136 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Alright let me be very very clear.

pretty much your entire idea is garbage.

You seem lack the experience of use needed to fully understand how LRMs function or how they are employed by low skill as apposed to high skill users.

You have based your ideas on assumptions without ONCE citing any imperical data to support your claims.

Just saying something is true is not proof. It's opinion until proof is cited and confirmed.

Now some specific points.

Claiming LRMs are faulty because they rely on the targets lack of skill to be successful is B.S. because ALL weapons are more effective if your target does nothing to hamper your success.

One of your key arguments is faulty because it applies to all weapons in MWo not just LRMs. By singling out LRMs for an adjustment without addressing the core issue (and it's not LRMs it's skill dispairity) Does nothing to ballance this assumed Lurmagedon tier. It removes LRMs as a playable option sure...I guess you gain that victory but what is next on the chopping block? Lasers? they are hit scan amd the least skill intencive direct fire weapons.

Your argument is flawed because you misdiagnosed the issue. it's not locking and tracking mechanics because there is ample counter play for the LRM. And just because someone doesn't use the counters does not mean the weapon is the cause.

I could just as easily write a massive pile of drivel on how direct fire weapons are devastating the nublets because they lack the skills to effectively use cover and evade.

"Autocannons are inversely skilled because they are more effective when employed against low skill targets who lack the capacity to use cover or take evasive action. I here by decree that all ballistic weapons must be fired in a arc to reduce accuracy and have their cooldown timers increased by 33.334% also their ammo reduced by a third and while we are at it reduce velocity to allow for easier dodging. This will save the poor little nublets"

But it would be drivel much like this idea you put forth.

Your initial example is so unbelievably cherry picked to support your argument that anyone with any time spent playing can see right through it.

So...let me recap.

essentially if a target is standing in the open with no cover or countermeasures of any kind available the homing nature of LRMs prevents the target from ever evading the hit.

But, how is this target being "seen" to be a viable target?

UAV? counter play: shoot the UAV.

Friendly "buddy lock" counter play:Shoot the target that can see you and kill or force them to disengage.

LRM carrier has direct line of sight? counterplay: shoot them back with your direct fire weapons and win the trade!

Overwhelmed by enemy mechs with to many in sight to destroy or suppress? counterplay: your team screwed the pooch you lost the match or you screwed the pooch and blundered. options...run for it.

Also this claim is patently false! players slip locks all the time. Actually go look at that Beef video you like posting to support your arguments about how bad players are. On that video is a terrible player who has equiped and AMS and slips locks from two LRM sources. And that guy was terrible. but he slipped the locks and evaded not one but two LRM sources.

As an example of badness even that guy can evade TWO LRM users!

But don't let me have an opinion based upon my experiences in MWo since June 2012 I am sure you have accumulated a far more in depth view and understanding since may 2016.

Edited by Lykaon, 18 October 2017 - 02:21 AM.

[Vellron2005]

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

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

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

The6thMessenger, on 18 October 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

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.

Case in point..

Edited by Vellron2005, 18 October 2017 - 02:42 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 18 October 2017 - 02:40 AM, said:

Case in point..

Oh please, your idea of "seeing my perspective" is people just agreeing blindly and without question.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Alright let me be very very clear.

pretty much your entire idea is garbage.

It's funny how you can have such conclusion without even understanding the idea.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

You seem lack the experience of use needed to fully understand how LRMs function or how they are employed by low skill as apposed to high skill users.

Lol.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

You have based your ideas on assumptions without ONCE citing any imperical data to support your claims.

Just saying something is true is not proof. It's opinion until proof is cited and confirmed.

"Empirical." Also "argument", do you know what philosophy is? I attempted to explain a phenomenon through arguments.

Something that would fit logically with what result we see. The model I argued fits it, so i went with it.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Claiming LRMs are faulty because they rely on the targets lack of skill to be successful is B.S. because ALL weapons are more effective if your target does nothing to hamper your success.

One of your key arguments is faulty because it applies to all weapons in MWo not just LRMs. By singling out LRMs for an adjustment without addressing the core issue (and it's not LRMs it's skill dispairity) Does nothing to ballance this assumed Lurmagedon tier. It removes LRMs as a playable option sure...I guess you gain that victory but what is next on the chopping block? Lasers? they are hit scan amd the least skill intencive direct fire weapons.

Wrong, i said that they rely more on lack of skill to be successful. Also not because all weapons are effective with lack of targets, it invalidates such argument. It has something to say more about the state of LRMs versus "targets that does something". All weapons are more effective if your target does nothing sure, but LRMs are even less effective in contrast to other weapons when your target is doing something -- compared to one that's point and shoot. And the point of contention is about the difference of result between "not doing something" and "doing something" with LRMs versus other weapons.

Skill disparity will always exist because of different players, so we can only adjust the game and have it fit the way it has to be to be balanced.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Your argument is flawed because you misdiagnosed the issue. it's not locking and tracking mechanics because there is ample counter play for the LRM. And just because someone doesn't use the counters does not mean the weapon is the cause.

