426 replies to this topic

[ANOM O MECH]

OmniFail, on 20 February 2018 - 06:25 PM, said:

Will your post is great and well thought out. But don't go thinking getting two kills everytime you go out in a LRM mech happens. Becuse its just not true. Also Juju practiced and prepared for his trick as funny as it was.

I watched it live.

No he didn't.

It was spur of the moment.

[JediPanther]

LRM 15 230 388,963 121,812 31.32%

Yep. The weakest weapon in the game certainly needs 40 known counters and continual monthly nerfs because noobs in t5-t4 just can't deal with it. 30% hit rate just hardly getting up to 40% Just wait til they get to higher tiers where people use other weapons that are ppfd. Those guass and lasers are going to be a nice wake up call to the real meta.

[Brain Cancer]

Wil McCullough, on 21 February 2018 - 12:13 AM, said:

We need to have this ingame. Together with an accompanying sound clip. CLONK.

You can watch IS LRMs (or ATMs) harmlessly bounce off a target inside minimum range. No SFX that I can tell, though as it's drowned out by the launcher.

[Brain Cancer]

Mystere, on 21 February 2018 - 01:49 AM, said:

As I previously mentioned:
with ballistic weapons being one of them.

I just find PGI's application of minimum ranges in general as capricious as best, outright anti-fun at worst.

IS LRMs and ATMs (and PPCs) getting deadzones rather than damage reduction. Autocannons and Gauss having nothing applied, despite the frequent complaints about Gauss being OP. As a condition for guided missiles though, it's the most rage-inducing one of the bunch.

But I'm worrying about LRMs here. Really.

Seriously, PGI, You can even put a bunch of target dummies up on the test server and see what a difference AMS makes when it's the default build mount, apply that to Trials, and honestly reconsider how badly you've hosed LRMs in general to "save the newbies". If the reason LRMs are bad is they kill unskilled players, then put the unskilled counters into the Trial robots you're having them run around in so the big nasty ol' lurmers are hitting them for less damage.

Then you can actually make LRMs better, as we'll have a better baseline for "unskilled lurmer" vs. "unskilled targets". Parts are missing on the "unskilled targets" end of the equation. Fix this.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 21 February 2018 - 01:09 PM, said:

I just find PGI's application of minimum ranges in general as capricious as best, outright anti-fun at worst.

IS LRMs and ATMs (and PPCs) getting deadzones rather than damage reduction. Autocannons and Gauss having nothing applied, despite the frequent complaints about Gauss being OP. As a condition for guided missiles though, it's the most rage-inducing one of the bunch.

But I'm worrying about LRMs here. Really.

Seriously, PGI, You can even put a bunch of target dummies up on the test server and see what a difference AMS makes when it's the default build mount, apply that to Trials, and honestly reconsider how badly you've hosed LRMs in general to "save the newbies". If the reason LRMs are bad is they kill unskilled players, then put the unskilled counters into the Trial robots you're having them run around in so the big nasty ol' lurmers are hitting them for less damage.

Then you can actually make LRMs better, as we'll have a better baseline for "unskilled lurmer" vs. "unskilled targets". Parts are missing on the "unskilled targets" end of the equation. Fix this.

Just a minor point Brain, the Guass charge up was meant as a mimic for the 90m minimum range in TT....

But yes, I am in the same boat, I wish PGI would be consistent with minimum ranges, either dead-zone all or remove it for all.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 21 February 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

Just a minor point Brain, the Guass charge up was meant as a mimic for the 90m minimum range in TT...

Utter failure there. The chargeup generally is rougher on hitting at range than up close.

Quote

But yes, I am in the same boat, I wish PGI would be consistent with minimum ranges, either dead-zone all or remove it for all.

I'm fine with damage reduction for everyone, honestly. Have a weapon with a minimum range deal reduced damage, with longer minimum ranges resulting in larger damage penalties once you hit zero meters from gun to target.

