426 replies to this topic

[Asym]

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

Basically,on the last podcast for Paul, (https://soundcloud.c...164-paul-inouye) we had a little bit about LRMs.

Namely, we got told why they're deliberately bad. Balancing LRMs to be good enough for T1 would cause them to destroy T4-5 play, because these players aren't skilled enough to handle an improved LRM being shot at them.

To that, I ask the following question:

Since AMS is zero skill (it's automatic missile busting), why can't LRMs be better and simply make AMS an automatic part of Trial robot builds? It's undodgeable missile damage reduction, functions better in large numbers, and better LRMs will actually even encourage AMS use outside of the underhive levels of play. It's a no-skill-needed way to give those unskilled players a crutch to survive standing in the rain. We even deliberately put an AMS hardpoint on stock chassis 99.9% of the time in MWO, just so people can use them. Not that we do, there's precious little WORTH using them on.

For that matter, it'll even make LRM use more skill oriented, as while people might not dodge the rain, the missile boat will have to figure out how to get around all the umbrellas suddenly in use.

Oh Please......

What a bunch of crap. That excuse is not the reason. The reason is that the comp players DO NOT WANT indirect fire weapons.....Period.

Valid and effective LRM's would greatly change play styles, reduce available tonnage because they'd have to mount AMS and sufficient ammo and, then, if LRM are effective, a smart team would introduce scouting with TAGs and NARC's once again..... Both side would have to play in three dimensions again and all of their tactics would have to radically change and the variations would greatly increase and they..... It wouldn't do squat to the t4-5 market.

I need a drink...

[Roughneck45]

Asym, on 13 February 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

The reason is that the comp players DO NOT WANT indirect fire weapons.....Period.

The comp boogeyman! Its all their fault!

[Brain Cancer]

Asym, on 13 February 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

Oh Please......

What a bunch of crap. That excuse is not the reason. The reason is that the comp players DO NOT WANT indirect fire weapons.....Period.

No. This is straight from the Paul-horse's mouth. He doesn't want to improve LRMs because he fears a T4-5 lurmageddon would ensue.

Never mind every actual lurmageddon has resulted from things like making arcs so high they turned LRMs into decapitation devices, or flight paths that drilled CTs faster that you can scream GIGA DRILL BREAKER.

Quote

Valid and effective LRM's would greatly change play styles, reduce available tonnage because they'd have to mount AMS and sufficient ammo and, then, if LRM are effective, a smart team would introduce scouting with TAGs and NARC's once again..... Both side would have to play in three dimensions again and all of their tactics would have to radically change and the variations would greatly increase and they..... It wouldn't do squat to the t4-5 market.

I need a drink...

This part might be true, at least to some extent- but generally, a pilot who is self-sufficient will be able to do more than one that pulls his weight only when someone else is pulling their own along with it.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 13 February 2018 - 06:34 PM.

[Yosharian]

mogs01gt, on 13 February 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

AMS isnt taken because team play isnt valued in the current game setup. Kill or be kill is all that matters and winning is an after thought.

Plus,its a bit moronic to balance LRMs based on T4-T5 players when so many hard counters exist.

This is complete ********. I used to put AMS on every build I ran when I first started the game. I swiftly started removing it because the best way to defeat LRMs is to GET OUT OF THEIR TRAJECTORY rather than destroying them.

[Mystere]

FireStoat, on 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

If I am in a mech armed with LRMs and I fire the missiles at a target that I personally have an LOS lock for, give the missiles a 25% or greater velocity the moment they leave the tubes and they keep that velocity for the length of their travel.

I'd rather have significantly reduced spread than increased velocity.

[Mystere]

Stinger554, on 13 February 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:

What's a Vulture Prime there isn't a mech with that name in the game.

More serious note I firmly believe the only way to get LRMs the buffs they need to be effective in higher tiers of play is through some form of mechanic rework. IE no lock-ons without direct LOS unless the target is Narc'd/tagged.