You might as well say crime is not an issue, because there are laws against criminal acts, despite the fact that crimes has been happening at all. Congratulations, you just disproven "crime".

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

I could just as easily write a massive pile of drivel on how direct fire weapons are devastating the nublets because they lack the skills to effectively use cover and evade.

"Autocannons are inversely skilled because they are more effective when employed against low skill targets who lack the capacity to use cover or take evasive action. I here by decree that all ballistic weapons must be fired in a arc to reduce accuracy and have their cooldown timers increased by 33.334% also their ammo reduced by a third and while we are at it reduce velocity to allow for easier dodging. This will save the poor little nublets"

But it would be drivel much like this idea you put forth.

Could work, but what problems does it address? Is it even a problem? Because we know that Lurmageddon tier exists, we know that LRMs needs a lot of work to land versus high-skill, but not so much against low skill.

The fact that you just made that poor excuse of a satire means you don't understand the idea and the rationale behind it at all.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Your initial example is so unbelievably cherry picked to support your argument that anyone with any time spent playing can see right through it.

Unless you have other things to address, i'd say it's pretty much the problem after a long thought and discussion with it from another thread.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

So...let me recap.

essentially if a target is standing in the open with no cover or countermeasures of any kind available the homing nature of LRMs prevents the target from ever evading the hit.

But, how is this target being "seen" to be a viable target?

UAV? counter play: shoot the UAV.

Friendly "buddy lock" counter play:Shoot the target that can see you and kill or force them to disengage.

LRM carrier has direct line of sight? counterplay: shoot them back with your direct fire weapons and win the trade!

Overwhelmed by enemy mechs with to many in sight to destroy or suppress?

counterplay: your team screwed the pooch you lost the match or you screwed the pooch and blundered. options...run for it.

And that's the problem, you look at it with the perspective that people on the lower tier uses these, they don't exactly do. Hell, the UAV is still pretty much of a problem. It's not that I say that counter play doesn't exist, is just that with what we've seen, these people are too inexperienced to even use the sort of thing, that they don't get much use for it to matter. And on that environment, the LRMs' hit chance skyrockets.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Also this claim is patently false! players slip locks all the time. Actually go look at that Beef video you like posting to support your arguments about how bad players are. On that video is a terrible player who has equiped and AMS and slips locks from two LRM sources. And that guy was terrible. but he slipped the locks and evaded not one but two LRM sources.

As an example of badness even that guy can evade TWO LRM users!

As if you don't see a different brew and intensities of potatoes? Isn't that convenient.

What about the second one in tourmaline that manages to retain lock, but still does lrm and lasering poorly? Really?

Just as you assuming that i must have a device to type in these words to talk to you, couldn't have you extrapolated that the minimum amount of skill to make use of LRMs must've been reached for them to at least lock on and lurm, and still be bad at the rest of the game?

Of course if they slip lock with 45 degrees, how much less effective they are with pin-point?

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

But don't let me have an opinion based upon my experiences in MWo since June 2012 I am sure you have accumulated a far more in depth view and understanding since may 2016.

I'm more of result oriented, so if you're saying things that contrary to your supposed experience, i wouldn't believe it. Remember ad hominem? What you're doing now is basically ad hominem in a nutshell. The hypocrisy.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 October 2017 - 04:17 AM.

[Wolfways]

lol six years and this crap is still going on. The only rework LRM's need is to make them better in higher Tiers. Unfortunately pgi seem to be more concerned with not losing bad players than they are about making a good game.

I don't have a driving license. I've never driven a car in my life. Maybe I like watching motor sports on tv such as F1 and I'd like to take part. OP's argument is that since I'm not a pro F1 should have a speed cap so I can feel more competitive... I mean, I could go onto the "F1 forums" and complain that the other drivers know how to use their vehicles better than me, some others agree with me, and suddenly there's a "speedageddon".
Since when did games have to cater to the worst players? You get better...or you don't and have to decide whether to continue playing or not.

Low Tier players get killed by LRM's because they haven't figured out how to deal with them yet (or refuse to and prefer to just complain about them on the forums hoping they'll be nerfed even further), but imo most of the complaining about LRM's being OP is because it's more obvious when you get pounded by them than it is with other weapons, they are a force multiplier (indirect-fire), and let's not forget that some players just hate LRM's "because".

LRM's will always suck because pgi makes arena's instead of battlefields, and the best defense against slow projectiles is cover...and a whopping great warning that they're inbound.

[The6thMessenger]

Wolfways, on 18 October 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

lol six years and this crap is still going on. The only rework LRM's need is to make them better in higher Tiers. Unfortunately pgi seem to be more concerned with not losing bad players than they are about making a good game.

Unfortunately, PGI seems to be scared in buffing the LRM because low-tier. That's why i proposed this solution, so that it would address the problems in the lower tier, and PGI could buff the weapon in peace.

