136 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Why do you have such a hate on for LRMs?

Really? I criticize LRMs, and propose a change on the flaws i see, but then your assumption is that i hate LRMs immediately? Really?



I really hope that this is a trollish response.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

It doesn't mater if tier 5 players are slaughtered in droves by LRMs because the skilled players rank out of the low tier because they adapt and develope defensive strategies.

Yes it does. If LRMs are too powerful for entry-level skill, then it could drive away players and further prevent the growth of the player base. I would argue that this is why LRMs could be buffed to relevance in the higher tiers.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

The only players who constantly suffer are the hopelessly untalented and they suffer under fire from ANY WEAPON not just LRMs.

Which is, conveniently, the low-skilled people. The LRMs are also blessed with indirect fire, that means if they are nabbed by any weapon, they are touched more frequently by LRMs. So unless you want to remove the indirect fire when you're already not inclined with the suggestion, i guess we'll retain the lurmageddon tier.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

I think we can all agree that LRMs are the most easily countered weapon in the entire game. So players who fail to learn even a minimal amount of counters are just inept.

And who could be the reasonably most inept people in the game -- don't you think the low-skill guys? Also the entry-level players.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Balancing for the inept results in a weapon that is useless when used against players of even moderate skill.

Exactly what we see, exactly why the LRMs couldn't be buffed to relevance at the higher skill, why comp people aren't exactly keen on using it, cause the low-skill would cry about it -- including the entry-level that could prevent new players from pushing through the game.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

I am also going to point out that sure comparing a LRM lock to an AC lead shot may on the surface look like a skill dispairity but, the skill level for basic results seems about right.

...

LRMs require a lock that results in a delay in capacity to reaction fire or optimize cover use when direct fire is employed.This leads to fewer opertunities to fire on average.

LRMS must retain the lock for the entire duration of the volley's flight time to maximize damage combined with missile launch warinings and 160 mps velocity of LRMs means frequent missed shots dispite having attained a lock before firing.

...

So, While it is harder to lead a target and hit them with the AC than lock a target with an LRM launcher the AC user is granted several advantages to compensate for the dispairity.

But considering all of the hurdles the LRM has to go through, the AC10 seems to be a better choice, especially with our paradigm of minimizing exposure time so we maximize our survivability, especially when we are most likely to over-extend to land the LRM volley which isn't exactly safe.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

And then there is laser vomit...that is literally place the pixel on the other pixel and mash alpha strike. No leading just simple very basic hand eye coordination that a trained pigeon can succeed at doing.

Low-skill or entry-level wouldn't really be that good with aiming. Powerful as laser-vomit in the higher levels, the low-skill isn't just that skilled enough to use laser-vomit properly. Hell we still see not-artemised LRMs, people who can't lob over obstacles, or retain missile lock by actively tracing targets, it's hard to expect a lot from them.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Entry skill level is compensated by granting direct results for use of the weapons. It's easier for a lock to be attained than hitting a leading target but the AC weapon is far more effective in nearly every way.

Yeah.

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

So if autocannons are to difficult for someone just build a laser vomit mech it's far more effective than LRMs and in my opinion the easiest weapon systems to use in the whole game....point click...point click...point click...coolant...point click...

Kind of yeah, but wouldn't the low-skill have bad aim at the beginning? Something that a homing mechanism can compensate? Sure you can point-click lasers, but you have to retain the beam at an entire duration -- when we're already dubious of low-skill with actually putting their reticles over their targets.

[Roadbuster]

Interesting idea.
As always, I support every idea which gets LRMs out of that "LRMs are bad" box of shame.




I think one of the main problems at the moment is, that LRMs don't stand a achance against any direct fire weapon if people are not willing to lock targets for the greater goal.
If you have to maintain your own locks till missiles land, you take way too much damage. LRMs are support weapons and should be used as such. And people should be glad to get that support, instead of getting mad at someone shooting LRMs at their target.

If a team with a few LRM launchers has a spotter with NARC, thats a massive boost. But it's rare to see someon running NARC if it's not a team, and even then it's rare.

Edited by Roadbuster, 16 October 2017 - 06:33 AM.

[Vellron2005]

See, guys, this incoming artemis nerf is why I HATE threads about how LRMs need buffs or nerfs.. cose' all PGI ever hears and sees of them is "LRMs need nerfs", and nothing good ever comes out of such threads..

And LRMs really really don't need to be touched..

And now, we are getting LRMs nerfed to hell..

Yaay..

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

And i was talking about ATM as a whole, why it sucks versus LRMs, especially when this change occurs. If there weren't any minimum range, there would be an incentive to use ATM over LRMs.

After the patch you are right and iam wrong,
the patch will make atms the worst missiles.

Spread we will see,
the big nerf is the targeting,
removing the ability to bend.

Edited by Kroete, 16 October 2017 - 08:33 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

is that the game mechanic doesn't take into account how many clusters of missiles your sensors can guide in flight at one time.

