136 replies to this topic

[Rovertoo]

What if, in a simplified version of the idea, LRM launch parabola could be set by holding down to fire button, similar to guass charge? The longer the button is held before firing, the steeper the arc? It wouldnt allow for sideways Lrming (which would be prettt cool) but would add another element of control to the weapon, allowing it to be more useful to "more skilled" players.

[The Lobsters]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 20 October 2017 - 05:53 AM.
unconstructive

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

What if, in a simplified version of the idea, LRM launch parabola could be set by holding down to fire button, similar to guass charge? The longer the button is held before firing, the steeper the arc? It wouldnt allow for sideways Lrming (which would be prettt cool) but would add another element of control to the weapon, allowing it to be more useful to "more skilled" players.

The reason we don't get steep, plunging arcs is because that was a lumageddon- missiles would smash heads in frequently and even end up backshotting players. It's a fun idea, though.

Also, it'd mean even more fire delay on a weapon that already has to lock. Cue even easier missile dodge and LOS lock breaks.

[Rovertoo]

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

The reason we don't get steep, plunging arcs is because that was a lumageddon- missiles would smash heads in frequently and even end up backshotting players. It's a fun idea, though.

Also, it'd mean even more fire delay on a weapon that already has to lock. Cue even easier missile dodge and LOS lock breaks.

Thats true. What if we had a mechanic so that the longer the hold, thus the steeper the arc, the missle spread increased? That way, we could get pseudo-direct fire if you just click and release right away, so the missles fire straight and are reasonably clustered, and if you want to lob it straight up and over , you have to both wait for the charge, and the missles are spread out pretty large. Holding it for just a short bit would result in something like we have now.

.

[Kroete]

Rovertoo, on 19 October 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

That way, we could get pseudo-direct fire if you just click and release right away, so the missles fire straight and are reasonably clustered...

Thats why we have atms and they do it better, at least until the last patch ...
Lrms are about the ballistic trajectory, with lrm10s and artemis and maybe tag they clustered ok, at least until the last patch ...

After the patch i can say:
If you want to use lrms, take as much tubes (no artemis!), and ammo as you can, stay back and vomit on every lock you can get.
If you go close to get your own lock, you will lose your lock.
And dont touch atms they are bad now, to make them hit you need los, just take srms instead.

The new players problem would be solved by adding ams to nearly all trialmechs and making a tutorial about lrms, tag, narc, ams and cover.

Edited by Kroete, 19 October 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

The new players problem would be solved by adding ams to nearly all trialmechs

This, honestly. Whinging about how terrible LRMs are to newbies would melt away once the average newbie grounds is a flak-filled missilelobber's nightmare.

Quote

and making a tutorial about lrms, tag, narc, ams and cover.

Featuring our favorite friends, LRM 5 turret, NARC turret, and AMS turret and a special cameo from Big Rock!

[Lykaon]

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

Oh please.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Sure, whatever lets you sleep at night.

Opening sentence designed to be inflammatory and insulting. as is closing sentence.

Opening argument irrelevant to current debate. We are not debating the use or popularity of LRMs. We are debating the need and effects of a proposal to alter LRM functions to preserve low tier game play balance.

This displays a fundamental lack of capacity to debate or formulate a solid defense to support an argument. .

We now start to discuss a "theory". A correct application of a theory would involve some testing. Since we can not test the proposal I have begun testing in another way. (my time is very limited as of late so I invite others to collect data as well)

6th's "theory" is LRMs require alterations because the poor little nublets are being slaughtered in lower tiers in droves. This situation is apparently so bad that as 6th has stated my be directly responsible for loss in player base.

A lurmageddon if you will.

I propose a test anyone is free to log results. The purpose of the test is to determine the frequency of mech destruction from LRMs.

outline of testing proccess.

Phase one:

Start new trial account and get into tier 5.

Only use slow easily isolated mechs like trial assault mechs. NO LRMs ARE TO BE USED! you are testing nublet vulnerability.

To simulate a lack of skill. use a joystick if possible.If no joystick is available dramaticly alter you key bindings or mouse sensitivity (or maybe both) If you use WASD try rebinding to number pad arrows or another key row.

In addition to simulating poor piloting skill I recommend not using ECM or AMS and of course no skill nodes are permissable (trial mechs only) to support 6th claim that the lower tiers are devoid of any LRM countermeasures. Now I know this suggestion isn't the least bit scientific but throw the guy a bone

I also recommend a sampling of matches from various time zones and servers to get a broad sampling.

When posting results list your main accounts current tier and mech used during the test. Try to approach this objectivley.

Phase two: determining the theorized overwhelming impact of LRMs in low tier play.

While conducting phase one try to keep an accurate record of the number of LRM equiped mechs on your team and record match scores damage dealt and kills performed by LRM "boat" mechs.

To define an LRM boat the primary play style must be LRM use. So a mech with a bunch of PPCs an LRM10 is not an LRM boat. while a Catapult with two 15 racks is.