At worst, an IS LRM in tabletop is +6 to hit, or in percentiles, getting an 8+ is about a 42% chance assuming a "perfect shot" otherwise. Give IS LRMs roughly 40% damage at zero meters, with the damage going from 100%->40% from 179m->0m.

Clan LRMs you can do what you will in the name of balance, but I'd expect similar.

(By comparison, PPCs would only be losing about 20% of theirs)

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 21 February 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

Utter failure there. The chargeup generally is rougher on hitting at range than up close.



I'm fine with damage reduction for everyone, honestly. Have a weapon with a minimum range deal reduced damage, with longer minimum ranges resulting in larger damage penalties once you hit zero meters from gun to target.

At worst, an IS LRM in tabletop is +6 to hit, or in percentiles, getting an 8+ is about a 42% chance assuming a "perfect shot" otherwise. Give IS LRMs roughly 40% damage at zero meters, with the damage going from 100%->40% from 179m->0m.

Clan LRMs you can do what you will in the name of balance, but I'd expect similar.

(By comparison, PPCs would only be losing about 20% of theirs)

Never said PGI got it right.... But I'd totally take a 20% damage reduction on my HPPC's if I could smoke someone that closes to under 90m with them...

[ANOM O MECH]

Brain Cancer, on 21 February 2018 - 01:09 PM, said:

I just find PGI's application of minimum ranges in general as capricious as best, outright anti-fun at worst.

IS LRMs and ATMs (and PPCs) getting deadzones rather than damage reduction. Autocannons and Gauss having nothing applied, despite the frequent complaints about Gauss being OP. As a condition for guided missiles though, it's the most rage-inducing one of the bunch.

But I'm worrying about LRMs here. Really.

Seriously, PGI, You can even put a bunch of target dummies up on the test server and see what a difference AMS makes when it's the default build mount, apply that to Trials, and honestly reconsider how badly you've hosed LRMs in general to "save the newbies". If the reason LRMs are bad is they kill unskilled players, then put the unskilled counters into the Trial robots you're having them run around in so the big nasty ol' lurmers are hitting them for less damage.

Then you can actually make LRMs better, as we'll have a better baseline for "unskilled lurmer" vs. "unskilled targets". Parts are missing on the "unskilled targets" end of the equation. Fix this.

PGI's answer to why they are bad and that psr is actually working as intended, is an excellent example why folks pick on them as a completely incompetent company.

It is a highlight to why tier 1 is a joke.

They are actually insuring terrible players are filtered on up into the upper tiers.

It is really sad when there is clearly no way to reason with a company that contradicts itself as a rule, and displays this special kind of insight...

[Mystere]

tker 669, on 21 February 2018 - 02:21 PM, said:

PGI's answer to why they are bad and that psr is actually working as intended, is an excellent example why folks pick on them as a completely incompetent company.

It is a highlight to why tier 1 is a joke.

They are actually insuring terrible players are filtered on up into the upper tiers.

It is really sad when there is clearly no way to reason with a company that contradicts itself as a rule, and displays this special kind of insight...

From what I understand, the whole point of the tier system is to segregate new players from experienced ones and not as a measure of skill. If that is indeed the case, then I think there should just be 2 groupings: T1-T3 and T4-T5.

That's a shark tank and a kiddie pool.

[Brain Cancer]

Ironically, if bad players get all the way up in the ranks, it reinforces why LRMs aren't actually up to snuff.

After all, the same people who get buried in LRM fire apparently don't learn how to avoid it all the way up to the top and keep complaining.

[BreakinStuff]

Brain Cancer, on 21 February 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

Ironically, if bad players get all the way up in the ranks, it reinforces why LRMs aren't actually up to snuff.

After all, the same people who get buried in LRM fire apparently don't learn how to avoid it all the way up to the top and keep complaining.

I'm pretty sure my successes with LRMs are primarily bullying people who make bad choices in life.