Canonically, even an armored-vehicle quality targeting and tracking system can deliver a 80-missile salvo without trouble (heavy LRM carrier, for example). And the Clan Bane puts 120 LRMs in the air at once without even fluffed issues with guidance. The IS Viking tosses 70 at a time.

Sensor capacity is not an excuse for being unable to properly lob dozens of missiles at once. I find it tremendously ironic that PGI's decided to make what little skill one can have with LRM shots get nerfed, and further made the stereotypical bad lurmer MORE rewarding, rather than less.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 16 October 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

See, guys, this incoming artemis nerf is why I HATE threads about how LRMs need buffs or nerfs.. cose' all PGI ever hears and sees of them is "LRMs need nerfs", and nothing good ever comes out of such threads..

And LRMs really really don't need to be touched..

And now, we are getting LRMs nerfed to hell..

Yaay..

Again, the LRMageddon tier, please address that first. We have a problem that exist, and simply ignoring that is not helping.

While LRMs are workable in their state, they require too much work not proportional to their result.

This is not to nerf the LRMs, it's to rework them -- if anything it's a god damn buff. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Kroete, on 16 October 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

After the patch you are right and iam wrong,
the patch will make atms the worst missiles.

... i wasn't commenting about ATMs sucking currently, i was commenting that they suck WHEN this change occurs.

Jesus Christ.

Brain Cancer, on 16 October 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

I find it tremendously ironic that PGI's decided to make what little skill one can have with LRM shots get nerfed, and further made the stereotypical bad lurmer MORE rewarding, rather than less.

Yep. Really really stupid move for PGI.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 October 2017 - 03:28 PM.

[Novakaine]

MechWarrior5152251, on 12 October 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

It irks me when people say LRMs need skill, they don't. Though some people still manage to screw them up by not holding their cursor over the brackets to hold their lock or firing into buildings that shield the target

Explain to me just how LRM's don't and ballistic and lasers do?
If your cursor is not pointed you miss right?
Well same with LRM's.
Stop flappin yur gums and try playing them.

[Lightfoot]

True. The mouse is not the right controller for Mechs. Mechs have the same number Axis's or more than Flight and Space Sims. Only a Joystick can easily handle them all and so you get Lurmageddon at tier 5 and 4 and less at tier 1 because everyone is told to use a mouse and discouraged from using a joystick, the natural Mech controller. I mean would you use a mouse to play Rise of Flight or IL-2? If you did that in comp you would just be dead in seconds.

I look at players in spectate mode and they have a reticle that bounces all over the screen mostly. You don't get that with a Joystick where the reticle is rock solid all the time. It can't bounce except from very uneven terrain. However, with a reticle that no new player can aim with a mouse your only choice is to use locking missiles.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

This is not to nerf the LRMs, it's to rework them -- if anything it's a god damn buff. Why is that hard for you to understand?

I don't know how much of what's going on you understand.. but here's how PGI works, in a nutshell:

1) Playerbase cries buffs/nerfs about X.

2) PGI takes notice of X because it's creating controversy.

3) PGI nerfs X, just to be sure it's "in line" with less controversial things.

Today's patch is a clear-cut example of this..

There are several active threads about "how to buff / nerf LRMs".. PGI is neutering LRMs, and not only them, but all the lock-on weapons, just to be sure.

That is why I keep saying LRMS ARE FINE, NO NERFS, NO BUFFS ARE NEEDED!

But yeah.. now LRMs will be as indirect as ATMs were.. thanks for that to all the "let's fix LRMs" crew..

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 16 October 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

I don't know how much of what's going on you understand.. but here's how PGI works, in a nutshell:

1) Playerbase cries buffs/nerfs about X.

2) PGI takes notice of X because it's creating controversy.

3) PGI nerfs X, just to be sure it's "in line" with less controversial things.

Today's patch is a clear-cut example of this..

There are several active threads about "how to buff / nerf LRMs".. PGI is neutering LRMs, and not only them, but all the lock-on weapons, just to be sure.

That is why I keep saying LRMS ARE FINE, NO NERFS, NO BUFFS ARE NEEDED!

Oh so basically, you're ignoring the cold hard fact that LRMs have a god damn problem, just because you fear that PGI would mess up your favorite weapon?

Guess what, it's their game, they control how the game turns out, and if something goes wrong, they are to blame. People will keep pointing out the god damn problem till they fix it, if it's not me then it'll just be someone else. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Vellron2005, on 16 October 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

But yeah.. now LRMs will be as indirect as ATMs were.. thanks for that to all the "let's fix LRMs" crew..

You're welcome. We're not gonna stop till LRMs are nerfed to oblivion.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 October 2017 - 11:14 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Only a Joystick can easily handle them all and so you get Lurmageddon at tier 5 and 4 and less at tier 1 because everyone is told to use a mouse and discouraged from using a joystick, the natural Mech controller.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Really? I criticize LRMs, and propose a change on the flaws i see, but then your assumption is that i hate LRMs immediately? Really?



I really hope that this is a trollish response.