If 6th is correct the vast majority of damage dealt in most matches that have a heavy LRM presence will obviously been inflicted by LRMs. In addition if 6th's theory has merit the vast majority of matches will have a heavy LRM presence.

Phase 3: kid gloves are off.

Using your cadet bonus and training grounds C-bills build a dedicated LRM platform. Reset your controls to you default preference and go to town and try to recreate the Lurmagedon 6th's theory is based upon.

observe frequency of counterplay in your targets.

After a set number of matches go to your account statistic and log your LRM accuracy ratings. Along side your average damage from matches using the LRM boat.


With this collection of data we should see patterns.

phase 1

If LRMs are vastly out performing in low tier play we should see a pattern of high kill ratios on our test trial mechs.

phase 2

If LRMs are vastly out performing any other weapon in low tiers we should see the vast majority of damage dealt by our team mates as sources from LRMs.

Phase 3

If LRMs are vastly out performing other weapons in lower tiers the LRM boat test should show I significantly higher rate of accuracy with LRMs.



Now idealy I would prefer to run these tests supervised and with actual new players and log results but who actually has time for that...



Now my closing argument is.

6th ... your basis of the theory is in error. You have drawn a corelation between a game mechanic (locks) and a result (lock weapons in particular LRM are over powered in low tiers)

Others including myself have concluded that lock mechanics are ballance through lower success ratios in deploying damage along side a lack of capacity to directly target weakened mech components. There are a multitude of countermeasures available to further reduce locking weapon accuracy anddamage output.

Your counter arguments on this lack any evidence. you claim the lower tiers are nigh unto devoid of any use of counter play and as a result LRMs are severely out performing any other weapon system.

You even posted a video with intent of supporting this argument "noobs are super bad" but that vid clearly shows a noticably terrible pilot in an Archer on HPG using AMS and evading locks from two seperate LRM sources. The second example in that same vid shows another LRM mech on Tourmaline being countered by a shadowcat that exploits the LRM min range. Both examples included epicly bad players using LRMs and BOTH instances showed effective counter play employed against LRMs.

This actually doesn't support your argument but refutes it. We can clearly see obviously bad players using LRMs being countered by other not so skilled players. Therefore low skill players do in fact use LRM counterplay.

The basis of your theory is faulty.And not supported by any collected data. You make assumptions...PGI does X therefor Y must be true but you do not know why PGI altered the locking arc do you?

I have another theory.

It was streaks that triggered the lock on arc nerf. We have the Arctic wolf in game now a 40 ton clan mech that because it's 40 tons can be deployed in FW scouting. It has the capacity to boat a ton of streaks and erase light mechs.

Now we also know that locking mechanics are shared between weapon systems. LRMs Streaks and ATMs all rely of the same mechanics. This is why Artemis for a very long time applied a bonus to streaks even when not actually allocated crit slots.

My theory looks at past occurances removing storm(streak)crows from scouting FW by reducing weight cap.

Previous Artemis and streak bug that persisted literally for years indicating a fundamental inablity for PGI to easily alter shared mechanics. And that ATMs streaks and LRMs were all nerfed identicly.

And now the inclusion of a new chassis that can attain similar performance to the streakcrow but is only 40 tons (an unreasonable tonnage limit for clan in scouting so PGI can't just drop the weight limit to 35 tons)

Thus lock arc is nerfed as the easy fix.

It's pretty unsubstantiated but just as valid as any of your theorys on PGI motives.


The problem is you have your head shoved so far up your backside you can not even contemplate that your idea is just poorly thought out.

Have you even concluded the end results of the plan?

If LRMs are adjusted to be so difficult to use that a stationary nublet standing in the open with no AMS cover can survive (I mean what is the objective it's a cure for the low tier lurmpocolypse right?) I derive this status by your claims that counterplay is devoid in the lower tiers this nearly motionless no AMS no ECM target in the open fits your criteria.

Well now we have a weapon (LRMs) that even the absolutely worst of the worst can contend with and without utilizing any counter play at all...well that weapon is now next to 100% worthless against any counterplay ellements isn't it?

Now I theorize that since this is fricken OBVIOUS! and you are clearly not a moron you have an adjenda. Nerf LRMs to useless levels because you don't like them.

Or ...you are so woefully out of touch with how LRMs actually function in actual game play that your are fundamentally unqualitfied to propose any alterations in LRM functions.


So anyhow...I will have a pretty full scheduel these next few months so anyone feel free to experiment using something along the lines I outlined.

That is how actual theorys are made.


P.S. sweet graphs but, meaningless without supporting data it's just your theory vs reality that has yet to be actually used in this argument by you.

Edited by Lykaon, 19 October 2017 - 02:01 PM.

[Lykaon]

Rovertoo, on 19 October 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Thats true. What if we had a mechanic so that the longer the hold, thus the steeper the arc, the missle spread increased? That way, we could get pseudo-direct fire if you just click and release right away, so the missles fire straight and are reasonably clustered, and if you want to lob it straight up and over , you have to both wait for the charge, and the missles are spread out pretty large. Holding it for just a short bit would result in something like we have now.