[OmniFail]

The funny thing about what I said about LRM5's is that even if they lift the ghost heat and adjust the heat so you can fire enough of them at a time to over come some of the AMS is that only a few mechs can actually equip that many LRM5's. It's like I said with all the nerfs and the hard counters they should have just removed them from the game.

Anyway here's the Pakhet I spent money to play before you guys screwed me Paul.

https://mwo.smurfy-n...8f0382d1bf4dd56

I should have known that this was coming when the first challenge I faced in it was the Hunt the Huntsman event.

Good job choosing the potential customer over the paying customer. I'll ask my project management teacher about this. Maybe I'll write a thesis centered around your logic.

Thanks Bro

The more I think about PGIs argument about "muh noobs" the more I realize that its BS. After all most of us at higher tiers had to go though the lower levels and there wasn't huge lurmagedon to deal with. At least not in the last two or three years. I think the nerfs are there to appease the whiners who's only real argument is "IDF is a ***** mechanic" crowd.

Gamer coddling never drives skill or fun.

Edited by OmniFail, 21 February 2018 - 05:40 PM.

[OmniFail]

Apparently they are subpar by design. It has something to do with tier 4 trash.

[Draven Knightfall]

A point a great many are missing is this is a Mechwarrior game, and in mechwarrior games, LRM's are valid, legitimate, even celebrated weapon systems. If you're going to make a game set in the mechwarrior universe, LRM's need to be influential. Players aren't playing this game for the CoD or WoT experience, they're playing this game because they want to play against other people in mechs they remember shooting AI decades ago in. Considering they've been one of the more popular weapon systems in the games, it's just foolish to not have them powerful.

Players will sacrifice some things in name of online balance, like orbital strikes, insanely powerful weapons, ranges and windup on some current weapons, balance clan and IS mechs closer to 1v1 than 3v2 we're used to, etc. We can handle mech design and hardpoint allocation, to keep truer to the source material, must sacrifice poptarting. Players are generally not unreasonable, forum boards aside. But if you expect them to stay when their favorite, baseline weapon systems are irrelevant to the point that most people don't even equip countermeasures, you're living in a fantasy world that will not pay the bills. And they've left. We all have friends lists that is 2/3rds empty, unless there's a major event, then it's only 1/2 empty. And nobody wants to watch a hide and seek poke fest. It's why the competitive stream did meh at best, and went downhill as the games went along. It was a boring, pathetic shell of what we were promised years ago. So we tuned out.

People aren't just tuning out of this game, but I've seen in in-game chat and heard among friends players are already disinterested in Mech 5 because of how this game has been handled. Too many favorite play styles has been sacrificed and force-fed into laser builds. There used to be a general trinity between ballistics, missiles, and lasers where each were better at one part, but were subpar on several others. But today, it's lasers are the answer to everything. Players are sick of it, and the game population is critically low right now because of it. LRM's aren't the singular reason for this, but far less left when LRM's were relevant and countermeasures worked than have left because of further nerfs to their viability.

Adding AMS to all trial mechs to make LRM's relevant again is a wonderful idea. I don't know why this hasn't been done already. But if PGI, or any of us think for a second LRM's are ok where they are, or even less than a legitimate strategy in this, a Mechwarrior game, then the game is going to die a slow, agonizing death, if it isn't there already. PGI is already disadvantaged with a difficult to learn game with a ton of history and nuance that is absolutely not new player friendly. The last thing they could afford at any point was to disinterest players who have played LRM in particular for years and years. They needed veteran players to bring in new blood, not chase veteran players away.

[MischiefSC]

YueFei, on 21 February 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Let's ignore all the people calling for LRMs to be nerfed even more, or for IDF to be removed. Games like CounterStrike have a form of IDF: Grenades, Smokes, Flashes, etc. Some of the best and most dope moments in that game come from amazing throws. I think there's no point in engaging with people who simply want LRMs nerfed even more, and no point in engaging with people who want LRM IDF removed. Their end desire is just too incompatible, and there's probably no way to come to any consensus there; debate with them is a waste of time.