Posting history...anyone can look it up. I can make some quick bullet points.

You hate LRM users for not "sharing armor"

You do not think indirect fire should be attained with shared locks ("buddy locks")

You think indirect fire should require special gear like NARC and TAG to be accomplished

And now this suggestion under the guise of " save the poor little newbies"

no it's not trollish. It's an observation.

I guess I could be out of touch with tier 5 woes. Maybe LRMs are the route of all evil and causing the death of the game but...if the easiest to counter weapon system in the whole game is doing this then...maybe the foundation is rotten.

Or perhaps it's just not happening at all. I will go an make an alt account. I will only pilot the slowest and most juicy of assault mech targets. Heck I will even invert my mouse so I can't drive straight.

I will see this Lurmagedon for myself!

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

You're welcome. We're not gonna stop till LRMs are nerfed to oblivion.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 October 2017 - 02:09 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Posting history...anyone can look it up. I can make some quick bullet points.

Or you know, you could actually put the quotes here, ones we can trace back.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

You hate LRM users for not "sharing armor"

Users, not LRM as a weapon, and only ones that doesn't use LRM properly such as not sharing armor, and lurming at around 900m.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

You do not think indirect fire should be attained with shared locks ("buddy locks")

Nope, QK along with others does. I fervently disagreed with them.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

You think indirect fire should require special gear like NARC and TAG to be accomplished

The compromise I made with those who don't want buddy locks.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

And now this suggestion under the guise of " save the poor little newbies"

no it's not trollish. It's an observation.

It's a poorly made observation. Not only you are conflating the difference between LRM as the weapon and LRM users, you also confuse me with people like Quicksilver Kalasa.

Now granted, I hate potato LRM users. But that's far from the weapon itself.

If you really read the other page, you'd realize that during the course of our discussion, I came to realize that the problem is not even indirect fire at low levels, but the homing system that paves the way instead.

You may not be a troll, but nobody should be this stupid.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

I guess I could be out of touch with tier 5 woes. Maybe LRMs are the route of all evil and causing the death of the game but...if the easiest to counter weapon system in the whole game is doing this then...maybe the foundation is rotten.

You mean the weapon mechanics as the "foundation"? Like the one i was suggesting to improve?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 October 2017 - 02:21 PM.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 17 October 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

You may not be a troll, but nobody should be this stupid.

Are you familiar with the concept of an Ad Hominem attack?

I have not called you stupid not once, but I have called into question your full understanding of issues you comment on or even your possible motives.

If I am to gather the intent of this proposed change you opened with...

You claim that the skill discrepency of missile lock compared to hitting with an Auto cannon is the basic foundation of our argument.

My counter is there isn't a discrepancy that isn't well compensated for by the overall performance of the weapons in question.

The AC deals direct pinpoint front loaded damage with the capacity to be reaction fired instantly (no lock required) has a massive velocity advantage, no warning previous to impact like LRMs have no AMS or ECM or radar deprivation reducing effectivenss of the weapons capacity to hit it's mark. More difficult to aim but more likely to hit.

Essentially the LRMs have more leeway in what constitutes attaining a lock because there are so many other factors limiting the deployment of damage. Easier to aim less likely to hit.

I am also of the opinion that leading a target with a weapon with a velocity of around 1000mps isn't all that difficult to begin with. What I am saying is the highly regarded "skills" direct fire supposedly require are essentially basic motor skills that any avid gamer should possess anyhow.

To further my counter argument I point out that laser based weapons that are hitscan and strike a target instantaneously are even easier to use because there is no need to lead a target it is literally a simple matter of lining up pixels and pressing buttons.

(fun fact, during WWII there was an allied project that used trained pigeons to function as a guidance system for missiles. The basic idea was train the birds to peck at the image of the target and the missile would adjust course accordingly. A pigeon can be trained to fire a MWo laser weapon!)

So in my opinion the massive skill gap between the LRMs and the lock on mechanics and direct fire weapons is not massive at all but an assumed falsehood used to support an argument. So if the basis for the argument isn't true then how can the argument be true?


Fundamentally the proceedures for executing the attacks of direct fire weapons are significantly less complex. I see it I can shoot at it. I line up my pixels and press a button. I may need to lead the target a bit or I may need to micro adjust for beam duration on a moving target but the basics are see it shoot it.This task becomes simpler the closer I am to the target or if my target and myself are not moving it's basically a given I will succeed.

Meanwhile LRMs require some extrapilation of the trajectory of the projectiles. Just because I have a lock is no guarantee I will land the hit. There may be obstructions,the target may be able to slip the lock before the slowest projectiles in the game reach them (and they get an audio warning that they should try) Aided with radar derper skill nodes as well.

There are passive defenses as well that reduce the LRM performance. AMS and ECM (and game modes with uncounterable global ECM effects like incursion and escort)

It is possible for an LRM user to have a clear line of sight to a 100% immobile target and not be capable of attacking it. This is a unique issue with lock on weapon systems because of ECM and it's prolific use.

