47 replies to this topic

[Abisha]

like title say's it's been nerf to much from the past it's a weapon that should punish patato and bad players a lot if they lack the ability not to use cover then the weapon should not be punished but the player.

that being said let's bring back tatics into MWO the title of this game is not airstrike online.

[JohnnyWayne]

[roekenny]

obvious bait is obvious

[Luminis]

Abisha, on 10 February 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

a weapon that should punish patato and bad players

I distinctively remember a PGI employee stating that they're not going to buff LRMs specifically because they're afraid that LRMs are gonna dominate low-tier gameplay if they did.

Not happening.

[Vrox]

Luminis, on 10 February 2018 - 04:04 AM, said:

I distinctively remember a PGI employee stating that they're not going to buff LRMs specifically because they're afraid that LRMs are gonna dominate low-tier gameplay if they did.

Not happening.

AMS & LAMS is for counter LRM. I can assure you that most of my games, no LRM missile will hit as the amount of AMS & LAMS in game. So LRMs domination in low-tier gameplay is just an excuse.

[PocketYoda]

Luminis, on 10 February 2018 - 04:04 AM, said:

I distinctively remember a PGI employee stating that they're not going to buff LRMs specifically because they're afraid that LRMs are gonna dominate low-tier gameplay if they did.

Not happening.

Good because LRMS do not take skill and are more and more ruining team play.

[Luminis]

Vrox, on 10 February 2018 - 04:41 AM, said:

AMS & LAMS is for counter LRM. I can assure you that most of my games, no LRM missile will hit as the amount of AMS & LAMS in game. So LRMs domination in low-tier gameplay is just an excuse.

It's not my stance on the matter, it's PGI's.

The whole point, I assume, is that the level of play they specifically worry about does not (know how to) use the counters to LRMs that are readily available.

Samial, on 10 February 2018 - 04:44 AM, said:

Good because LRMS do not take skill and are more and more ruining team play.

I don't really think they're ruining anything at the moment. It's rare to see LRMs really dominate a match - that usually only happens in a "perfect LRM storm" - read: Critical mass of Lurm Boats, Lights willing to spot and, of course, the map being Polar Highlands. But yeah, generally, homing, indirect fire weapons shouldn't be a great weapon in a PvP shooter, agreed. That's why I think they need a complete overhaul so the "sit back and wait for locks" playstyle isn't incentivised (I know that this isn't how you play LRMs to maximum efficiency).

That said, PGI really needs to sit down and change a couple of weapons so the ones that are harder to use are slightly ahead of the easy ones (when used right, of course). A weapon that demands you to lead your shots should be more devastating in the case it hits than a hitscan weapon, for example, but that's just my opnion.

[Hobbles v]

theres only one buff to lrms they need. increase IS narc range to match clan.

[roekenny]

Hobbles v, on 10 February 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

theres only one buff to lrms they need. increase IS narc range to match clan.

They have the narc raven they don't need anything else. Besides are you implying a LRM boat would
A. Be close to front lines to get shot for a NARC to be in range
B. Risk neck and actually peep and be in the line of fire to fire said NARC
C. Hit something what issn't a hillside or building?
D. Not just have another missile rack as team can do the heavy lifting (also thats a lot of DPS they wasting to get that utility launcher.)
That is a mighty tall order you got their sir.

[Burke IV]

LRMs.... People need to come to terms with the fact that massed artillery LRMs and a spotter is a valid tactic. If you dont like it then counter it. Things like this exist in real life and have a role in war. Screaming "omg thats lame" as you die is worthless.

Edited by Burke IV, 10 February 2018 - 06:56 AM.

[El Bandito]

Hobbles v, on 10 February 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

theres only one buff to lrms they need. increase IS narc range to match clan.

Also improve IS NARC velocity to offset its higher tonnage.

[The Basilisk]

Burke IV, on 10 February 2018 - 06:56 AM, said:

LRMs.... People need to come to terms with the fact that massed artillery LRMs and a spotter is a valid tactic. If you dont like it then counter it. Things like this exist in real life and have a role in war. Screaming "omg thats lame" as you die is worthless.

It is just that LRMs in MWO are not meant to be a valid Artillery option.
(And the weaponsystem you showed is indeed a NONTRACKING ballistic artillerie rocket launcher and not a guided missle swarm launcher)
They are area denial and support weapons to soften up enemys for concentrated direct fire weapons.
The moment LRMs are a valid choice as primary damage dealer weapon they are too strong.
A valid weapon that can be fired without direct possibility for the reciving unit to retalitate versus the firing unit has no place in MWO.
And besides LRMs are already wrongly implemented from fluff...lets not make this even worse as it is.