.

Why? other than further reducing LRM performance by adding a "charge" mechanic on top of a lock mechanic and cooldown along with an increase in spread. Just looks like a nerf to indirect fire with a questionably useful direct fire capacity buff.

I say questionable because LOS is not technically blocked by other mechs. By flattening the trajectory of the volley you have removed the capacity to quickly arc fire over front line mechs while your LRM carrier is directly in support but second line.

This is a valuable technique used by proficient LRM users. There is no need for your mech to be right up on the front line because your weapons trade poorly with direct fire,lack accuracy and pinpoint potential and have a huge min. range.

Even though your mech is present and "sharing armor" you do not need to take up valuable frontage that can be occupied by a more effective mech that you could instead be shooting over in direct second line support.

Why should the LRM mech potentially block LOS and fire lane off a direct fire mech? They shouldn't because it's not making full use of the weapon's capacity to fire over a front rank of friendlies.

Your proposal reduces the performance of close support LRM mechs by reducing refire times (need to hold to gain the arc) and effectivenss by increasing spread because of the need to hold for arc that also increases spread while simultaniously reducing the effects of long range indirect fire by increasing time between refires and increasing spread even further.


How about this to enhance close support direct fire...

We already know MWo can track the difference between direct LOS and indirect fire because Artemis only works with direct LOS.

So how about adding an effect to artemis where it retains the ballistic arc to preserve second rank firing but increases velocity to improve damage output when fired with direct LOS. It may even be possible to only apply the velocity increase for the first 300m or so reverting to the slower indirect fire velocity once past this range mark.

There is a side effect of AMS being less effective on LRM salvos originating from under the range mark due to increased speed and lower exposure to AMS damage. but...is this so bad?

Edited by Lykaon, 19 October 2017 - 01:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 19 October 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

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.

Yes, but as i've been explaining on the first page. This normalizes the effectiveness line, and opens the LRM to buffs. And 1.5 damage + spread buff + velocity, can be shot at a straight line that minimizes travel time, no more retained missile lock but target lock that increases missile reliability, buff is pretty large.

Hell that straight-fire alone, that makes it usable at small spaces like tunnels or the lower-deck of the Crimson Strait. Kind of makes ATM **** in comparison.

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

The reason we don't get steep, plunging arcs is because that was a lumageddon- missiles would smash heads in frequently and even end up backshotting players. It's a fun idea, though.

Also, it'd mean even more fire delay on a weapon that already has to lock. Cue even easier missile dodge and LOS lock breaks.

It doesn't have to plunge like a complete hyperbola. It just need to go up just enough to clear something.

Lol, that reminds me this video:

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Opening argument irrelevant to current debate. We are not debating the use or popularity of LRMs. We are debating the need and effects of a proposal to alter LRM functions to preserve low tier game play balance.

What i am saying on the first part is that it's literally weak on the higher tier. Framing the argument.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

This displays a fundamental lack of capacity to debate or formulate a solid defense to support an argument.

I'm sorry, you're the guy that used ad hominem, appeal to authority, and strawman. It's hard to take that seriously.

And that part isn't the argument yet. That part isn't the thing i'm trying to prove, it's the starting point. The fact that you can't even realize someone is framing an argument displays lack of capacity to debate at your part.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

We now start to discuss a "theory". A correct application of a theory would involve some testing. Since we can not test the proposal I have begun testing in another way. (my time is very limited as of late so I invite others to collect data as well)

You're confusing "scientific" theory to theory as used by everyone.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

6th ... your basis of the theory is in error. You have drawn a corelation between a game mechanic (locks) and a result (lock weapons in particular LRM are over powered in low tiers)

Others including myself have concluded that lock mechanics are ballance through lower success ratios in deploying damage along side a lack of capacity to directly target weakened mech components. There are a multitude of countermeasures available to further reduce locking weapon accuracy anddamage output.

Again, i am not proposing that there are NO counter measures. Having countermeasures is only useful when it's being used. People are getting slaughtered on the lower tier because they aren't being used. What you are saying is completely unrelated, completely irrelevant.

What you're assuming that i said is "Noobs are not using countermeasures = LRMs OP".

But really what i'm saying is that "Noobs versus Noobs has high LRM effectiveness but veteran versus veteran has low LRM effectiveness = LRMs implementation is flawed"

Yes, homing is balanced by all those countermeasures, i'm not saying that they are overpowered. I am saying that how they are implemented has an effect to the lower tier that produces an exponential effectiveness with low skill. And because of that, it can't receive warranted buffs for the high-skill that would boost it's relevance.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Your counter arguments on this lack any evidence. you claim the lower tiers are nigh unto devoid of any use of counter play and as a result LRMs are severely out performing any other weapon system.

They must be, because they are being nabbed by LRMs. Otherwise there wouldn't be any lurmageddon tier.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

You even posted a video with intent of supporting this argument "noobs are super bad" but that vid clearly shows a noticably terrible pilot in an Archer on HPG using AMS and evading locks from two seperate LRM sources.