And even after gaining a lock (possibly with ECM interferance) and retaining it without losing the target and correctly estimating trajectory to avoid obstructions your missile volley does dispersed damage to the target and may still be effected by AMS.

Does this sound easy?

I can make a valid argument that the balance is already far to the direct fire weapons favor and those weapons have the lower skill floor because they have much fewer variables involved in executing an attack with them.

I simply do not swallow the line that direct fire weapons are at all more difficult to use. The mechanics are different but in my experiences direct fire weapons are superior in every way save the capacity to use indirect fire.

Fundamentaly direct fire weapons are see target fire upon target. Very simple conceptually and in execution the nuances are only in leading a target (with high velocity projectiles) or beam adjustments with hitscan instant impact weapons.

We disagree on the foundation of your current argument.

Unless your argument has devolved entirely to Ad Hominem.

I am stupid thus my argument must be stupid therefore due to my stupidity you must be correct?

Edited by Lykaon, 17 October 2017 - 09:39 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

If I am to gather the intent of this proposed change you opened with...

You claim that the skill discrepency of missile lock compared to hitting with an Auto cannon is the basic foundation of our argument.

My counter is there isn't a discrepancy that isn't well compensated for by the overall performance of the weapons in question.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

The AC deals direct pinpoint front loaded damage with the capacity to be reaction fired instantly (no lock required) has a massive velocity advantage, no warning previous to impact like LRMs have no AMS or ECM or radar deprivation reducing effectivenss of the weapons capacity to hit it's mark. More difficult to aim but more likely to hit.

Essentially the LRMs have more leeway in what constitutes attaining a lock because there are so many other factors limiting the deployment of damage. Easier to aim less likely to hit.

And the thing with low skill is that, ACs and other direct fire weapons are more demanding of aim, despite more likely to hit -- and low-skill and entry-level basically suck at aiming. Because of that, they capitalize on the ease of use and landing of LRMs, because the skill that it takes to nullify LRMs is not yet at their repertoire of skills, explaining much of it's effectiveness on the lower-skill.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

I am also of the opinion that leading a target with a weapon with a velocity of around 1000mps isn't all that difficult to begin with. What I am saying is the highly regarded "skills" direct fire supposedly require are essentially basic motor skills that any avid gamer should possess anyhow.

Yeah but, are we to assume that any MWO player is an avid gamer? Likewise does COD just translate quickly to MWO?

We that stay for so long in games are avid gamer, we had the capacity to progress and improve. Not these potatoes, so they wouldn't really have that skill to justify your argument.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

To further my counter argument I point out that laser based weapons that are hitscan and strike a target instantaneously are even easier to use because there is no need to lead a target it is literally a simple matter of lining up pixels and pressing buttons.

Yeah, but again, as opposed of the original 45 degrees cone to retain lock, Lasers are pin-point and while one doesn't need to lead, one still needs a steady aim to direct the beam of up to 0.50s-1.55s. And being low skill, poor at aiming, they won't be that good in putting meaningful damage.

Also assuming that potatoes are poor at positioning that they just constantly over extend, they are exposed to indirect fire from LRMs -- which believe it or not is a thing. Compare that to Lasers needing LOS.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

So in my opinion the massive skill gap between the LRMs and the lock on mechanics and direct fire weapons is not massive at all but an assumed falsehood used to support an argument. So if the basis for the argument isn't true then how can the argument be true?

Well, the argument wouldn't be true if that were the case, but it's not the case. And that's the thing, it's your opinion -- and opinion =/= to fact.

Fact is, we still see poor players with bad aiming skills, which is detrimental to the pin-point nature of both Lasers, ACs, and PPCs. Compare that to the previous 45-degrees cone just to maintain a lock.

Just to prove a point, here's badtatoes sucking at MWO.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Fundamentally the proceedures for executing the attacks of direct fire weapons are significantly less complex. I see it I can shoot at it. I line up my pixels and press a button. I may need to lead the target a bit or I may need to micro adjust for beam duration on a moving target but the basics are see it shoot it.This task becomes simpler the closer I am to the target or if my target and myself are not moving it's basically a given I will succeed.

Meanwhile LRMs require some extrapilation of the trajectory of the projectiles. Just because I have a lock is no guarantee I will land the hit. There may be obstructions,the target may be able to slip the lock before the slowest projectiles in the game reach them (and they get an audio warning that they should try) Aided with radar derper skill nodes as well.

You need extrapolation of the trajectory if you intend to land, low-skill pugs doesn't -- yet they still get result, because of equally stupid potatoes that just stands in the open, and that's why they work regardless.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

There are passive defenses as well that reduce the LRM performance. AMS and ECM (and game modes with uncounterable global ECM effects like incursion and escort)

Which, surprisingly, isn't that used. Likewise competent pilots don't necessarily need it -- although its nice to have.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

It is possible for an LRM user to have a clear line of sight to a 100% immobile target and not be capable of attacking it. This is a unique issue with lock on weapon systems because of ECM and it's prolific use.