Edited by The Basilisk, 10 February 2018 - 07:28 AM.

[Asym]

OK, I'll take another attempt at this topic. A long time ago, before a lot of you were born, a group of researchers and programmers took a schorlary whack at making a video game that could teach military skills.....

What they and the rest of us in that era found is what is in use today. Successful games all have a few things in common to include F2P games... One of those metrics, paradigms as many would say now, is the successful games must be more than 2 dimensional (left/right/forward/backward). I know, what many of you in this forum think. that what I am saying is crazy and demand proof and such silliness.... OK, lads,
take 4 minutes and have a good read: http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/p003368.pdf Look at the date. Remember, I was programming, writing simulation code in the 70's......and, was in the US Army.............connect the two.

You see, many of us were decades ahead of the civilian world and what was created and fielded would make you sweat real sweat and challenge every MWO player's abilities well beyond this game....because the created game was a 3D, with a real physics gameplay engine that matched battalions against battalions......not 12x12 but well exceeding 58x58 on real terrain.....You'all have no idead what stress is.....in a silly 2D engine called MWO....

There, there is why 3D engines in F2P game are successful.......why 2D games don't excel in the market place. I've posted other links in another forum piece that shows you what was created and why.......and, how that videogame was the catalyst of all present videogames.............and now, to quote Paul Harvey, "you know the rest of the story..." (many of you are wondering "who dat"?)

Bring LRM's back, fix Artillery and Air Strikes, introduce and re-introduce the rest of the IDF weapons from lore and then, you'd see MWO become a lot more than a silly 2D arcade shooter in a small areana. Then, you'd see who can or can not "fight" versus "play" combat pilots in armored vehicles..... Tactics would have to replace all things "meta" because no one weapons system could overcome the others because the use of IDF controls the engagement ranges.... Look at history if you doubt this...... OK, I've said my piece and this time, I've given you some real facts and related some real history as to why MWO needs to start again with IDF and reclaim 3D battlespace mechanics and stop screwing around with anything 2D.

Salt on kids.....salt on.

Edited by Asym, 10 February 2018 - 07:58 AM.

[Lykaon]

Samial, on 10 February 2018 - 04:44 AM, said:

Good because LRMS do not take skill and are more and more ruining team play.

...um...

How?






You do know that LRMs work best WHEN teamwork is employed and are countered best WHEN teamwork is employed?


I mean how much "teamwork" is needed to laser vomit poke all match? or do you consider the enemy focusing on a "teammate" instead of you while you pi$$ 70+ damage clan laser vomit all over the enemy to be teamwork?

[Lykaon]

The Basilisk, on 10 February 2018 - 07:26 AM, said:

It is just that LRMs in MWO are not meant to be a valid Artillery option.
(And the weaponsystem you showed is indeed a NONTRACKING ballistic artillerie rocket launcher and not a guided missle swarm launcher)
They are area denial and support weapons to soften up enemys for concentrated direct fire weapons.
The moment LRMs are a valid choice as primary damage dealer weapon they are too strong.
A valid weapon that can be fired without direct possibility for the reciving unit to retalitate versus the firing unit has no place in MWO.
And besides LRMs are already wrongly implemented from fluff...lets not make this even worse as it is.

Interesting perspective but...

We already have many weapon/playstyle options that create a similar effects (target not having adiquate return fire capability) This occurs whenever a target is out ranged by an attacker. A mech blazing away with AC5s from 800m+ away attacking an SRM carrier for example. Another commonly seen practice is ECM + long range sniping (this also presents a similar effect of preventing return fire) This effect is even present in high mobility vs low mobility engagements where the faster more agile attacker can easily evade return fire simply be never presenting an adiquate target.

Honestly LRM indirect fire does present opertunity for a target to retaliate because LRMs DO NOT EVER lock onto a target without SOMETHING providing targeting.

This means that SOMETHING must have a direct an unobstructed line of sight to potential LRM indirect fire targets and if that spotter is countered so are the indirect fire attacks of LRMs.