Wolfways, on 18 October 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

I don't have a driving license. I've never driven a car in my life. Maybe I like watching motor sports on tv such as F1 and I'd like to take part. OP's argument is that since I'm not a pro F1 should have a speed cap so I can feel more competitive... I mean, I could go onto the "F1 forums" and complain that the other drivers know how to use their vehicles better than me, some others agree with me, and suddenly there's a "speedageddon".
Since when did games have to cater to the worst players? You get better...or you don't and have to decide whether to continue playing or not.

Don't take this the wrong way, i don't want to balance by potato. But the problem is that this resistance with PGI isn't getting us anywhere. So instead of just fighting what they want to do -- cause obviously they don't want to just buff the hell out of LRMs, here's another idea, maybe it would work.

Wolfways, on 18 October 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

Low Tier players get killed by LRM's because they haven't figured out how to deal with them yet (or refuse to and prefer to just complain about them on the forums hoping they'll be nerfed even further), but imo most of the complaining about LRM's being OP is because it's more obvious when you get pounded by them than it is with other weapons, they are a force multiplier (indirect-fire), and let's not forget that some players just hate LRM's "because".

And I agree, AMEN.

Wolfways, on 18 October 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

LRM's will always suck because pgi makes arena's instead of battlefields, and the best defense against slow projectiles is cover...and a whopping great warning that they're inbound.

Yep, totally.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 18 October 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

"Empirical." Also "argument", do you know what philosophy is? I attempted to explain a phenomenon through arguments.

Something that would fit logically with what result we see. The model I argued fits it, so i went with it.

There is a 97% chance I am smarter than you. So yes...I know.

But the model you argued as I pointed out FITS ALL WEAPONS! You attribute unique character to a model that encompasses all.

Just because you choose to ignore your observations to meet your desired conclusions does not make you correct.

It just makes you willfully ignorant.

....done.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 18 October 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

I'm more of result oriented, so if you're saying things that contrary to your supposed experience, i wouldn't believe it. Remember ad hominem? What you're doing now is basically ad hominem in a nutshell. The hypocrisy.

Sorry just read this part and I am proud of you. This was ad hominem because I did use my five years of experiences as a source of my conclusions as the impetus as to why I may have a broader understanding. I also pointed out that your slightly more than 1 year may be insufficent to have a similar degree of experiences.

One could conclude that I attempted to invalidate your argument by casting doubt on your compitence to have the argument to begin with ie. citing that I have slightly less than 5 times the times investment playing as you.

But it is possible that you play far more often than I maybe you play 50 hours a week while I play maybe 7.

or maybe someone who has been here for over 5 years has seen several iterations of PGI's LRM mechanics the addition of NARC,Artemis and TAG the introduction of ECM (the height of the Jesus box's power) Several adjustments to locking mechanics and ballistic arcs and velocity several alterations of LRM range (did you know 630m was the first max range on LRMs?) That maybe someone with over 5 years in game may have seen a heck of a lot more than someone who started a little over a year ago.

And maybe with that history of experience watching the evolution of the game from then (2012) to now (2017) I may have insight you could not have?

[Lykaon]

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

....done.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

And that's the problem, you look at it with the perspective that people on the lower tier uses these, they don't exactly do. Hell, the UAV is still pretty much of a problem. It's not that I say that counter play doesn't exist, is just that with what we've seen, these people are too inexperienced to even use the sort of thing, that they don't get much use for it to matter. And on that environment, the LRMs' hit chance skyrockets.

Inexperience is not an excuse to nerf a weapon. A base level of competence is required before valuing the input of others- you don't ask an illiterate how good a novel was, then call it horrible because the illiterate didn't like it's lack of pictures. Once you hit a low enough skill level, the effectiveness data you're getting becomes invalid.

It's like heeding calls for cutting PPC heat loads in half because a newbie complains about shutting down after firing three together on Caustic while using nothing more than 10 single heat sinks.

You'd tell them no, add double heat sinks and plenty of them, because that's how the weapon works. The newbie clearly is missing valuable knowhow and their opinon sinks so far below "educated" as to be discarded in a discussion of PPC balance.

So it goes for LRMs- if the person complaining cannot manage basic counterplay, their opinions on LRM balance are too uninformed to be valid.

We're talking a weapon system that is reasonably thwarted by a large rock, warns it's target of launch, and even has passive counters that require no more skill than simply equipping them.

And yet, the effectiveness of the LRM is STILL being degraded, regardless of it being a third-rate weapon already.

That is asinine.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 18 October 2017 - 10:37 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

There is a 97% chance I am smarter than you. So yes...I know.

But the model you argued as I pointed out FITS ALL WEAPONS! You attribute unique character to a model that encompasses all.

Just because you choose to ignore your observations to meet your desired conclusions does not make you correct.

It just makes you willfully ignorant.

Wrong, i worked from the "conclusion", and see where it went from there. There's a difference.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

Sorry just read this part and I am proud of you. This was ad hominem because I did use my five years of experiences as a source of my conclusions as the impetus as to why I may have a broader understanding. I also pointed out that your slightly more than 1 year may be insufficent to have a similar degree of experiences.