Unless they have narc, tag, uav, or ecm countering the enemy ecm.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

And even after gaining a lock (possibly with ECM interferance) and retaining it without losing the target and correctly estimating trajectory to avoid obstructions your missile volley does dispersed damage to the target and may still be effected by AMS.

Does this sound easy?

Easier to just flush 60 LRMs all at once, so what if AMS would down a few? You still have like 40 ish coming to your enemies' way. Have you even seen an LRM80A Supernova? Or LRM60 Mauler? God damn LRM100 stalker -- doesn't work well, but still.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

I can make a valid argument that the balance is already far to the direct fire weapons favor and those weapons have the lower skill floor because they have much fewer variables involved in executing an attack with them.

Ignoring the fact that you don't. I would also again point out that even if there are fewer variables, they are just too inept that the ease of use of LRMs become friendly, and that's the thing.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

I simply do not swallow the line that direct fire weapons are at all more difficult to use. The mechanics are different but in my experiences direct fire weapons are superior in every way save the capacity to use indirect fire.

Fundamentaly direct fire weapons are see target fire upon target. Very simple conceptually and in execution the nuances are only in leading a target (with high velocity projectiles) or beam adjustments with hitscan instant impact weapons.

Because i wasn't saying that they are more difficult to use. I'm saying that they have hit-chance proportional to their skill of use, the LRM has little.

Yes, direct-fire and all that **** is superior and easier than LRMs. However that's not my argument, my argument is that entry-level and/or potatoes do not have the necessary skills yet to make use of the direct-fire weapons effectively, and the ease of use of LRMs woo them, and because they are up against other low-skills that wouldn't have the skills necessary to render LRMs ineffective at most times, they get result. Combine those, then we have LRMageddon.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

We disagree on the foundation of your current argument.

No, you disagree with what YOU THINK is the foundation of my argument:

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

I simply do not swallow the line that direct fire weapons are at all more difficult to use. The mechanics are different but in my experiences direct fire weapons are superior in every way save the capacity to use indirect fire.

Which makes all of your argument essentially a gargantuan strawman. That's not my position, that's not my argument.

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Unless your argument has devolved entirely to Ad Hominem.

I am stupid thus my argument must be stupid therefore due to my stupidity you must be correct?

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Lykaon, on 16 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

Why do you have such a hate on for LRMs?

Really? I criticize LRMs, and propose a change on the flaws i see, but then your assumption is that i hate LRMs immediately? Really?

I really hope that this is a trollish response.

Posting history...anyone can look it up. I can make some quick bullet points.

You hate LRM users for not "sharing armor"

You do not think indirect fire should be attained with shared locks ("buddy locks")

You think indirect fire should require special gear like NARC and TAG to be accomplished

And now this suggestion under the guise of " save the poor little newbies"

no it's not trollish. It's an observation.

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

You're welcome. We're not gonna stop till LRMs are nerfed to oblivion.

Do you know how smart people insult the stupid without them realizing it? It's sarcasm.

Now connect all of the things you just argued against my idea to basically "I hate LRMs" -- you can't, because what you just said is challenging my idea, not proving logically that "I hate LRMs", there's a massive disconnect.

I explained you are wrong about my position about LRMs, you got it wrong about who wants to remove the buddy lock, you got it wrong that i wanted the buddy lock -- i compromised. And because of your ineptitude, my conclusion -- is that you are so wrong you might be a troll cause nobody should be that stupid, but since you're not a troll as you put it, then you're just stupid.

I under no circumstance said that you are wrong, because you are stupid. It wasn't about you and your criticism of my idea, it's your idiotic assumption of me merely hating on LRMs. And me concluding that you are stupid because of your asinine reasoning as how you put together how "I hate lrms".

Lykaon, on 17 October 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Are you familiar with the concept of an Ad Hominem attack?

I have not called you stupid not once, but I have called into question your full understanding of issues you comment on or even your possible motives.

What i did is commented on what you just achieved. With little evidence, you claimed what my stance is, and i corrected you. "You're stupid" part is not the reasoning, it's a comment, a conclusion.

Do you even know how to distinguish an ad hominem? It's basically saying "you're wrong because you're stupid" -- the reasoning to why someone is wrong, is a personal attack.

Learn the ******* difference.

If anything,"you just hate lrms" along that line of reasoning expecting to dismiss any criticism is ad hominem -- something you are kind of vaguely implying.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 October 2017 - 12:49 AM.

[Lykaon]

So what is your argument? you specifically make a compareson of ACs and LRMs and the skills you feel are so massively out of whack that merit your proposal.

But this isn't what you base your argument on?

What is it then? is it the poor little nublets being driven away from the game by arguably the worst weapon system in the whole game? Because that is a load of unsubstantiated crap. So hardley worthy of basing an argument on.

That is an assumption you made if this is the basis of your argument it's faulty right off the bat.

Your proposal amounts to one collective nerfing of LRM use to the point that it's so complex that it's just not worth trying to use LRMs.