The second example in that same vid shows another LRM mech on Tourmaline being countered by a shadowcat that exploits the LRM min range. Both examples included epicly bad players using LRMs and BOTH instances showed effective counter play employed against LRMs.

Bad at aiming, they are supposed to show how potatos can be bad at aiming. Other potatoes can be bad different ways.

Stop taking things out of context. Also use quotes.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

This actually doesn't support your argument but refutes it. We can clearly see obviously bad players using LRMs being countered by other not so skilled players. Therefore low skill players do in fact use LRM counterplay.

Considering that theb33f is in there, which is a high tier player, we can assume that the match is a mix of low tiers and high tiers. And a shadow-cat like that wouldn't be low skilled.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

The basis of your theory is faulty. And not supported by any collected data. You make assumptions...PGI does X therefor Y must be true but you do not know why PGI altered the locking arc do you?

Again, you are conflating a scientific theory from a normal everyday man theory. And it's only faulty with your interpretation of my basis, but is not my basis.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

I have another theory.

It was streaks that triggered the lock on arc nerf. We have the Arctic wolf in game now a 40 ton clan mech that because it's 40 tons can be deployed in FW scouting. It has the capacity to boat a ton of streaks and erase light mechs.

Now we also know that locking mechanics are shared between weapon systems. LRMs Streaks and ATMs all rely of the same mechanics. This is why Artemis for a very long time applied a bonus to streaks even when not actually allocated crit slots.

My theory looks at past occurances removing storm(streak)crows from scouting FW by reducing weight cap.

Previous Artemis and streak bug that persisted literally for years indicating a fundamental inablity for PGI to easily alter shared mechanics. And that ATMs streaks and LRMs were all nerfed identicly.

And now the inclusion of a new chassis that can attain similar performance to the streakcrow but is only 40 tons (an unreasonable tonnage limit for clan in scouting so PGI can't just drop the weight limit to 35 tons)

Thus lock arc is nerfed as the easy fix.

It's pretty unsubstantiated but just as valid as any of your theorys on PGI motives.

Well, it is pretty understandable from that perspective. It's actually valid.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

The problem is you have your head shoved so far up your backside you can not even contemplate that your idea is just poorly thought out.

No, the problem is that you have your head shoved up your ***, you can't even understand other people's perspective, other people's argument. You are so convinced that i'm wrong that no amount of convincing would do you -- biased. You can't even distinguish between a normal everyday-man theory from a scientific theory, and an experiment.

Kroete did a wonderful job putting that AMS issue out there, he made me admit that those are a factor, that those could be put first, he actually was reasonable unlike you. Why can't you?

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Have you even concluded the end results of the plan?

Yes. In fact my approach was built from the "conclusion" and upwards to the current homing mechanism and methods of launch.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

If LRMs are adjusted to be so difficult to use that a stationary nublet standing in the open with no AMS cover can survive (I mean what is the objective it's a cure for the low tier lurmpocolypse right?) I derive this status by your claims that counterplay is devoid in the lower tiers this nearly motionless no AMS no ECM target in the open fits your criteria.

Well now we have a weapon (LRMs) that even the absolutely worst of the worst can contend with and without utilizing any counter play at all...well that weapon is now next to 100% worthless against any counterplay ellements isn't it?

No, it's not going to be so difficult to use that noob versus noob means the LRM loses, it's supposed to prevent effective indirect fire. If they shot straight, from the open, that exposed themselves out of cover, the LRMs would hit fine -- even at a shorter travel time. Basically just some glorified streak that's not requires sustained target locks or ATM,but weaker damage.

They need to learn the proper arc to indirect fire effectively. They need to put extra effort in putting their arm reticle up the sky to do an indirect fire.

"Getting your own locks" isn't that hard for a high-tier, in fact that's the prescribed way to lurm. And having difficulties lobbing over obstacles would either force them to get their own locks thereby quelling the effectiveness of indirect fire at low tier, or force them to actually be better at indirect fire.

And that's by design.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Now I theorize that since this is fricken OBVIOUS! and you are clearly not a moron you have an adjenda. Nerf LRMs to useless levels because you don't like them.

No, you failed to understand how it was supposed to go. And on the same grounds, i concluded that you're pretty stupid, short sighted, and biased.

No it's not a nerf, it's a rework. And having better control with how the LRM flies would allow for more sick trickshots.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Or ...you are so woefully out of touch with how LRMs actually function in actual game play that your are fundamentally unqualitfied to propose any alterations in LRM functions.

No, i know LRMs full well. I've been here for a year, it's not that hard to put lrms on my mech and start playing, and i did so for a reasonable amount of duration.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

So anyhow...I will have a pretty full scheduel these next few months so anyone feel free to experiment using something along the lines I outlined.

That is how actual theorys are made.

You mean scientific theories, and that's actually just an experiment, that proves theories. After all you gotta make a hypothesis at the early parts of the scientific method, the "theory" is already formulated, just not validated by experiment.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[Rovertoo]

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

Why? other than further reducing LRM performance by adding a "charge" mechanic on top of a lock mechanic and cooldown along with an increase in spread. Just looks like a nerf to indirect fire with a questionably useful direct fire capacity buff.