Oh please, you're older, and because of that your conclusions are better than mine? Really?

You might as well say you can snipe people 800 meters away using a small pulse laser.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

One could conclude that I attempted to invalidate your argument by casting doubt on your compitence to have the argument to begin with ie. citing that I have slightly less than 5 times the times investment playing as you.

Yes, ad hominem. You are not tackling the argument, you are tackling the person. And considering how your argumentation devolved into who's older, and that initial "i hate LRMs", we've hit rock bottom.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

But it is possible that you play far more often than I maybe you play 50 hours a week while I play maybe 7.

Kind of. Last two months i wasn't playing due to board exam.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

or maybe someone who has been here for over 5 years has seen several iterations of PGI's LRM mechanics the addition of NARC,Artemis and TAG the introduction of ECM (the height of the Jesus box's power) Several adjustments to locking mechanics and ballistic arcs and velocity several alterations of LRM range (did you know 630m was the first max range on LRMs?) That maybe someone with over 5 years in game may have seen a heck of a lot more than someone who started a little over a year ago.

And maybe with that history of experience watching the evolution of the game from then (2012) to now (2017) I may have insight you could not have?

Well, so what? All that makes you is knowledgeable about the history of the game or PGI's practices -- lots of information irrelevant to the topic at hand. Anyone who observed at the lower tiers long enough could have the same valid insight. Don't you ******** me.

But hey, you know what, whatever the supposedly MWO expert says, even if you say that you can snipe people 800m away using small pulse laser, then you're right.

Brain Cancer, on 18 October 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

Inexperience is not an excuse to nerf a weapon. A base level of competence is required before valuing the input of others- you don't ask an illiterate how good a novel was, then call it horrible because the illiterate didn't like it's lack of pictures. Once you hit a low enough skill level, the effectiveness data you're getting becomes invalid.

I wasn't nerfing it, i was reworking it. It's not a question of how it fits the power curve, it's how it fits the lower tier.

Likewise, doesn't PGI only look at spreadsheets? Well they still use low-skill as valid. Not that I'm saying that it's valid -- yes i agree that low skill shouldn't be a valid representation of how to balance a weapon is. However, PGI is doing it, regardless. I'm only suggesting a change that could fit with their practices.

Had they just ignored the cries of the lurmageddon tier and buffed the weapon to relevance to higher tiers, i wouldn't really post this rework.

We can make an inference about it based on what we see anyways, such as if it's far more effective in the lower tier than in the higher tier -- but it's considered as bad weapon in the higher tiers, instead of having equal effectiveness due to equalized user and target skill by tier, then maybe there's a problem in the implementation?

Brain Cancer, on 18 October 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

It's like heeding calls for cutting PPC heat loads in half because a newbie complains about shutting down after firing three together on Caustic while using nothing more than 10 single heat sinks.

You'd tell them no, add double heat sinks and plenty of them, because that's how the weapon works. The newbie clearly is missing valuable knowhow and their opinon sinks so far below "educated" as to be discarded in a discussion of PPC balance.

But the problem of your example is that the LRM's benefit from the percieved incompetence, while the PPCs are punished for incompetence.

I get where you are coming from. Yes they are supposed get to cover, learn how to position against LRMs. But the difference of the LRMs spawned what people call the lurmageddon tier.

I want them to learn not to be bad, really i do. But this lurmageddon tier is exactly why LRMs couldn't just get proper buffs, cause PGI is scared of what it does on the lower tier -- or they seem to be.

Brain Cancer, on 18 October 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

So it goes for LRMs- if the person complaining cannot manage basic counterplay, their opinions on LRM balance are too uninformed to be valid.

I agree, I really do. I don't want to balance by potato. But by how PGI is doing it, there's only so much we can do.

Brain Cancer, on 18 October 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

We're talking a weapon system that is reasonably thwarted by a large rock, warns it's target of launch, and even has passive counters that require no more skill than simply equipping them. And yet, the effectiveness of the LRM is STILL being degraded, regardless of it being a third-rate weapon already. That is asinine.

Yes, exactly, that's ******* asinine. Completely, AMEN.

But there's only so much numbers can do, for a weapon fundamentally flawed down to it's mechanics, especially when the developer is keen in taking the invalid data as valid.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 October 2017 - 03:39 PM.

[Lykaon]

Listen up 6th...

You need to stop really you are seriously looking foolish. The more you post the further you erode your credibility.

I was going to be finished with this thread because of your incurable obstinance and deep seeded relationship with solipsism but...

let us continue.

Your argument has in fact degraded to validating your point of view based on the absolute worst possible players using various weapons and circumstances and failing to use counters and circumstances etc.

You have at this point painted yourself into a deep corner by using what amounts to cherry picked arguments and outright dismissal of reality.

Others have pointed out that because the worst of the worst players have difficulties it is HIGHLY LIKELY it's not due to how a weapon system function but in REALITY because they are inexperienced and devoid of the skills needed for counter play.

And it is this very lack of skill and experience that invalidate there qualification to accurately comment on a subject.

