426 replies to this topic

[Variant1]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 07:25 PM, said:

Considering that against skilled players, the lurmer will lose and lose hard? Yes. They're useless compared to more functional weapons. You don't see LRMs in higher end play, and that's because the gap between them and other weapons is a huge one.

And yes, it's a counter. If a weapon becomes too inefficient to last through exchanges, it's been effectively countered. When you're taking so much time to kill one target that people with other weapons are killing two or three, when you're so inefficient that you literally can no longer win on trades- you've been countered. Sure, I can get a few ATMs past that triple-AMS Kit Fox spewing them 48 at a time with my Supernova. But by the time it's meaningful, the team is down a few players from my firepower being zero, assuming someone else simply didn't kill me first. LRMs already are currently at a serious disadvantage- most trades you'd win are only because you're not actually in LOS to be hit in the first place.


It's called airstrikes. It even hits a zillion times harder than LRMs, takes no weight to mount, and can be launched at line-of-sight ranges across entire maps and will cheerfully roll right over a hill, or smack one you're under with a Stark Fist of Robot Removal. Just 40,000 Cbills and maybe a few skill nodes.

thank you for answering the counter question. But couldnt lrms still be useful in preventing the enemy from moving out of cover and pinning the down? As for high end play isint that a good thing considering that lrms can shoot over hills and track the enemy? if it was good at tier 1 wouldnt it be op?
as for airstrikes anyone and everyone can use them so i dont see a problem with them

[Khobai]

Quote

But couldnt lrms still be useful in preventing the enemy from moving out of cover and pinning the down?

direct fire weapons do that better.

Quote

As for high end play isint that a good thing considering that lrms can shoot over hills and track the enemy? if it was good at tier 1 wouldnt it be op?

there are ways of making lrms useful in tier 1 that would not make them overpowered.

the problem is not tier 1. it is tier 4-5.

[YueFei]

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

thank you for answering the counter question. But couldnt lrms still be useful in preventing the enemy from moving out of cover and pinning the down? As for high end play isint that a good thing considering that lrms can shoot over hills and track the enemy? if it was good at tier 1 wouldnt it be op?
as for airstrikes anyone and everyone can use them so i dont see a problem with them

Depends on the mechanics involved. Player input and options, allowing for counter-play and counter-counter-play, would make LRMs have more depth and be well balanced across all skill levels, but overhauling the basic weapon mechanics is probably beyond the scope of what PGI is willing to do right now.

Which leaves only the ability to tweak velocity/cooldown/angle/etc...

Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from when I talk about mechanics, air-to-air missiles in real life often aren't truly "fire-and-forget". Yes, short-range IR-seeking missiles usually are, but not the longer-range ones relying on radar. The launching fighter's radar is a lot more powerful than the tiny seekers on the missiles, and so it's actually the launching fighter providing guidance via data-link. Also, most missiles only have a boost phase of a few seconds, and will actually spend most of their flight time to the target ballistic, with no further thrust. This is why a missile that's capable of 40+ g's can be dodged by fighter planes pulling only 9 g's.... because the missile can really only pull 40+ g's at the beginning of its flight. With no further thrust available it steadily loses energy it cannot regain, unlike the fighter it's trying to hit. This is also why evasive maneuvers by the targeted fighter are useful even at the very beginning, contrary to what most movies show you where the hero waits until the last moment to do a break turn, because every move the targeted fighter makes forces the missile into a turn to keep up, which bleeds the missile of energy, leaving it with (hopefully) insufficient energy at the end to actually hit the fighter.

Also, throughout the missile's flight, up until it gets close enough to the target to use its own radar/IR guidance, the launching fighter has to keep the target locked up with its own sensors... which is why the enemy fighter being shot at can also shoot back to force the attacker to break off, hopefully breaking the lock in the process. The attacking fighter may still choose to try to press home the attack anyway, and can pull his nose around at the gimbal limits of his own radar, holding it at maximum angle while beaming the incoming missile (a maneuver known as the crank), particularly if he has a positional/energy advantage (e.g: he's at a higher altitude firing down at a low-flying opponent, and is confident he can hold the lock a bit longer and still have enough time left to escape the enemy's missile).

A pilot could also choose to launch his missile ballistically at where he predicts the enemy will be, and hope the missile's seeker finds the target at the other end.