I say questionable because LOS is not technically blocked by other mechs. By flattening the trajectory of the volley you have removed the capacity to quickly arc fire over front line mechs while your LRM carrier is directly in support but second line.

This is a valuable technique used by proficient LRM users. There is no need for your mech to be right up on the front line because your weapons trade poorly with direct fire,lack accuracy and pinpoint potential and have a huge min. range.

Even though your mech is present and "sharing armor" you do not need to take up valuable frontage that can be occupied by a more effective mech that you could instead be shooting over in direct second line support.

Why should the LRM mech potentially block LOS and fire lane off a direct fire mech? They shouldn't because it's not making full use of the weapon's capacity to fire over a front rank of friendlies.

Your proposal reduces the performance of close support LRM mechs by reducing refire times (need to hold to gain the arc) and effectivenss by increasing spread because of the need to hold for arc that also increases spread while simultaniously reducing the effects of long range indirect fire by increasing time between refires and increasing spread even further.


How about this to enhance close support direct fire...

We already know MWo can track the difference between direct LOS and indirect fire because Artemis only works with direct LOS.

So how about adding an effect to artemis where it retains the ballistic arc to preserve second rank firing but increases velocity to improve damage output when fired with direct LOS. It may even be possible to only apply the velocity increase for the first 300m or so reverting to the slower indirect fire velocity once past this range mark.

There is a side effect of AMS being less effective on LRM salvos originating from under the range mark due to increased speed and lower exposure to AMS damage. but...is this so bad?

I dont think my suggestion is nescessarily a nerf, since ideally all current stats would remain the same when the button is held and released so as to result in the same arc we have now, so barring the delay in firing nothing is changed, only some more adaptability is added. I feel the added ability to fire high spread vollys straight over a hill, standard spread shots over standard-height obstacles just like we have now, and tight direct fire salvos at will would be a pretty nice mechanic. If it does turn out to be a bit of a net nerf notwithstanding the added adaptability of direct fire/steep arc selectability, then we can buff it elsewhere, cooldown, velocity, etc. I was thinking that my idea, in line with the main posts goal, would allow some more usability and potential "skill shots" for even high level players, but in a simpler package. Actual balance stats could be changed to whatever works best with the mechanic of course. Additionally, the arc to shoot over friendlies could potentially be reached quite quickly, the speed at which the bar charges could potentially be fiddled with as well to reach a comfortable rate.

Edited by Rovertoo, 19 October 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Rovertoo, on 19 October 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

I dont think my suggestion is nescessarily a nerf, since ideally all current stats would remain the same when the button is held and released so as to result in the same arc we have now, so barring the delay in firing nothing is changed, only some more adaptability is added. I feel the added ability to fire high spread vollys straight over a hill, standard spread shots over standard-height obstacles just like we have now, and tight direct fire salvos at will would be a pretty nice mechanic. If it does turn out to be a bit of a net nerf notwithstanding the added adaptability of direct fire/steep arc selectability, then we can buff it elsewhere, cooldown, velocity, etc. I was thinking that my idea, in line with the main posts goal, would allow some more usability and potential "skill shots" for even high level players, but in a simpler package. Actual balance stats could be changed to whatever works best with the mechanic of course. Additionally, the arc to shoot over friendlies could potentially be reached quite quickly, the speed at which the bar charges could potentially be fiddled with as well to reach a comfortable rate.

Exactly the same rebuttal i have when he declared the rework a nerf. As if we can't just increase the damage dealt, reduce the cooldown, increase velocity, reduce spread. etc. These are just numbers, it's the new mechanic that needs scrutiny.

[Brain Cancer]

My question is simple.

In a game where all other weapons are done dealing damage in roughly two seconds or less, why are we piling more and more complexity and time-to-fire on any concept of "improving" LRMs? I mean, even before flight time here.

The more complex and time-investing firing an LRM becomes, the easier it becomes to simply get out of the way. That's already obvious to anyone who's watch a lurmtater trying to hit at 800+ meters.

Improvement can be KISS'd. The weapon can be redefined with single .XML number changes. Say you want to end lurmspam? Increase cooldown. Put better numbers somewhere else. And so on.

"It only kills newbies real good" is not a problem. It's the big neon sign that a weapon has so many caveats only those incapable or ignorant enough to not use them will be seriously troubled by them. This is the problem.

[The6thMessenger]

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

In a game where all other weapons are done dealing damage in roughly two seconds or less, why are we piling more and more complexity and time-to-fire on any concept of "improving" LRMs? I mean, even before flight time here.

Because intended result. Making indirect fire harder, introducing skill by making flight more adjustable to the user's taste, and by doing so it reduces the exponential effectiveness at the lower tier and allow PGI to buff it in accordance of the higher tier, because they chose to also include potatoes by how they balance.

If you could do that with a simpler idea, i'm go for it. It's just that, this approach is what i could think of.