Just because players do not utilize the available counterplay does not mean there is NO COUNTERPLAY! it means they are lacking in the skill set to use the counterplay AT THIS TIME or will never adapt because they are willfully ignoring reality and refusing to utilize the counterplay options.

Here is a little example .

In all my years playing MWo I have never once piloted a Mad Dog. But I insist that the mad dog is way under powered because I consistantly see them destroyed in combat. I have made an observation I know it happens so I formulate a reason why this occurs...thus the maddog must suck and needs buffing.

I have without any real expertese with Maddogs came to a conclusion that if A occurs ( I see them destroyed) then B (they suck) must also be true.


Several players with a great deal of experience with Maddogs tell me they get excellent results from piloting a maddog. Since they have observed a great deal of success they conclude that I am laboring under a false assumption due to a lack of understanding.

So they explain their experiences...

When someone points out to me that it is more likely that the maddogs I see under performing are in use by lower skill pilots I now double down!

It is because of these unskilled maddog pilots that the Maddog MUST be altered to be competive because in the lower tiers it's the maddog-pocolypse with those poor nublets being seal clubed when the use maddogs.

I am being willfully obstinate when I ignore the very high probability that those nublets in ANY mech would be clubbed.

The issue is far more likely to be skill based than at all related to the Maddog chassis yet I still insist that all evidence contrary to my absurd point of view is moronic and those failing to recognize my genius are idiots.

Several other players with experiences contrary to my point of view put forth well thought out and supported arguments yet...I need not pay them any heed because they are idiots I even told them so several times!


So since you choose to define your reality on your own terms and noone seems to be able to reach you from our collective reality.

Best of luck..

Edited by Lykaon, 18 October 2017 - 03:52 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Listen up 6th...

You need to stop really you are seriously looking foolish. The more you post the further you erode your credibility.

Oh please.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Your argument has in fact degraded to validating your point of view based on the absolute worst possible players using various weapons and circumstances and failing to use counters and circumstances etc.

Do you know that people don't exactly flock to use LRMs in competition? Just ask QK. You know what else? LRMs are widely regarded as bad weapons in the higher tier -- debatable really, but considering all the hurdles one need to do just to land a volley, and it doesn't really do much compared to other weapons, i would say that i agree.

On that badness, we still see LRMs flourishing on the lower tiers, why is that? And despite pointing out why the weapon is bad at high tiers, PGI has failed to buff the weapon -- hell even nerfed it as the patch came right now. PGI's focus seems to be balancing it on the lower tiers too, and because of that it's not being buffed into relevance in the higher tiers.

I theorized that it must be about the homing system, as it paves for much of the ease of use of LRMs, that unlike pin-point weapons, we only need to have the target at 45 degrees in a cone (pre-nerf). Without homing, how effective would indirect fire work with a slow projectile? How could one even land if it's even at 2000 m/s when target is moving without homing? And then consider when the counterplays aren't active because of ineptitude, -- as opposed of pin-point direct fire weapons, the LRMs can just find their way to the target easier.

And then we see the lurmageddon tier, that LRMs thrives more on players with poor positioning. Yes very much every weapon would also thrive on poor positioning, but then LRM is even less effective. When the effectiveness of other direct fire weapons is minus-by-skill, for lrms it's divided-by-skill.

And because the LRM is ALSO balanced on the lower tier by PGI's hands, we can see that LRMs on the higher tier is far weaker than it's supposed to be, that it's regarded as a "bad" weapon.

The aim of this suggestion is to make the target-skill-to-effectiveness ratio to be linear (straight slope), than regressive (curved slope). Considering that it aims to fix the weapon FOR the worst players since they are the problem, so that it can be balanced with regards to high skill, my focus is to fix the weapon for low skill.

Why is that hard to understand? It's not cherry picking, it's what is relevant. The problem lies on the lower tier, people on the high tier just manages fine, so of course the focus to fix what is the problem on the lower tier.

Still not getting it? Here's a visual Aid:

X axis is skill both of target and user - basically the environment.
Y axis is the effectiveness of the weapon.

Spoiler

The problem is that any buff for the high tier would mean that the effectiveness on the lower tier would go way up, and that's exactly the problem. What i want to happen is to introduce more involvement of skill with LRMs to normalize such effectiveness -- basically make it complicated and remove much ease of use and good result, so that the LRMs can be buffed on the high-tier while still balanced on low tier.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

You have at this point painted yourself into a deep corner by using what amounts to cherry picked arguments and outright dismissal of reality.

No, you missed my point. Yes i agree, don't balance by potato. But if it's because PGI is doing it, we can only abide by their practices until they change otherwise, cause sure as hell they're too stuck up in their little pedestal.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Others have pointed out that because the worst of the worst players have difficulties it is HIGHLY LIKELY it's not due to how a weapon system function but in REALITY because they are inexperienced and devoid of the skills needed for counter play.

I get it, i really do. I don't want to balance by potato. But the problem is that, the weapon is just too damn effective in the lower levels, and is considered bad in the higher levels. Wouldn't it be best that it's both just effective between people of (near) equal skill, say high skill versus high-skill, and low-skill versus low skill.