Except in every single FPS game IDF weapons (like grenades) have significant limitations - you don't play the whole match just armed with grenades that have the same range as rifles and such, do you? IDF exists but with drastically more limitations than direct fire.

Which is what everyone is talking about. The same balance rationale and logic used by every other FPS ever and for the same reason.

In a FPS, IDF is a **** mechanic. Having it in a limited fashion absolutely does have its place, having it be the focus of the game (which is 100% absolutely what the 'buff LRMs with IDF' is actually talking about either intentionally or unintentionally because the person in question absolutely doesn't understand the realities of this game and every other FPS) would be a **** game.

Hence, again, IDF is a **** mechanic. IDF has to be absolutely flat out inferior to direct fire or it totally and completely supplants direct fire. Auto-aim IDF.... seriously?

So how would, for example, any of the shooters you mentioned work if the grenades automatically sought out any player in the general arc they were thrown at? Then you can throw them just as far as all the guns shoot?

There are not enough face palm memes in the world for this sort of discussion. I've always been a big proponent of making LRMs viable. It's a solid segment of the weapons in the game, they should be viable. However the only way, at all, to make that happen is have them viable as direct fire and then a very limited or restricted direct fire option.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 21 February 2018 - 01:09 PM, said:

I just find PGI's application of minimum ranges in general as capricious as best, outright anti-fun at worst.

As an aside, minimum ranges are terrible.

All minimum range weapons need a damage falloff, linear within their minimum range. PPC, LRMs (clan and IS), ATMs. Linear falloff.

If you then need to give some of them tiny nerfs for cooldown or whatever if you feel that makes them OP we can look at that. A hard minimum range however only accomplishes making them 100% non-viable for any serious play. It instantly makes them a bad weapon and inferior to all other choices irregardless of any other factor. It's why everything with a minimum range gets ignored - because you have options that do as much or more damage that don't have a minimum range. It's a pointless disadvantage and one that is out of proportion to all the other in game limitations from long cooldowns to charge-up to projectile velocity to ghost heat.

0 damage minimum range is also a **** mechanic.

[Khobai]

Quote

So how would, for example, any of the shooters you mentioned work if the grenades automatically sought out any player in the general arc they were thrown at? Then you can throw them just as far as all the guns shoot?

LRMs dont automatically seek players in the area theyre fired at though. Theyre not autonomous homing weapons nor are they fire and forget weapons.

They need a lock that has to be held the entire time theyre in flight. And to hold that lock you need a spotter with direct LoS.

Your whole problem is that you havent learned how to shoot at the mechs spotting for LRMs. Shoot the spotter and the LRMs cant stay locked. Its that simple.

The only other ways to get a lock are UAV and NARC, both of which are absurdly easy to counter. Shoot down the UAV or if youre NARCd just hide behind cover or stay in ECM.

LRMs are currently a joke. And theyll still be a joke, albeit a lesser joke, even if you buff them slightly. None of the buffs people have suggested are going to make LRMs anywhere near as good as direct fire weapons.

No one is suggesting LRMs come in at a steep angle that ignores terrain or that LRMs spiral-drill into your center torso like they used to during the LRMpocalypses of old. All thats been asked for is reasonable changes like increasing the velocity on LRMs so they can function better at long range like their name implies. Theyre called long range missiles, they need to be more effective past 500m.

Edited by Khobai, 22 February 2018 - 02:28 PM.

[YueFei]

MischiefSC, on 22 February 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

Except in every single FPS game IDF weapons (like grenades) have significant limitations - you don't play the whole match just armed with grenades that have the same range as rifles and such, do you? IDF exists but with drastically more limitations than direct fire.

Which is what everyone is talking about. The same balance rationale and logic used by every other FPS ever and for the same reason.