Seriously a one third increase in cooldown plus lock on times of 1.5 seconds that need to be reaquired after each shot?

If someone told you they had an idea to "fix" gauss rifles and it was...

Increase gauss cooldown to by one third and add 50% to the charge up timer.

they would be laughed at.

Yet you think your one third increase in LRM cooldowns coupled with 1.5 second lock timers (that I only assume does not count ECM delays) seems reasonable and not even slightly debilitating?

Oh a I forgot the underwhelming increase of velocity you proposed...useless! Still the slowest projectiles in the game.

And what about this convoluted arc prediction mechanic where someone planning to fire LRMs needs to guess where a target will end up after the shot is fired to hope to get some damage out? May as well ask to lead a target that is invisable.

You know that even with your proposed velocity increase a target at around 500m distance from the LRM launcher has aprox. 3 seconds of movement (did you forget about the trajectory arc increases flight times? ) Three seconds to leave the target area and evade the volley. Without tracking the slowest projectiles in the game are so easily evaded that they become useless against anyone with a pulse.

And about this trajectory proposal and the restoration of 1000m range. With the increased need to manually predict the height of a trajectory and the subsequent arcing fire it is entirely possible that you have reduced the effective range of LRMs not met a status quoe or buffed. Since specific numbers are not presented for how much arc is proposed and at what ranges I can assume this was just some untested theory crafting on your part?

Why the convoluted locking mechanic? what does it do to actually improve LRMs? it doesn't it just makes them slower to fire and couple that with the one third cooldown increase you propose the DPS output would be pretty much pathetic.

Oh wait...a 50% increase to missile damge was proposed...let's take a quick guess at how the overall plan effects damage.

30% slower rate of fire reduces damage output by a a third the ridiculous lock on mechanics cause a significant delay in repeat fire let's go conservative here and say it's one 5th slower so 20% further reduction in rate of fire.

So that removes that 50% damage "buff" you so generously suggested.

So damage output from a 100% accurate launcher in a set time frame is unchanged. The delays in firing nullify the damage boost.

BUT...did you take into account the counterplay elements of exploiting minimum ranges? With the greatly reduced rate of fire and the requirements placed with the proposed lock mechanics further reducing repeat fire and the highly likely occurance of the proposed arcing fire predictive B.S. reducing overall effective range how difficult is it to nullify the LRMs by closing range?

Easy painfully easy I would imagine. I guess you didn't think this through,unless you did and you felt it was reasonable? Well it isn't. It's crap a badly formulated plan that shows a lack of understanding of mechanics in actual gameplay.

And then there is the reduction in ammo per ton. Why? you have already dramaticly reduced any hopes of accuracy and vastly reduced refire rates. Did you think less ammo was needed because of the 1.5 damage per missile proposed? That damage was already "taken back" with the cooldown increase and new lock mechanics.

So recap.

Nerf cooldown
Nerf ammo
Nerf effective range (that convoluted ballistic arc idea does this try some math and test it out)
Nerf accuracy
buff damage

How is this a good idea again?

P.S. about that Beef vid. so there are some uttery terrible players. I know this but, If they couldn't operate the "low skill" LRMs or for that matter hit with lasers how do you see your even more complicated idea as a help for them?

You may have even noticed the Archer on HPG came under fire from 2 seperate LRM sources yet mostly evaded the damage and slipped locks. If that player was that terrible yet they could still effectivley counter LRMs what is the need to save the poor nublets from LRMs again?

I don't see any advantage for the newbies with your proposal. Also if we made the game playable for them you and I would be board stupid. Those guys either got better or play something easier now.


P.P.S. You do know what Ad Hominem means right? your Tommy Lee Jones implies you don't quite get it or...is that what passes for clever? <---- example of Ad Hominem

Edited by Lykaon, 18 October 2017 - 01:09 AM.

[Vellron2005]

@Lykaon

Dude, you should really stop arguing with The6thMessanger.. it's like arguing with a rock..

This isn't the first "bright" idea he's had, and even though I have to give him props for sticking by his guns, it's like arguing with a Jehova's whitness..

You simply can't make him see someone else's point of view..

LRMs are getting neutered anyway next patch, and no weapon in the history of this game has EVER gotten a full rework, so the issue is moot.

The more attention this thread gets the more PGI will keep thinking LRMs need further nerfs.. so just stop.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

So what is your argument?

Oh, didn't i just tell you? Are you incapable of reading? My argument is that the homing system of the LRMs makes up for the fact that low-skill people don't have the skill to make good use of direct fire weapons in comparison. And coupled with low positioning skill, that results to the lurmageddon tier.

Me calling you "stupid" has nothing to do with the merit of this idea, as i am responding to you at the portion of what you said that has nothing to do with the merit of this idea. It's just about you assuming that i hate lrms, plain and simple. Don't be a dummy.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

you specifically make a compareson of ACs and LRMs and the skills you feel are so massively out of whack that merit your proposal.

