b225a838dcd

Or nutech VND-1AA(C).

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...002938c0860ad66

It just takes a little thought, and then the newbie fields are thoroughly salted with counterplay training wheels.

... didn't i just agreed with the AMS?

I get that it could work, it's just easy to do so than what i wanted to do. PGI should probably throw in a few overload nodes cause 1 AMS isn't really that powerful versus lots of LRMs -- unless massed, and then we don't have overload. And 1 AMS when 1 noob is out of position would probably be not enough to deter dozens of LRMs in it's way.

I get that what i'm trying to do is kind of bonkers for being kind of drastic. Buuut, if it doesn't work we can always try my way.

TBR-A (C) - 2x ATM6 + 6x ERML + LAMS

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 October 2017 - 07:39 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

... didn't i just agreed with the AMS?

I get that it could work, it's just easy to do so than what i wanted to do. PGI should probably throw in a few overload nodes cause 1 AMS isn't really that powerful versus lots of LRMs -- unless massed, and then we don't have overload. And 1 AMS when 1 noob is out of position would probably be not enough to deter dozens of LRMs in it's way.

I get that what i'm trying to do is kind of bonkers for being kind of drastic. Buuut, if it doesn't work we can always try my way.

TBR-A (C) - 2x ATM6 + 6x ERML + LAMS

It's funny. Virtually every chassis has an AMS hardpoint (and if they have one stock, two or even three) because PGI was so concerned LRMs were going to be a dangerous weapon, they wanted to give players a collective defense against them.

And then everyone proceeded not to use them and MUH LURMAGEDDONS and NEWBIE KILLER threads abounded until rather than balancing based on counters, we got them nerfed repeatedly, systematically, and they added in the Jesus Box for good measure- which made the AMS hardpoints meaningless to most builds, to the point where seeing them in experienced play is impossible.

They even just buffed AMS. People still don't have to use it (not even half the time, or a third, or probably even 11/12 people you see) because most missiles are that bad.

As you said, the odds of drastic readjustment to LRMs is near zero. The problem lies at the bottom of the underhive, which biases the perception of effectiveness horribly.

Put AMS (or two) on eight or so of your opponents, and even newbies will counterplay automatically, just like they focus fire with LRMs without even noticing. With counterplay at all levels of skill being common enough, a more clear view of exactly how lurms suck/rule (hint: it's not rule) comes along.

LRMs should not be a college-grade geometry calculation when fired. Now, a "squeeze to lock" option that gives your missiles more independent tracking? Personally, I like something that would cost longer lock time for fire-and-forget. Basically:

1) Get lock (like you do now).
2) Tap fire. Missiles continue to track as long as lock is maintained, just like usual. Or:
3) Press and hold fire. Missiles are now loading tracking data for self-guidance. A second "lock" graphic will form and finish when lock data is complete. Missiles are now fire and forget with reduced spread if successful, and will track a target when fire button is released, even if LOS is lost. ROF is obviously reduced for F&F mode, but accuracy increases considerably. Loss of LOS during this process forces getting a new lock, and releasing fire before F&F data is complete launches a standard tracking missile instead.

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

It's funny. Virtually every chassis has an AMS hardpoint (and if they have one stock, two or even three) because PGI was so concerned LRMs were going to be a dangerous weapon, they wanted to give players a collective defense against them.

And then everyone proceeded not to use them and MUH LURMAGEDDONS and NEWBIE KILLER threads abounded until rather than balancing based on counters, we got them nerfed repeatedly, systematically, and they added in the Jesus Box for good measure- which made the AMS hardpoints meaningless to most builds, to the point where seeing them in experienced play is impossible.

Not haha funny, sad funny.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

They even just buffed AMS. People still don't have to use it (not even half the time, or a third, or probably even 11/12 people you see) because most missiles are that bad.

As you said, the odds of drastic readjustment to LRMs is near zero. The problem lies at the bottom of the underhive, which biases the perception of effectiveness horribly.

I know, but it's still just an idea. One of things that could solve their problem -- not the best, not simple, but one of the things. Also i'd find it interesting if they do that, and the straight LRM flight would be a massive boon.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

LRMs should not be a college-grade geometry calculation when fired.

Not necessarily, it's just a howitzer with a slow projectile speed, and it homes to the target. So long as you clear the obstacle, you're golden. Of course the optimum effects is attained by good skill.

Brain Cancer, on 20 October 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

Personally, I like something that would cost longer lock time for fire-and-forget. Basically:

1) Get lock (like you do now).
2) Tap fire. Missiles continue to track as long as lock is maintained, just like usual. Or:
3) Press and hold fire. Missiles are now loading tracking data for self-guidance. A second "lock" graphic will form and finish when lock data is complete. Missiles are now fire and forget with reduced spread if successful, and will track a target when fire button is released, even if LOS is lost. ROF is obviously reduced for F&F mode, but accuracy increases considerably. Loss of LOS during this process forces getting a new lock, and releasing fire before F&F data is complete launches a standard tracking missile instead.

Could work, it would be best to use Gauss charge mechanic with the UI.