It's the thing you aren't keen on getting.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

And it is this very lack of skill and experience that invalidate there qualification to accurately comment on a subject.

Again, i agree. It's just with PGI's practices, they don't. So all i did is proposed a weapon rework that could fit with their practices, and finally get a heading.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Just because players do not utilize the available counterplay does not mean there is NO COUNTERPLAY! it means they are lacking in the skill set to use the counterplay AT THIS TIME or will never adapt because they are willfully ignoring reality and refusing to utilize the counterplay options.

And i never said that there is no counterplay. I just said that it would have been irrelevant to the factor of hit-chance if they aren't using it. People low skill aren't using it as much as high skill does, and my focus is to fix the weapon to fix the weapons at their use to the lower tiers.

And if the counterplay still works here, then it should still work with the introduction of this new mechanics. ECM still reduces missile lock speed, LRMs still can't go through walls, and if you could bend LRMs before change, you could still bend LRMs after the change.

It's supposed to stay relatively the same for the high-skill tier, just not at low-skill tier. It's supposed to quell the effectiveness on the lower tier, and have it relatively normal. And by doing so, PGI can buff it for the proper environment to get the data from.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

In all my years playing MWo I have never once piloted a Mad Dog. But I insist that the mad dog is way under powered because I consistantly see them destroyed in combat. I have made an observation I know it happens so I formulate a reason why this occurs...thus the maddog must suck and needs buffing.

I have without any real expertese with Maddogs came to a conclusion that if A occurs ( I see them destroyed) then B (they suck) must also be true.

Several players with a great deal of experience with Maddogs tell me they get excellent results from piloting a maddog. Since they have observed a great deal of success they conclude that I am laboring under a false assumption due to a lack of understanding.

So they explain their experiences...

When someone points out to me that it is more likely that the maddogs I see under performing are in use by lower skill pilots I now double down!

It is because of these unskilled maddog pilots that the Maddog MUST be altered to be competive because in the lower tiers it's the maddog-pocolypse with those poor nublets being seal clubed when the use maddogs.

I am being willfully obstinate when I ignore the very high probability that those nublets in ANY mech would be clubbed.

Except it wasn't a mad dog, it's an LRM. Also I have played with LRMs, both Clans (with timber wolfs) and IS (with Blackjack and Hunchback) -- i've been here for a year, honestly it's not that hard to slap an LRM to my existing weapons. I also started from Tier 5 like anyone did, i experienced the lurmageddon first hand. Playing LRMs both at Tier 5 and Tier 1, i know the difference of difficulties, especially what it lacks.

So you implying that i don't have any experience is just outright false. Your entire argument is basically an adhominem; instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person. Instead of actually challenging the argument, all you ever been is dubious of my credibility.

And then the crux of it is that you don't understand, and misrepresent my position. I don't say that LRMs have no counterplay, nor LRMs being bad is the conclusion -- that's my starting point.

I mean sure, the LRM "Experts" get good result with them. But So what if they get good results? The issue isn't whether LRMs are bad on their level, rather it's how it is over performing on the lower levels. So what if they are fine on the higher levels? So what if on the higher levels, the counterplays are used? They are rarely used on the lower levels contributing to the problem that is the LRMageddon.

Even if i grant you the first part, it's conclusion would have been LRMs is just fine for the high tier -- never mind that it's not that used in Comp. Guess what, it still has unprecedented effectiveness on the lower tiers, the LRMageddon tier still exists.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

The issue is far more likely to be skill based than at all related to the Maddog chassis yet I still insist that all evidence contrary to my absurd point of view is moronic and those failing to recognize my genius are idiots.

What makes you an idiot is you arguing fallaciously -- Ad Hominem + Appeal to Authority, and trying to take down the point of view that's not necessarily mine, essentially a Strawman. And all the "evidence" you have is either an ad-hominem that questions my credibility, or bits and pieces of facts that wouldn't have been relevant.

Yes, I don't have qualms that the result of the LRMageddon tier is the Low-Skill there -- it's an excuse that would work just as well, and if they only ever improve themselves. But the thing is that PGI can adjust the equipment -- the implementation, not the skill of the players -- it's up to the players themselves. The attitude of "this is just about skill", skill of which the developers couldn't control, would not lead us anywhere.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Several other players with experiences contrary to my point of view put forth well thought out and supported arguments yet...I need not pay them any heed because they are idiots I even told them so several times!

What evidence? All you ever implied is i lacked the experience, that i hate lrms, you said that i cherrypicked data -- not considering the fact that every other things you just said i missed is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Don't you ******** me.

You see how i treated Brain Cancer? To ThatNumbGuy? With respect. So did i to QK. You know why? Because they're willing to listen, reason only works to those who listen. You are not willing to listen, cause you're too stuck up with your irrelevant experiences and narrow thinking.

Lykaon, on 18 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

So since you choose to define your reality on your own terms and noone seems to be able to reach you from our collective reality.