There are next-generation concepts and technologies are emerging where fighter aircraft could share datalinks, and so a missile launched by Fighter-A could be guided via datalink by Fighter-B's radar, so that Fighter-A could launch with a good energy advantage and break off immediately without having to guide the missile through.

How would this translate to MWO? A skilled LRM pilot should have more input into what his missiles do, and choices between offense/defense and risk/reward. He ought to be able to hold a lock-on at a greater angle than what we have now, allowing defensive maneuvers/shielding, and he ought to be able to influence where the missiles go with his reticule placement.

He ought to be able to lob missiles around obstacles and have the missiles pick up their own guidance in the terminal phase, albeit with reduced guidance and increased spread, as a way to still land hits when line-of-sight is lost. Imagine that: you'd get no "incoming missiles" warning in advance because the shooter didn't even lock onto you, and just fired the missiles ballistically at where he predicted you'd be, and the missiles picked you up on their own guidance in the terminal phase. You know how people can get hyped up by well-thrown grenades and smokes/flashes in Counterstrike? Imagine that with LRMs.

LRMs would also have a steadily decreasing ability to maneuver, allowing lights and mediums to exhaust the energy of a flight of LRMs and avoid the worst of it.

Finally, a proper C3I system which costs tonnage/slots could be used for datalink sharing, as opposed to what we get for free now with an LRM launching platform able to use the lock from a friendly for free.

Yeah, that's just scratching the surface and a quick brainstorm from a random guy whose job isn't to actually work on MWO. There's probably a lot more you could do to add depth to LRM play.

There are folks who think that there's just simply no way that LRMs could be interesting, and well balanced throughout all skill levels. But if you make it so that the shooter's input has a greater influence, and the shooter has more choices, then the defender also has options and decisions he must make to deal with it, you increase the opportunities for counter-play and the weapon can be fun and interesting and effective at all levels of play.

Edited by YueFei, 14 February 2018 - 11:09 PM.

[Mole]

Asym, on 14 February 2018 - 01:46 PM, said:

No, No and No.... So, how would making LRM's effective be the end of the game????

Because people have an easier time digesting getting destroyed by direct fire weapons and getting destroyed by someone who is firing a homing missile from a location where they are not even vulnerable to return fire makes people mad. It's as simple as that.

[Burke IV]

I hate being hit by gauss rounds. Most of the time i got no idea where they come from and there is nothing i can do to dodge or mitigate. OMG im mad. Its my right not to get shot by people i cant see or return against and i demand nerfs.

[Stinger554]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

As you yourself implied, you do not like the:



nonsense and want it gone.

Others don't like the peekaboo play style.

Excellent way to counter my points....by not addressing them at all,


Difference between those two is that one play style is sharing armor and the other is not. One has direct benefits for the team and the other is wasting missiles 70% of the time.

But that's off-topic as this is a discussion about LRMs.

[Asym]

Mole, on 15 February 2018 - 05:58 AM, said:

Because people have an easier time digesting getting destroyed by direct fire weapons and getting destroyed by someone who is firing a homing missile from a location where they are not even vulnerable to return fire makes people mad. It's as simple as that.

Welcome to the real world Lad. Where there is no balance. There is no fair. And, throughout history, we've managed to overcome ATGMs of every variety imaginable; smart everything; and, artillery since the invention of gunpowder... I guess we're just potatoes becuase many of us really understand cover and concealment; understand IDF and strikes as designed; and, most importantly, understand how the lack of effective IDF ruins combat sims and games. Play Doom if you want an arcade twitch FPS shooter.....

And yet, here we are in a great game, so impaired and mangled, with players so soft and helpess, that even after the game itself has given them several very effective tools to counter LRM's, they just can't seem to stand the pressure of a simple, not so effective weapons group and have made every excuse imaginable to PGI to remove them.

No, it's as simple as: "we've lost a large percentage of the population to everything and anything "balance"; so, PGI can implement a game mode that is cheaper to operate, will generate more mech pack sales, is simplier to use because you really don't have to think too much (Oh, they they are shoot them) and most importantly gives them the opportunity for micro-transactions..... Good luck with that. For a $1.50, here's a new pilot skin or a new piece of add-on geometry.......wait.