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

The more complex and time-investing firing an LRM becomes, the easier it becomes to simply get out of the way. That's already obvious to anyone who's watch a lurmtater trying to hit at 800+ meters.

Yeah. But then introduce faster velocity, and straight-fire, it would probably work just as well.

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Improvement can be KISS'd. The weapon can be redefined with single .XML number changes. Say you want to end lurmspam? Increase cooldown. Put better numbers somewhere else. And so on.

Yup, thought of that too: https://mwomercs.com...ng-lrms-better/

But this concern also tackles indirect fire. Something which makes newbies are very vulnerable to.

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

"It only kills newbies real good" is not a problem. It's the big neon sign that a weapon has so many caveats only those incapable or ignorant enough to not use them will be seriously troubled by them. This is the problem.

The bigger problem is PGI considering them in terms of balance.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 03:51 PM.

[Lykaon]

Rovertoo, on 19 October 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

I dont think my suggestion is nescessarily a nerf, since ideally all current stats would remain the same when the button is held and released so as to result in the same arc we have now, so barring the delay in firing nothing is changed, only some more adaptability is added. I feel the added ability to fire high spread vollys straight over a hill, standard spread shots over standard-height obstacles just like we have now, and tight direct fire salvos at will would be a pretty nice mechanic. If it does turn out to be a bit of a net nerf notwithstanding the added adaptability of direct fire/steep arc selectability, then we can buff it elsewhere, cooldown, velocity, etc. I was thinking that my idea, in line with the main posts goal, would allow some more usability and potential "skill shots" for even high level players, but in a simpler package. Actual balance stats could be changed to whatever works best with the mechanic of course. Additionally, the arc to shoot over friendlies could potentially be reached quite quickly, the speed at which the bar charges could potentially be fiddled with as well to reach a comfortable rate.

Well there is a trick to the degree of arc allowed and it's the primary reason for the fixed trajectories we have now.

Some years back PGI did alter the trajectory to be steeper and this was "Lurmagedon" as it came to be know.

Now I get that you say the apex of the trajectory will match what we have now so this should avoid a triggering of another Lurmagedon scenario.

But, isn't this just adding complications? Since the apex trajectory is identical to current mechanics this proposal grants no advantage in arcing over terrain.

So that leaves the options for lower trajectories. So here is the thing the only advantage using a lower arc of trajectory is shorter travel time to target. So faster deployment of damage right? except now that time saved on flight time is taken by holding the trigger to dial in the arc at least partially if not increased.

This also requires some fiddling with timing on the trigger similar to gauss charge and well there are significantly fewer gauss rifles deployed now post charge mechanics than before. I will bet the same will go down for LRM use. Now the reason for the Gauss charge was to bring the Gauss difficulty of use in like with performance. I think we can agree a gauss rifle still out performs LRMs and by a large margin.

Now if the addition of this mechanic then requires modification to previous stats on the weapon then I may also question the original need for the alteration to begin with...I mean from a developer point of view. If the alteration then requires further alterations then how much altering is worth while in the long run.

So we increase velocity...well how does this effect AMS? do we now need to improve AMS? how does improved AMS effect other missile types? What if instead we reduce LRM missile health? how much is right?

Alter cooldowns to compensate for the arcing fire mechanics and we need to figure out by how much? How fast of a refire is acceptable for direct fire (not requiring the delay) as apposed to indirect fire (requiring the delay) Should indirect fire be less effective with longer cooldown? if so why?

There are many more questions created than answers provided when someone just thinks ..."well we can just change X to Y and call it a day"

There are many many interconnecting facets that need to be thought through and it's not as simple as editing a file.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Because intended result. Making indirect fire harder, introducing skill by making flight more adjustable to the user's taste, and by doing so it reduces the exponential effectiveness at the lower tier and allow PGI to buff it in accordance of the higher tier, because they chose to also include potatoes by how they balance.

How hard is hard enough? Why does indirect fire need to be more difficult? Is it really out performing everything else across all spectrums? Most evidence supports a no on this claim. LRM indirect fire used by proficent players rarely exceeds a 45% hit ratio. Go check your stats and see how accurate LRMs are.

Introducing skill? I'm unclear on this do you mean redefine skills so they do not include LRMs and then force the defined skill set onto LRMs? or are there NO skills applicable to LRMs and thus a need to apply skills to them?

Most proficent users of LRMs can clearly outline the skills required for successful use so I can assume there are skills in use.

Exponential effects? Is there evidence of this? Sure low skill level players are easier to hit...but with any weapon. The existence of the multitude of LRM counterplay options is not invalidated by a lack of use by some. By designing a mechanic that does not include the counterplay options into account we will create a faulty mechanic from the get go.

So many adjustments would be needed to make the mechanics balanced for Potato and for Ace (and I don't think this plan can anyhow) the amount of effort and dedicated resources is simply not worth it...my opinion because I am not a PGI Dev.

As far as we know PGI uses collected metrics from all tiers of play and uses the average statistics to determine performance of a particular weapon system. PGI does not take the lowest 5% and use those numbers to base their mechanics on.