Best of luck..

Sure, whatever lets you sleep at night.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 12:10 AM.

[Kroete]

We are in the same tier, but i mostly use lrms, i have only a single assault, the svn with lrms+atms.
I tried you to convice you to play a little more with lrms without statshaming, but you dont understand,
so lets talk numbers:
You cant even catch up with an old, drugged and disabled man not using meta, but 90% lrms/atms (svn and dogs). Thats balancing from potato.

The6thMessenger, on 18 October 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

I also started from Tier 5 like anyone did, i experienced the lurmageddon first hand.

No, you are not long enough here to have seen the real lrmmageddon, you dont know 180° degree turning missiles, 90° divining lrms hitting your head and lrms that do splatdamage and the beautiful spiraling artemis we had. At that time you could hit the enemys back standing in front of them if you knowed how.

Edited by Kroete, 19 October 2017 - 12:18 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

We are in the same tier, but i mostly use lrms, i have only a single assault, the svn with lrms+atms.
I tried you to convice you to play a little more with lrms without statshaming, but you dont understand,

Okay, never mind the fact that you don't show your tier to confirm that, and then you mostly use LRMs -- i guess that's where the bias comes from. But lets ignore that.

Because you idea of "play little more" is to play LRMs until i agree with you, not whether i really have an opinion about it. Basically you are not willing to accept any opinion other than your own, because anything else "means" "they didn't played enough".

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

so lets talk numbers:
You cant even catch up with an old, drugged and disabled man not using meta, but 90% lrms/atms (svn and dogs). Thats balancing from potato.

I honestly don't want to balance by potato, really i don't. But lets face it, PGI does. And all i ever did is gave an idea that would fit their model of practice. You have problems with that, please take it up to them -- i'm here for result.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

No, you are not long enough here to have seen the real lrmmageddon, you dont know 180° degree turning missiles, 90° divining lrms hitting your head and lrms that do splatdamage and the beautiful spiraling artemis we had.

So basically, a no true-Scotsman fallacy? But okay, never mind the fallacy.

Does the exponential increase in effectiveness exist at the lower tier when i was here? If it does, i experienced it. It doesn't matter if there used to be a crisis, i still experienced that LRMs are extremely effective when i had low skills, i still played on an environment of low-skill where LRMs thrived so well. I still observed the exponential decrease of effectiveness with skill.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 12:39 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

Okay, never mind the fact that you don't show your tier to confirm that, and then you mostly use LRMs -- i guess that's where the bias comes from. But lets ignore that.

Because you idea of "play little more" is to play LRMs until i agree with you, not whether i really have an opinion about it. Basically you are not willing to accept any opinion other than your own, because anything else "means" "they didn't played enough".

If you dont understand some basics for "good" lrm-usage, you need to play more with them.
Lets talk again if you can get at least 1.0 kd/wl (in tier 1 with lrms only).

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

I honestly don't want to balance by potato, really i don't. But lets face it, PGI does. And all i ever did is gave an idea that would fit their model of practice. You have problems with that, please take it up to them -- i'm here for result.

But why do you try it then?
And pgi dont balance by potato, they balance by dices or dartboards.

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

So basically, a no true-Scotsman fallacy? But okay, never mind the fallacy.

Does the exponential increase in effectiveness exist at the lower tier when i was here? If it does, i experienced it. It doesn't matter if there used to be a crisis, i still experienced that LRMs are extremely effective when i had low skills, i still played on an environment of low-skill where LRMs thrived so well. I still observed the exponential decrease of effectiveness with skill.

Lrm are still effective in higher tiers, you just need to learn and work a little more to do so.
What you observed in the higer tiers are players that dont learned the skills to use them against players that learned the skills to avoid them.

In the lower tiers there are more problems that you dont even recognized:
How many trialmechs have ams?
How many metamechs that were parroted by t5 players dont have ams?

Edited by Kroete, 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

If you dont understand some basics for "good" lrm-usage, you need to play more with them.

You mean Lurm 400 to 600m away cause above it takes too much to land? To lurm with your team? to keep moving? One can put LRm launchers at torso and aim up, lock torso, and aim down with the arms to retain lock and have missile clear the current cover you're in?

Well, i kinda understand the basics. The "good" you claim is probably subjective. Aside from playing with them, I also read tutorials: https://mwomercs.com...lrm-boat-pilot/

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

But why do you try it then?

Because it might achieve something better? So that it can be buffed to relevance in the high tiers -- cause with with all the hurdles it has to jump through, the least it could do is have an equivalent output.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

And pgi dont balance by potato, they balance by dices or dartboards.

They look at spreadsheets, basically the same thing with balancing by potato -- cause they generalize.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

Lrm are still effective in higher tiers, you just need to learn and work a little more to do so.

Sure it is. I never said that they weren't effective, but they have a considerable drop in comparison.

But when other weapons are just as effective with less effort, that's not really looking so good. Make no mistake, i don't say that LRMs are not usable, but considering all of their hurdles, they really need some love.