This isn't about play styles, it's about short term revenue.....

[Mystere]

Stinger554, on 15 February 2018 - 06:37 AM, said:

Excellent way to counter my points....by not addressing them at all,


Difference between those two is that one play style is sharing armor and the other is not. One has direct benefits for the team and the other is wasting missiles 70% of the time.

But that's off-topic as this is a discussion about LRMs.

You want the elimination of a play style that might actually work for a number of people just because some other "bad characters" are "doing it wrong". How is that not related to the topic at hand?

[Mystere]

Mole, on 15 February 2018 - 05:58 AM, said:

Because people have an easier time digesting getting destroyed by direct fire weapons and getting destroyed by someone who is firing a homing missile from a location where they are not even vulnerable to return fire makes people mad. It's as simple as that.

Tough, I say!

Edited by Mystere, 15 February 2018 - 08:07 AM.

[Mole]

Asym, on 15 February 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

Welcome to the real world Lad. Where there is no balance. There is no fair. And, throughout history, we've managed to overcome ATGMs of every variety imaginable; smart everything; and, artillery since the invention of gunpowder... I guess we're just potatoes becuase many of us really understand cover and concealment; understand IDF and strikes as designed; and, most importantly, understand how the lack of effective IDF ruins combat sims and games. Play Doom if you want an arcade twitch FPS shooter.....

And yet, here we are in a great game, so impaired and mangled, with players so soft and helpess, that even after the game itself has given them several very effective tools to counter LRM's, they just can't seem to stand the pressure of a simple, not so effective weapons group and have made every excuse imaginable to PGI to remove them.

No, it's as simple as: "we've lost a large percentage of the population to everything and anything "balance"; so, PGI can implement a game mode that is cheaper to operate, will generate more mech pack sales, is simplier to use because you really don't have to think too much (Oh, they they are shoot them) and most importantly gives them the opportunity for micro-transactions..... Good luck with that. For a $1.50, here's a new pilot skin or a new piece of add-on geometry.......wait.

This isn't about play styles, it's about short term revenue.....

I never said it wasn't realistic. But people just loooove to whine about things with lock-on and indirect fire things as well in video games because they are percieved as "cheap" or "noskill" or "noobtubes" or whatever the hell kind of moniker you want to give them. I'm not agreeing with these sentiments, but I am saying that this kind of mentality is where the LRM whining comes from. I've seen similar whining threads about Streak SRMs. In the gaming world many people view a lock-on mechanic as just shy of cheating. MWO isn't the only game that suffers from this. It just so happens that the weapon in MWO that fits the bill for this kind of mentality is LRMs.

[mogs01gt]

Burke IV, on 15 February 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

I hate being hit by gauss rounds. Most of the time i got no idea where they come from and there is nothing i can do to dodge or mitigate. OMG im mad. Its my right not to get shot by people i cant see or return against and i demand nerfs.

Well it doesnt help when the game sometimes triggers the wrong part of the mech that took damage.

[Asym]

Mole, on 15 February 2018 - 08:09 AM, said:

I never said it wasn't realistic. But people just loooove to whine about things with lock-on and indirect fire things as well in video games because they are percieved as "cheap" or "noskill" or "noobtubes" or whatever the hell kind of moniker you want to give them. I'm not agreeing with these sentiments, but I am saying that this kind of mentality is where the LRM whining comes from. I've seen similar whining threads about Streak SRMs. In the gaming world many people view a lock-on mechanic as just shy of cheating. MWO isn't the only game that suffers from this. It just so happens that the weapon in MWO that fits the bill for this kind of mentality is LRMs.

OK, fair enough. Many of us just want MWO to be "all it could be" not, just a revenue stream that panders.....

Edited by Asym, 15 February 2018 - 11:13 AM.

[InvictusLee]

If we fix lrms, we get the added bonus of fixed atms. Make them slightly cooler or not as GH heavy and man... those things would dominate! Also lose the MM! Makes brawling a pain!