Yet you seem to want to? Why? I really want to know I have no venom in this statement no bias against your opinion I am just at a loss as to what makes this seem like a good idea to you.

[Rovertoo]

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Well there is a trick to the degree of arc allowed and it's the primary reason for the fixed trajectories we have now.

Some years back PGI did alter the trajectory to be steeper and this was "Lurmagedon" as it came to be know.

Now I get that you say the apex of the trajectory will match what we have now so this should avoid a triggering of another Lurmagedon scenario.

But, isn't this just adding complications? Since the apex trajectory is identical to current mechanics this proposal grants no advantage in arcing over terrain.

So that leaves the options for lower trajectories. So here is the thing the only advantage using a lower arc of trajectory is shorter travel time to target. So faster deployment of damage right? except now that time saved on flight time is taken by holding the trigger to dial in the arc at least partially if not increased.

This also requires some fiddling with timing on the trigger similar to gauss charge and well there are significantly fewer gauss rifles deployed now post charge mechanics than before. I will bet the same will go down for LRM use. Now the reason for the Gauss charge was to bring the Gauss difficulty of use in like with performance. I think we can agree a gauss rifle still out performs LRMs and by a large margin.

Now if the addition of this mechanic then requires modification to previous stats on the weapon then I may also question the original need for the alteration to begin with...I mean from a developer point of view. If the alteration then requires further alterations then how much altering is worth while in the long run.

So we increase velocity...well how does this effect AMS? do we now need to improve AMS? how does improved AMS effect other missile types? What if instead we reduce LRM missile health? how much is right?

Alter cooldowns to compensate for the arcing fire mechanics and we need to figure out by how much? How fast of a refire is acceptable for direct fire (not requiring the delay) as apposed to indirect fire (requiring the delay) Should indirect fire be less effective with longer cooldown? if so why?

There are many more questions created than answers provided when someone just thinks ..."well we can just change X to Y and call it a day"

There are many many interconnecting facets that need to be thought through and it's not as simple as editing a file.

Ah, maybe I didnt explain it all the way. I was figuring that the apex of the arc, if you charged it all the way up, would be pretty steep. I dont want to say how steep just because I figure that limit could be set by balancing, but it would be steep enough to allow people to lob missles at a pretty steep angle. The balancing factor to stop the "lurmageddon" would be that the steeper your launch angle, the larger the spread of the missles. So if you wanted to rain missles right on top of someone behind cover you could, but your Lrms would be spread out quite a bit. So it would kind of add a cost/reward balance to the mechanic. You can fire a reasonably clustered direct fire shot for 0 charge, fire a normal as-is-in-game volly with a good arc for a little bit of charge, go in between for a steeper volley but wider spread for about half charge, or go all out and have a big steep arc but have a giant spread for a full charge time. Just how the spread rate for charge time is would be something to figure out in the balance stats Id guess.

Edited by Rovertoo, 19 October 2017 - 04:21 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Well there is a trick to the degree of arc allowed and it's the primary reason for the fixed trajectories we have now.

Some years back PGI did alter the trajectory to be steeper and this was "Lurmagedon" as it came to be know.

Now I get that you say the apex of the trajectory will match what we have now so this should avoid a triggering of another Lurmagedon scenario.

But, isn't this just adding complications? Since the apex trajectory is identical to current mechanics this proposal grants no advantage in arcing over terrain.

So that leaves the options for lower trajectories. So here is the thing the only advantage using a lower arc of trajectory is shorter travel time to target. So faster deployment of damage right? except now that time saved on flight time is taken by holding the trigger to dial in the arc at least partially if not increased.

Now if the addition of this mechanic then requires modification to previous stats on the weapon then I may also question the original need for the alteration to begin with...I mean from a developer point of view. If the alteration then requires further alterations then how much altering is worth while in the long run.

Honestly, if it were that simple, i'd just go for a change in XML files and avoid all of these hurdles. I get that the time for charging would be a hurdle that would result with the same long time of dishing out damage. But that's not the only factor. Factor in the ability to indirect fire, means you can deal damage despite being behind cover. Compare that to someone that's supposed to get out of cover to get a direct LOS for a direct-fire. The idea of both Rovertoo and mine intends to make the LRM flight path reflect the input skill of the user, to achieve putting a skill-based difficulty-to-reward..

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

So we increase velocity...well how does this effect AMS? do we now need to improve AMS? how does improved AMS effect other missile types? What if instead we reduce LRM missile health? how much is right?

Alter cooldowns to compensate for the arcing fire mechanics and we need to figure out by how much? How fast of a refire is acceptable for direct fire (not requiring the delay) as apposed to indirect fire (requiring the delay) Should indirect fire be less effective with longer cooldown? if so why?

There are many more questions created than answers provided when someone just thinks ..."well we can just change X to Y and call it a day"

Price to pay for a change in mechanics. Having more questions isn't really that bad if you're prepared to stick with the intended changes because you prefer the intended result.