Considering that it fits the model of negative correlation with skill, it fits the lurmageddon tier, yes it merits me giving a proposal, as i intend to fix that.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

What is it then? is it the poor little nublets being driven away from the game by arguably the worst weapon system in the whole game? Because that is a load of unsubstantiated crap. So hardley worthy of basing an argument on.

Not necessarily, it is however a problem in the higher tiers that LRMs are considered bad weapons, and sees little use in the competitive scene.

As for it being able to turn away new players, pretty sure that's just common sense. Then again, that wasn't my argument, it's my concern. Maybe it's unfounded, maybe it is, but surely it's a contribution realizing as to why PGI could be so concerned in buffing LRMs to the point of relevance into high-skill environment, such as comp.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

That is an assumption you made if this is the basis of your argument it's faulty right off the bat.

Demonstrate. Also not exactly the basis.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Your proposal amounts to one collective nerfing of LRM use to the point that it's so complex that it's just not worth trying to use LRMs.

Nothing more an increase of depth, cause surely it's not that good right now. Also, I'd use it.

Whether you think its too complicated for use is irrelevant, other people may disagree with you and find it fine. Such as Novakaine, ThatNumbGuy, and RoadBuster -- maybe even more.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Seriously a one third increase in cooldown plus lock on times of 1.5 seconds that need to be reaquired after each shot?

While also increasing the damage and decreasing spread. And if you don't know, why LRMs aren't really that great at damage despite the numbers, is that they are spread. Reducing the spread AND increasing it's damage is in fact pretty much a massive buff.

Also gives the ability to direct fire and shoot missiles straight than arcing, that means it can be used in tight-spaces, say tunnels.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

If someone told you they had an idea to "fix" gauss rifles and it was...

Increase gauss cooldown to by one third and add 50% to the charge up timer.

they would be laughed at.

Gross oversimplification, those are just stats. What about the modification i made with the UI and the mechanism of homing? And then it's not like gauss has the same issues, it's not homing, why would it have the same treatment? Are you being funny or being stupid?

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Yet you think your one third increase in LRM cooldowns coupled with 1.5 second lock timers (that I only assume does not count ECM delays) seems reasonable and not even slightly debilitating?

Because of increased damage, reduced spread, and change of use. Also homing system, the fact that you also don't have to retain missile lock, any one of you team can just retain target lock. Which is a huge jump in reliability in terms of landing a volley.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Oh a I forgot the underwhelming increase of velocity you proposed...useless! Still the slowest projectiles in the game.

Still homing, still a lot by comparison, still an improvement.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

And what about this convoluted arc prediction mechanic where someone planning to fire LRMs needs to guess where a target will end up after the shot is fired to hope to get some damage out? May as well ask to lead a target that is invisable.

To simulate target leading, and involving more skill with LRMs. This increases the skill floor and skill cieling, and opens up the weapon to more depth. Something you are too short-sighted to see.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

You know that even with your proposed velocity increase a target at around 500m distance from the LRM launcher has aprox. 3 seconds of movement (did you forget about the trajectory arc increases flight times? ) Three seconds to leave the target area and evade the volley. Without tracking the slowest projectiles in the game are so easily evaded that they become useless against anyone with a pulse.

Depends, you don't have to shoot in an arc if there's nothing between you and the target, reducing it to 2.08s. To put that into perspective, current LRMs is at 2.5s at 400m. As far as I'm concerned, LRMs as they are right now suffer the same problem of slow projectile, all i ever did is made it so that skill has more involvement in how one launches it.

Arcing shot can sometimes be a boon, or a liability, and that's by design.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

And about this trajectory proposal and the restoration of 1000m range. With the increased need to manually predict the height of a trajectory and the subsequent arcing fire it is entirely possible that you have reduced the effective range of LRMs not met a status quoe or buffed. Since specific numbers are not presented for how much arc is proposed and at what ranges I can assume this was just some untested theory crafting on your part?

Yes it's theory crafting. Also even if 1000m is the limit, arcing your fire makes your effective range actually shorter and travel time is a lot longer, that's how i chose to balance this system, that is to limit indirect fire. Of course PGI might do it differently, but that's how i intend to downgrade indirect fire.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Why the convoluted locking mechanic? what does it do to actually improve LRMs? it doesn't it just makes them slower to fire and couple that with the one third cooldown increase you propose the DPS output would be pretty much pathetic.

Because the "bow-arrow" design allows one to aim someplace else while still retaining lock, as opposed of constantly maintaining them. Had i not done that, how do you propose a missile that goes straight, go up obstacles? The centerpiece of this design is precisely controlling how the missile flies, it's modeled after howitzers.

As for the damage output, it's just numbers, it can always be adjusted.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Oh wait...a 50% increase to missile damge was proposed...let's take a quick guess at how the overall plan effects damage.

30% slower rate of fire reduces damage output by a a third the ridiculous lock on mechanics cause a significant delay in repeat fire let's go conservative here and say it's one 5th slower so 20% further reduction in rate of fire.

So that removes that 50% damage "buff" you so generously suggested.