Ahem! LRMs are supposed to be indirect fire weapons.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Its funny how LRMs are a weapon system that relies entirely on the enemy team not bringing AMS. If all 12 mechs on a team all had an AMS or two and actually stood together LRMs wouldn't hurt them. But most people lose this game in the mechlab anyway before they even get out into matches to lose the game via bad positioning. Players don't even need to be good or have decent positioning or even realize they're being shot at by LRMs, they just need to have the mental capacity of a herd of cattle and stand beside eachother while having AMS equipped. They fail to do this and get owned repeatedly, then cry for LRM nerfs instead.

Could these guys maybe just work on getting some ingame survival instincts higher than a cow?

[Metus regem]

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

Ahem! LRMs are supposed to be indirect fire weapons.

Sort of....

They should be capable of indirect or direct fire, with indirect being less accurate.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 13 February 2018 - 06:55 PM, said:

Sort of....

They should be capable of indirect or direct fire, with indirect being less accurate.

Artemis not functioning with IDF mode means higher spread, thus they already are in most cases.

Heck, apply a similar spread penalty to them without Artemis. I don't care, I'd just like my missiles to arrive sometime earlier than a week from next Tuesday.

[JediPanther]

Seriously I created the thread that lists every single counter to lrm and it totaled over 40. 40 ******* counters for ONE weapon. Then again do the mech academy or tutorial and it teaches you not one dam thing about game modes or lrms at all. No wonder T5-T4 are so frekkin terrible and it isn't due to lrm-agedon. Paul planing to nerf laser again because t5-t4 can't deal with 70 plus clan alpha strikes?Why is he in charge of balance again? I could name a few guesses but then I'd probability be perma banned.

ams is available on 99% of the mechs in the game but so are height differences in terrain of the maps. one is unblock-able and free and the other is either 1.5 tons for lams or 3-4 tons depending how much ams ammo you added. Bad enough you need a **** ton of equipment on the IS side to even think of using lrms not including any combination of: Tag,Narc plus narc ammo,beagle active probe,targeting computer,command console,line-of-sight and R key.

[Deathlike]

The thing is... anything that is not your enemy... whether it is terrain, buildings, the back of your teammates, is the enemy of the LRMs.

That's the sheer irony, but who cares right?

[XDevilsChariotX]

I think lrm's are fine where they are. It's bad enough this game has become Missle Warrior Online.

[PocketYoda]

Stinger554, on 13 February 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:

What's a Vulture Prime there isn't a mech with that name in the game.



More serious note I firmly believe the only way to get LRMs the buffs they need to be effective in higher tiers of play is through some form of mechanic rework. IE no lock-ons without direct LOS unless the target is Narc'd/tagged.

Mad dog Prime Vulture is the IS name for a Mad Dog

Edited by Samial, 13 February 2018 - 08:06 PM.

[FupDup]

Samial, on 13 February 2018 - 08:06 PM, said:

Mad dog Prime Vulture is the IS name for a Mad Dog

He was joking that the "proper" name of the Vulture is supposed to be the Mad Dog. The reason I refuse to use that "proper" name is because there's absolutely nothing "doggish" or "mad" about it. "Vulture" is a perfect representation of both its appearance and its battlefield role.

In general I think a lot of the IS names for Clan mechs make more sense than the "true" Clan names.

Edited by FupDup, 13 February 2018 - 08:24 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

XDevilsChariotX, on 13 February 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

I think lrm's are fine where they are. It's bad enough this game has become Missle Warrior Online.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHWUT. You mean the events where everyone you wish would never darken your team's shadow comes out in their LRM boats, ready to be harvested?

There's lots of LRMs then, but it's not like they're worth much. I mean, times like those are easymode even for me, and I missileboat....ATMs.

No. The game is very, very firmly planted in the "how many lasers can I alpha with today" mode right now. LRMs are pretty much at their nadir as a weapon system.

[HammerMaster]

Something needs to be done. If they are not overhauling. At least give an update of what is even on the board they can work with. Saying ya you guys up top tier 1/2. Just don't use LRM. Unacceptable.

[50 50]

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

Basically,on the last podcast for Paul, (https://soundcloud.c...164-paul-inouye) we had a little bit about LRMs.