[Grus]

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 07:47 PM, said:

thank you for answering the counter question. But couldnt lrms still be useful in preventing the enemy from moving out of cover and pinning the down? As for high end play isint that a good thing considering that lrms can shoot over hills and track the enemy? if it was good at tier 1 wouldnt it be op?
as for airstrikes anyone and everyone can use them so i dont see a problem with them

for the pinning point direct fire (ppfld) does that better due to applying most of its damage to 1 spot. In contrast if you do not have direct Los then lrms come in handy IF you have some sort of spotter. Otherwise the TTK for LRM's let alone the damage required to kill one mech is way too inefficient. But that's the case with any indirect fire weapon.

[Mole]

Asym, on 15 February 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

OK, fair enough. Many of us just want MWO to be "all it could be" not, just a revenue stream that panders.....

Well I'm sorry that you disagree with economics, but it costs money to keep the servers running. The game must remain a revenue stream in order to keep the servers running. How do you do that? By pandering to the group of people who spend the most money to keep them happy so they keep spending money. I'm sorry to say that it's probably a bigger monetary loss for PGI to upset people who hate LRMs enough to stop buying than it is to upset the people who think LRMs are underpowered, many of us whom still spend money despite that fact.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

T4-5 Players many more bad as the VIP AI ...not understand thats important to hold the Platform in HPG or thats a couldron with hills around is a very bad Position...cuddling by walls and ramps go fore and back and falling defenseless or running in FW with only Brawl Builds as attackers ...the most can never helped only unistall thats game .

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

thank you for answering the counter question. But couldnt lrms still be useful in preventing the enemy from moving out of cover and pinning the down? As for high end play isint that a good thing considering that lrms can shoot over hills and track the enemy? if it was good at tier 1 wouldnt it be op?
as for airstrikes anyone and everyone can use them so i dont see a problem with them

Consider that the second you come out of cover, I can greet you with a focused blast of instant laserfire that deals concentrated and rapidly lethal damage. Or...

...I can wait for lock while you casually shoot me instead and duck back into cover.

Direct fire right now is far better at forcing people's heads down, because it is far more likely to tear their head OFF, and that's what suppressive fire is about. Both may get someone to scurry back to cover, but direct fire is far more likely to do some damage in the process because it's window needed to damage a target is far smaller, timewise.

I mean, I regularly hose enemy missile boats that way, and I run zero radar dep. In another missile boat.

Quote

I'm sorry to say that it's probably a bigger monetary loss for PGI to upset people who hate LRMs enough to stop buying than it is to upset the people who think LRMs are underpowered, many of us whom still spend money despite that fact.

Ironically, it's probably bad lurmers who spend more money than people who complain about LRMs to begin with. You know those people you see sticking LRMs on every new chassis the second it comes out?

There's your money talking, right there.

[Stinger554]

Mystere, on 15 February 2018 - 07:23 AM, said:

You want the elimination of a play style that might actually work for a number of people just because some other "bad characters" are "doing it wrong". How is that not related to the topic at hand?

Arguably it's not eliminating a play-style; since you know indirect fire is still possible.

If something is bad for the health of the game whether it's an entire weapons system being nearly useless or a play-style something needs to be done in regards to it.

As an example poptarting took a hit because it was straight unpleasant for people not poptarting and that's bad for the game.

LRMs are bad weapons in their current state and PGI doesn't want to buff them because they are scared of what happens to people who may not understand how to deal with them and new players(because that's all PSR is an indicator of how new you account is).

To me a huge part of that is the in-direct fire mechanic and how easy it is to do. Reducing(you'll note that this word doesn't mean removing) player's ability to use in-direct fire would go a long way in this regard as well as allowing for LRMs to receive base buffs that they really need.

Brain Cancer, on 15 February 2018 - 12:32 PM, said:

Ironically, it's probably bad lurmers who spend more money than people who complain about LRMs to begin with. You know those people you see sticking LRMs on every new chassis the second it comes out?

There's your money talking, right there.

I want to cry when they do that....

Edited by Stinger554, 15 February 2018 - 12:35 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

I want to cry when they do that....

"Buff LRMs. You don't want Stinger554 to cry about another new Mechpack full of LRM builds."

There, that oughta get Paul motivated.

[Burke IV]

Stinger554, on 15 February 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

Arguably it's not eliminating a play-style; since you know indirect fire is still possible.

They killed the medium LRM boat. Streaming CLRM5s is like having a peashooter now. Is it playable... i guess if you want to try really hard every game and hope there isnt too much ams about. Even then you are eventually limited by the amount of ammo you can carry.