In a FPS, IDF is a **** mechanic. Having it in a limited fashion absolutely does have its place, having it be the focus of the game (which is 100% absolutely what the 'buff LRMs with IDF' is actually talking about either intentionally or unintentionally because the person in question absolutely doesn't understand the realities of this game and every other FPS) would be a **** game.

Grenades/Smokes/Flashes/Molotovs in CS are absolutely essential to victory. Players practice throws to be able to land critical smokes halfway across the map, cutting off key sight lines.

If two teams are equal in skill, and one brings grenades/smokes/etc, and the other team does not, the team which doesn't bring them is at a severe disadvantage. In a contest between any two equally skilled teams, the team that doesn't use grenades/smokes/etc is almost 100% sure going to lose the series.

That doesn't mean that one team exclusively uses grenades/smokes/etc., and forgoes the use of pistols/rifles/etc., but both are essential to victory.

THAT is balance.

Imbalance would be if grenades/smokes/etc sucked so badly that you'd never buy them. Considering that the economics is a big factor in CS matches, if grenades/smokes/etc weren't worth it, people wouldn't buy them.

Quote

Hence, again, IDF is a **** mechanic. IDF has to be absolutely flat out inferior to direct fire or it totally and completely supplants direct fire. Auto-aim IDF.... seriously?

So how would, for example, any of the shooters you mentioned work if the grenades automatically sought out any player in the general arc they were thrown at? Then you can throw them just as far as all the guns shoot?

There are not enough face palm memes in the world for this sort of discussion. I've always been a big proponent of making LRMs viable. It's a solid segment of the weapons in the game, they should be viable. However the only way, at all, to make that happen is have them viable as direct fire and then a very limited or restricted direct fire option.

Don't conflate what others want or how MWO currently works with what I've advocated for. I've spelled out my ideas very clearly, if you have a specific problem with those ideas then address each point specifically. Do that instead, and you'll probably find that we agree more than we disagree.

[Brain Cancer]

MischiefSC, on 22 February 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

Except in every single FPS game IDF weapons (like grenades) have significant limitations - you don't play the whole match just armed with grenades that have the same range as rifles and such, do you? IDF exists but with drastically more limitations than direct fire.

I don't. Generally, LRMs are effectively outranged by most direct fire weaponry worth mentioning, due to incredibly slow travel times. There's a reason experienced missile boaters don't generally fire outside of 600m, if not 500m, and time to target is all that and more. AC/2, AC/5 (and LB/Ultra versions), LGR/Gauss, ERLL and ERPPCs all deal full damage at those ranges and then some, and certainly deal a decent amount at ranges LRMs are no longer even close to accurate. And there's plenty more that deal respectable damage out to 600m or so, even without range boosts.

Range boosts that do jack and diddly for LRMs, because their accuracy is limited by velocity to be considerably less than their actual "range".

Quote

Which is what everyone is talking about. The same balance rationale and logic used by every other FPS ever and for the same reason.

In a FPS, IDF is a **** mechanic. Having it in a limited fashion absolutely does have its place, having it be the focus of the game (which is 100% absolutely what the 'buff LRMs with IDF' is actually talking about either intentionally or unintentionally because the person in question absolutely doesn't understand the realities of this game and every other FPS) would be a **** game.

I'm not even talking about turning LRMs into some kind of superdestructive force here. I'm saying that LRMs have been balanced against T5 skill-less players, and without even taking the countermeasures that are ideal for said players (AMS being the poster child here, as very, very, very few chassis can't use it) in spades.

Quote

Hence, again, IDF is a **** mechanic. IDF has to be absolutely flat out inferior to direct fire or it totally and completely supplants direct fire. Auto-aim IDF.... seriously?

It's beyond inferior at this point to the range of "outright crippled". And y'know what? Because it's so freaking slow, we had to put in things like radar dep and target retainment because otherwise, you'd never hit in the first place even WITH guidance. And you want non-guided IDF?