Namely, we got told why they're deliberately bad. Balancing LRMs to be good enough for T1 would cause them to destroy T4-5 play, because these players aren't skilled enough to handle an improved LRM being shot at them.

That wasn't what was really said.

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

To that, I ask the following question:

Since AMS is zero skill (it's automatic missile busting), why can't LRMs be better and simply make AMS an automatic part of Trial robot builds?

That is a good question

HammerMaster, on 13 February 2018 - 10:41 PM, said:

Something needs to be done. If they are not overhauling. At least give an update of what is even on the board they can work with. Saying ya you guys up top tier 1/2. Just don't use LRM. Unacceptable.

Didn't think that was being said.

In essence:

LRMs are not as effective against more experienced players.
LRMs can be used by an experienced player to good effect, they just tend to favour other weapons.
LRMs are not considered as effective as direct fire weapons in the same circumstances. (Each weapon is better than another in the ideal situation for that weapon)

Should LRMs be adjusted to make them more effective in higher tiers of play by more experienced players, then we can expect the flow on effect from those changes to be magnified in the lower tiers of play for and against newer players which is probably detrimental to the new player experience and perception of how to play.

The question on AMS not being on all trial mechs, considering all battlemechs do have an AMS point is a good one.
Given that the builds were adjusted and voted on by the community after much moaning about the effectiveness and difficulty of using multiple different weapon systems, we can only blame ourselves that there was not enough care or thought given to who would actually use the trial mechs.
That said, I don't know if it would be that difficult to swap out a couple of components to add AMS to them all. Perhaps that is worth considering.

Edited by 50 50, 13 February 2018 - 11:03 PM.

[HammerMaster]

50 50, on 13 February 2018 - 11:03 PM, said:

Didn't think that was being said.

In essence:

LRMs are not as effective against more experienced players.
LRMs can be used by an experienced player to good effect, they just tend to favour other weapons.
LRMs are not considered as effective as direct fire weapons in the same circumstances. (Each weapon is better than another in the ideal situation for that weapon)

Should LRMs be adjusted to make them more effective in higher tiers of play by more experienced players, then we can expect the flow on effect from those changes to be magnified in the lower tiers of play for and against newer players which is probably detrimental to the new player experience and perception of how to play.

The question on AMS not being on all trial mechs, considering all battlemechs do have an AMS point is a good one.
Given that the builds were adjusted and voted on by the community after much moaning about the effectiveness and difficulty of using multiple different weapon systems, we can only blame ourselves that there was not enough care or thought given to who would actually use the trial mechs.
That said, I don't know if it would be that difficult to swap out a couple of components to add AMS to them all. Perhaps that is worth considering.

New Stat:
Tier viable weapons
UNACCEPTABLE!

Edited by HammerMaster, 13 February 2018 - 11:08 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

never use AMS ...use cover ...Hera to the LRM Warning ...you not narced ..not only use Brawl Builds and run in open terrain with no Support , looking to spotter and the lights in team hunted this Guys and not playing Mini -Brawl assault than LRMs no problem

like all other Games (battlefield ...the other Teams use Jets ...and the owns Team not the AA ...)learn with Pain to become better .

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 14 February 2018 - 12:05 AM.

[Luminis]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a huge fan of homing weapons in this sort of game, especially not if indirect fire is in the mix as well. I dislike the play style it promotes. And I don't think improving the ability to fight with no exposure is going to improve the gameplay experience at any level.

I don't care if someone starts whining about how LRMs are supposed to be in lore, the entire concept doesn't fit the game MWO is.

So, if we're going to buff LRMs, at least remove shared locks outside of NARCs. Yes, no more free C3 network. I'd be much more inclined to support a buff to LRMs if we got rid of what allows lurmboats to park somewhere save and lob missiles anyway.

"But Luminis, that's not how you play LRMs well!"

I know, but it still prompts people to do exactly that and it's usually fairly evident every last time you drop on Polar. Granted, I don't think many people will care about LRMs once they don't enable the "supportive artillery from cover" role anymore, but that's a different issue.

So yeah, tldr: Remove shared locks, buff velocity and spread.