I'd rather put in the effort to make LRMs properly, than to put band-aid solutions that never seems to make the problems go away.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

There are many many interconnecting facets that need to be thought through and it's not as simple as editing a file.

That's right, that's why the approach is a rework.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

How hard is hard enough? Why does indirect fire need to be more difficult? Is it really out performing everything else across all spectrums? Most evidence supports a no on this claim. LRM indirect fire used by proficent players rarely exceeds a 45% hit ratio. Go check your stats and see how accurate LRMs are.

It's not that it has to be, period. Is just the result intended -- such as removing the exponential effectiveness of LRMs at the lower tier, demands such change.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Introducing skill? I'm unclear on this do you mean redefine skills so they do not include LRMs and then force the defined skill set onto LRMs? or are there NO skills applicable to LRMs and thus a need to apply skills to them?

Skill on controlling the missile flight path, you know Trick Shots. Of course skill is still involved in the general use of LRMs, of positioning.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Most proficent users of LRMs can clearly outline the skills required for successful use so I can assume there are skills in use.

But low-skill don't exactly need to expend so much skill to lurm the low-skill, versus the high-skill having to need a lot of skill to nab another high skill.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Exponential effects? Is there evidence of this?

Interpretation through experience, and derived from testimony of others. Such as if you felt that LRMs are too effective when you were inexperienced, that's enough to conclude -- such as the next portion of response.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

In addition to simulating poor piloting skill I recommend not using ECM or AMS and of course no skill nodes are permissable (trial mechs only) to support 6th claim that the lower tiers are devoid of any LRM countermeasures. Now I know this suggestion isn't the least bit scientific but throw the guy a bone

I don't say that, seriously how many strawmans are you going to push? It is however so less of a factor in the lower tiers, and because of that hit chance -- as you so admit it -- rises. And that contributes to the LRMs being far more effective at the lower tiers than higher tiers.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Sure low skill level players are easier to hit...but with any weapon. The existence of the multitude of LRM counterplay options is not invalidated by a lack of use by some. By designing a mechanic that does not include the counterplay options into account we will create a faulty mechanic from the get go.

No, it's not necessarily faulty. What would be faulty is making a change based on an environment of counter-play being used, but not taking account of such counterplay. Because that would mean the counterplay would be a barrier of the changes you just made.

The counterplay would still work all the same, the AMS would still down the same number of volley, the missiles still can't go through walls, and they still require missile lock to fire -- and retained lock -- just target lock.

This on the other hand -- involve them or not, since the focus is the low-skill environment, it would be superfluous as it's not as used. Supposed that we take those account, that means the environment would shift, and there wouldn't be any god damn point.

If our (my) intent is to fix the LRMs to conform with the lower tier, of course i would be focusing on what would affect the lower tier, but retain or leave the high tier relatively the same. If took account that counterplay occur more frequently than they do on the lower tier -- that it wouldn't be representative of the environment i wish to base adjustments from -- then it by itself will be the barrier to the needed change as the change would be focused at the wrong environment.

Think of it this way. I'm supposed to charge 10% tax on the lower class that does 2000$/month, but the middle class does 5000$/month. Surely i wouldn't tax the lower class based on the 10% of the 5000$ salary the middle-class have - which is 500$, because that wouldn't be 10% of the 2000$ of the lower-class, it should be at 200$.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

So many adjustments would be needed to make the mechanics balanced for Potato and for Ace (and I don't think this plan can anyhow) the amount of effort and dedicated resources is simply not worth it...my opinion because I am not a PGI Dev.

But can be achieved nonetheless.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

As far as we know PGI uses collected metrics from all tiers of play and uses the average statistics to determine performance of a particular weapon system. PGI does not take the lowest 5% and use those numbers to base their mechanics on.

Yes, but they consider all of the tier all the same, they still balance by potato.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

Yet you seem to want to? Why? I really want to know I have no venom in this statement no bias against your opinion I am just at a loss as to what makes this seem like a good idea to you.

Because I think it achieves a result i intended to. I'm not swayed away by hard work or tedious jobs, if i have to ******* tear down this entire game and rebuild it from the ground up just so it would work properly, be properly balanced, i'm gonna ******* do it.

... if i could.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2017 - 09:52 PM.

[Lykaon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I guess fundamentally we disagree. I do not see any value in balancing a weapon system so the worst players are less effected by it. Because trickle up effects means an exponential reduction in performance as the targets become more skilled to the point of nigh uselessness of LRMs in higher tiers.

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

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

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

Skill on controlling the missile flight path, you know Trick Shots. Of course skill is still involved in the general use of LRMs, of positioning.

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

Now say, what other trickshots you can do with your suggestion that the pre-patch lrms/amts cant do?
Whats the improvment with your suggestion (please in one short sentence)?

Edited by Kroete, 20 October 2017 - 01:42 AM.

[Lykaon]

So I had a thought...

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

These low tier players are experiencing the Autocannonapocolypse!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The charge up mechanic is pretty simple.

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

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

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

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

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


How does that sound?

Edited by Lykaon, 20 October 2017 - 01:53 AM.