So damage output from a 100% accurate launcher in a set time frame is unchanged. The delays in firing nullify the damage boost.

Yes, it somewhat nullifies the damage buff. So what? It's a rework, not an outright buff. It's a change in how LRM works, little about how it fits in the power curve.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

BUT...did you take into account the counterplay elements of exploiting minimum ranges? With the greatly reduced rate of fire and the requirements placed with the proposed lock mechanics further reducing repeat fire and the highly likely occurance of the proposed arcing fire predictive B.S. reducing overall effective range how difficult is it to nullify the LRMs by closing range?

What if i told you i expect lurmboats to have a backup weapon? Then again, with enough arc one can use the LRMs at a significantly shorter effective range -- although i expect that to be too much of an emergency to matter to anyone but to the desperate.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Easy painfully easy I would imagine. I guess you didn't think this through,unless you did and you felt it was reasonable?

Are you sure that it's not just you not understanding my position fully well? Are you sure that it's not just you having tunnel vision because all of those numbers?

The essence of this idea is emphasizing more skill to how we launch LRMs. LRMs wouldn't be just that simple to use, so much so that it's lrmageddon down the tier, people have to think harder how they lurm, to achieve the perfect angle for indirect fire. This makes it less easy for low-skill to participate in indirect fire and be effective with it, this opens the LRMs to buffs for the high-skill tier.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well it isn't. It's crap a badly formulated plan that shows a lack of understanding of mechanics in actual gameplay.

As you just demonstrated, you are ill informed to have such an opinion, to qualify as some sort authority. Not only you failed to see the weapon in the grand scheme, you failed to understand why such additions despite others getting it, despite clear and concise statements about it. You think that something as the arc adjustment, i didn't see the increase of trajectory distance -- but i did, and it was by design, how the UI works is also by design. You say that the numbers i proposed is just nerfs, yet you ignore much of the changes of how the weapon works.

Don't make me laugh.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

And then there is the reduction in ammo per ton. Why? you have already dramaticly reduced any hopes of accuracy and vastly reduced refire rates. Did you think less ammo was needed because of the 1.5 damage per missile proposed? That damage was already "taken back" with the cooldown increase and new lock mechanics.

Oh i don't know, damage/ammo ton. Also to force LRM users to be more careful with their shots.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

So recap.

Nerf cooldown
Nerf ammo
Nerf effective range (that convoluted ballistic arc idea does this try some math and test it out)
Nerf accuracy
buff damage

Also:

buff spread
buff homing -- by removal of sustained missile lock, but only target lock
buff velocity

Not because you managed to list a lot more nerfs than buffs, it's mostly a nerfs. The quality of those buffs or nerfs also have to be considered. Maybe the buffed spread, velocity, homing, damage, and trajectory would be enough to nullify it?

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

How is this a good idea again?

Because it's a complete rework of the LRMs, both how they function as a direct fire and indirect fire, as a support weapon. Such rework, that fixes the lurmageddon at the lower tier, can open the weapon up in more buffs that allows it better relevance at the higher tiers - maybe even comp people use it?

Besides, a lot more intricate LRM bending would be pretty useful, and pretty badass.

Don't get too worked up with the numbers, they can be easily changed. It's how the LRMs work that matters, don't be stupid.

Vellron2005, on 18 October 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

@Lykaon

Dude, you should really stop arguing with The6thMessenger.. it's like arguing with a rock..

This isn't the first "bright" idea he's had, and even though I have to give him props for sticking by his guns, it's like arguing with a Jehova's whitness..

Oh please, while you think you're arguing with a rock -- because you seem to not have the proper discipline.

To me it's like arguing with children.

I mean "I hate lrms", really? As if not getting the idea isn't enough, criticizing the strawman of it is just sad.

Vellron2005, on 18 October 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

You simply can't make him see someone else's point of view..

Wrong, i see your point of view. You just can't muster up actual good arguments to make me agree to it.

Not to mention your point of view isn't really that reasonable. Sure LRMs are workable, but ignoring why it has difficulties for the sake of it not being nerfed by the balance overlord out of spite? What about preventing another accurate metric of skill, on the irrational fear of being bullied (bullied as in shamed by people bragging about their scores without mentioning you specifically at all)?

Also, it's a discussion, you discuss, not preach and just expect people to accept your side with little question. If you don't want to discuss and keep to your own little echo chamber, if you can't take hearing or knowing an opposing idea, or someone disagreeing with you, don't bother with message boards.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 October 2017 - 02:04 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 16 October 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

... i wasn't commenting about ATMs sucking currently, i was commenting that they suck WHEN this change occurs.

Jesus Christ.

At that time the patchnotes were not out.

Iam not wasting more time at you after this.

Edited by Kroete, 18 October 2017 - 02:04 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 18 October 2017 - 02:03 AM, said:

At that time the patchnotes were not out.

Iam not wasting more time at you after this.

So the **** what?

Again, ATMs would suck if they stayed the same, if the changes in the LRM occurs, because of the overlap in roles. Why is that hard to understand?