And the only times when a target is rendered incapable of countering a spotter is when these circumstances mimic other currently present effects such as spotter out of range or spotter concealed by ECM etc. So we already have mechanics in place that prevent returning fire under all circumstances so why is it an issue for LRMs and not all those other situations?

To put it bluntly...it's because many players are either too lazy or to dim to figure out what is the targeting source for indirect fire and then devise a means of countering it. These dim/lazy players prefer a limited scope of threat battlefield because it's easier. Having to think even slightly abstracted is apparently way to much to ask of them.

[Abisha]

funny that people think LRM is a noob weapon it's harder to kill with a LRM weapon then laz'ers.

you only can see if target is clear of area but if also the path is not blocked then with the massive amount of ECM trying getting a freaking lock on and not try to get ganked by lights.

so if anything using LRM right is playing on master difficulty ingame and should reward players that using it right with more damage.

Edited by Abisha, 10 February 2018 - 09:22 AM.

[Burke IV]

The Basilisk, on 10 February 2018 - 07:26 AM, said:

The moment LRMs are a valid choice as primary damage dealer weapon they are too strong.

Where do you get this sort of thing from? Tough luck for some mechs then. Any mech thats got significantly more missile slots eg catA1 or catC4 you have just killed them unless they want to run SRMs which may not be appropriate or even fit properly in certain cases. What you going to tell the longbow if it ever gets in game? The archer....Its biased nonsense. Its been widely written on this forum that LRMs only hit people who are too bad to get out of the way.

[Burke IV]

The mech i piloted the most in this game is a catA1 that had LRMs as its primary gun. Then i ran a stalker 5M again with LRMs as primary gun, then a maddog and then a huntsman and i been playing that way basicly sinse the phoenix mechs came out. Its not exactly right of fair to just remove LRMs from the game now is it?

[jjm1]

Remove missile locks on shared targets altogether. Make TAG/NARC necessary for indirect lurm locks.

edit:
Then buff them, because it wont be EZ mode for hiding assault lurmers then.

edit2: Also NARC must be counter-able on Polar. Maybe give it a damage cap per NARC or something.

Edited by jjm1, 10 February 2018 - 10:29 AM.

[The Basilisk]

Asym, on 10 February 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

OK, I'll take another attempt at this topic. A long time ago, before a lot of you were born, a group of researchers and programmers took a schorlary whack at making a video game that could teach military skills.....

What they and the rest of us in that era found is what is in use today. Successful games all have a few things in common to include F2P games... One of those metrics, paradigms as many would say now, is the successful games must be more than 2 dimensional (left/right/forward/backward). I know, what many of you in this forum think. that what I am saying is crazy and demand proof and such silliness.... OK, lads,
take 4 minutes and have a good read: http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/p003368.pdf Look at the date. Remember, I was programming, writing simulation code in the 70's......and, was in the US Army.............connect the two.

You see, many of us were decades ahead of the civilian world and what was created and fielded would make you sweat real sweat and challenge every MWO player's abilities well beyond this game....because the created game was a 3D, with a real physics gameplay engine that matched battalions against battalions......not 12x12 but well exceeding 58x58 on real terrain.....You'all have no idead what stress is.....in a silly 2D engine called MWO....

There, there is why 3D engines in F2P game are successful.......why 2D games don't excel in the market place. I've posted other links in another forum piece that shows you what was created and why.......and, how that videogame was the catalyst of all present videogames.............and now, to quote Paul Harvey, "you know the rest of the story..." (many of you are wondering "who dat"?)

Bring LRM's back, fix Artillery and Air Strikes, introduce and re-introduce the rest of the IDF weapons from lore and then, you'd see MWO become a lot more than a silly 2D arcade shooter in a small areana. Then, you'd see who can or can not "fight" versus "play" combat pilots in armored vehicles..... Tactics would have to replace all things "meta" because no one weapons system could overcome the others because the use of IDF controls the engagement ranges.... Look at history if you doubt this...... OK, I've said my piece and this time, I've given you some real facts and related some real history as to why MWO needs to start again with IDF and reclaim 3D battlespace mechanics and stop screwing around with anything 2D.

Salt on kids.....salt on.

While this was a nice and interesting read nothing of this has any relevance for MWO.
The game is what it is.
It runs on the engine that it got and the basic weapons mechanics are as they are.
Nothing of that will change....

Please get it THIS IS IT devs said it again and again no changes to basic code !!!

We can change the xml file stats of weapons i.e. heat, cooldown, range, damage, spread..and that's it.