What you're saying is basically this: A Ferrari Enzo that goes 200 kph can get to a finish line a kilometer away in 5 seconds. But a Volkswagen Beetle doing only 100 kph can clear it only at 10 seconds -- your argument is that the Beetle doesn't suck to a Ferrari by comparison just because you know shortcuts that can reach the same finish line at the same time -- same 5 seconds.

Yes the Beetle can match or even beat the Enzo to the finish line by shortcuts, but as opposed of working ALL the time, you have to know a lot of tricks just to make them work as well.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

What you observed in the higer tiers are players that dont learned the skills to use them against players that learned the skills to avoid them.

Or you know, LRMs are just too easily counterable, by AMS, by ECM, by cover.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

In the lower tiers there are more problems that you dont even recognized:
How many trialmechs have ams?
How many metamechs that were parroted by t5 players dont have ams?

Oh okay, we actually have a valid argument -- for so long. Well, i agree that is concerning with the trial mechs AND the tryhard metamechs. Although with it's efficacy, trial-mechs wouldn't be that great for AMS cause they're unskilled -- lack of Overload.

The idea is made to fit the behavior of low-skill players not exactly utiliizing counterplay. So it should retain it's effectiveness at high skill, maybe even more, and the low-skill would have difficulty of making use of it.

Nonetheless good point. It would probably be prudent to refit current trial-mechs with AMS before this rework, but if it goes ****-up the rework will still stand.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

Lets talk again if you can get at least 1.0 kd/wl (in tier 1 with lrms only).

Sure, don't let the door hit you on your way inside your echo chamber.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 04:11 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 03:28 AM, said:

Yes the Beetle can match or even beat the Enzo to the finish line by shortcuts, but as opposed of working ALL the time, you have to know a lot of tricks just to make them work as well.

Isnt that the skill you are seeking for lrms?

I play mostly lrms because of some health problems i have,
but i also use them because its fun to make them work.
Pinpoint point&click is boring and not that challenging.

Edited by Kroete, 19 October 2017 - 05:07 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

Isnt that the skill you are seeking for lrms?

No it's not. Keywords: "just as well"

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.

Imagine what of equal level of skill (not that i'm saying that LRM skill translate to Direct-Fire Weapon skill) was appiled to the Enzo? Or other Direct Fire Weapon? The Enzo taking the same shortcuts and doing the same tricks would mean that the finish line was reached at just 2.5s compared to the Beetle's 5.0s.

As skilled you are, that doesn't excuse the fact that such weapon has glaring shortcomings, just as the Beetle is a lot slower than the Enzo, you don't get to call it "faster" or "just as fast" just because you out skilled it. Criticism such as "it has weaker engine" or "it's slower", in the case of LRMs "it's weak" or "it sucks by comparison" is still valid, it's a comment about the inherent flaws of the weapon/car, not whether you can't make it work with enough skill.

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

I play mostly lrms because of some health problems i have,
but i also use them because its fun to make them work.
Pinpoint point&click is boring and not that challenging.

We have different interest, likewise different opinions.

I like RACs, shame PGI didn't made them well.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 05:50 AM.

[Wolfways]

I'm not convinced that a "Lurmageddon" even exists.

It's more likely that low Tier players are getting killed by all different types of weapons, but in their eyes:
1) Newbie is fighting an enemy mech and is killed by lasers. He probably didn't even realize he was also being shot by other enemy mechs.
2) Newbie is fighting an enemy mech and is killed when he hears the distinctive *thunk* of a gauss rifle. It's easier to remember that than it is to remember dying to lasers. He begins to fear/hate Gauss rifles.
3) Newbie is fighting an enemy mech and suddenly he is blinded by explosions and a long stream of explosive noise. His mech is slowly stripped as he hasn't learned to stay close enough to cover. That is a very memorable death and the player begins to fear/hate LRM's more than any other weapon.

Newbies will repeat the same things over and over and in time LRM deaths will be way more memorable than any other weapon.

Another thing is the game itself, or I should say pgi. They haven't made MWO with a player type in mind. Look at the Call Of Duty and Battlefield games. Both fps wargames, but very different. COD is small "arena's" and BF is open battlefields. Pgi are trying to keep all types of players. I personally am a "BF player" and I like big, open maps like Alpine Peaks and Polar Highlands and hate small, claustrophobic maps like HPG Manifold and The Mining Collective, but I also know there are plenty of players who don't want to work as a team and just want to brawl out in the open without fear of being pounded by LRM's which they consider "unfair".
The same people complain about artillery in World of Tanks. If they can't shoot back at something that's shooting them then it should be removed from the game as far as they're concerned because they don't want to learn to avoid it.

[Kroete]

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

No it's not. Keywords: "just as well"

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.

But with your suggestion you need even more skill and work to make them useable,
having the same damage (longer cooldown, longer locktime, more damage) and the same counters.

Thats what we are trying to explain from the first page ...
... your suggestion nerfs lrms more then the last patch.

Edited by Kroete, 19 October 2017 - 07:27 AM.