Gimme arty cannons. I'll strap those on and shell your giant robot till the map square looks like a lunar wasteland. No problems there. But this obsession about mega-spread damage ever even getting CLOSE to the direct fire weaponry we have now is...overdone.

Quote

So how would, for example, any of the shooters you mentioned work if the grenades automatically sought out any player in the general arc they were thrown at? Then you can throw them just as far as all the guns shoot?

See above. If our "grenades" didn't swim through the air at the speed of molasses, and couldn't be easily outranged and outshot by all but the most short-range builds...I'd have more sympathy.

Quote

There are not enough face palm memes in the world for this sort of discussion. I've always been a big proponent of making LRMs viable. It's a solid segment of the weapons in the game, they should be viable. However the only way, at all, to make that happen is have them viable as direct fire and then a very limited or restricted direct fire option.

Freudian slip there? "Direct fire and then a very limited or restricted direct fire option".

No. What you want is another direct fire weapon that's functionally useless other than making missiles go up in the air and hit dirt if they leave LOS. LRMs are already a beyond-garbage indirect fire weapon, but because they're the only one we have that doesn't costs 40,000 Cbills a shot, people try to make do.

With a weapon balanced so it doesn't kill people who don't actually know how to play the game.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 22 February 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

LRMs dont automatically seek players in the area theyre fired at though. Theyre not autonomous homing weapons nor are they fire and forget weapons.

They need a lock that has to be held the entire time theyre in flight. And to hold that lock you need a spotter with direct LoS.

Your whole problem is that you havent learned how to shoot at the mechs spotting for LRMs. Shoot the spotter and the LRMs cant stay locked. Its that simple.

The only other ways to get a lock are UAV and NARC, both of which are absurdly easy to counter. Shoot down the UAV or if youre NARCd just hide behind cover or stay in ECM.

LRMs are currently a joke. And theyll still be a joke, albeit a lesser joke, even if you buff them slightly. None of the buffs people have suggested are going to make LRMs anywhere near as good as direct fire weapons.

No one is suggesting LRMs come in at a steep angle that ignores terrain or that LRMs spiral-drill into your center torso like they used to during the LRMpocalypses of old. All thats been asked for is reasonable changes like increasing the velocity on LRMs so they can function better at long range like their name implies. Theyre called long range missiles, they need to be more effective past 500m.

Are you kidding? Are you seriously trying to skill-troll me? Genuinely trying to say that I 'don't get it because I don't know how to deal with LRMs'? I'm going to assume you were drunk or high or something and just ignore that.

You're also either unwilling or unable to understand exactly what the issue is. LRMs as locking IDF weapons are either inferior to direct fire, which is what we have now, or they are comparable - which instantly makes them absolutely superior and the game shifts to being about deploying or countering LRMs and everything else is in a tertiary role.

YueFei, on 22 February 2018 - 02:21 PM, said:

Grenades/Smokes/Flashes/Molotovs in CS are absolutely essential to victory. Players practice throws to be able to land critical smokes halfway across the map, cutting off key sight lines.

If two teams are equal in skill, and one brings grenades/smokes/etc, and the other team does not, the team which doesn't bring them is at a severe disadvantage. In a contest between any two equally skilled teams, the team that doesn't use grenades/smokes/etc is almost 100% sure going to lose the series.

What you're describing isn't LRMs though, it's consumables.

You absolutely do not and can not balance LRMs to that concept.

If you want LRMs to be viable they need balanced to the existing direct fire weapons. In the CS context they need balanced to pistols/rifles/smgs/etc. You'll notice the M72 got cut from CS btw, for this very reason. If you took, say, an M16 and gave it an attachment to fire grenades you'd need a significant negative side effect or you'd bone balance; it would become absolutely critical to success for the very reasons you've listed above.

Because IDF is a **** mechanic. You can have it so long as it's nerfed/limited in other ways. Otherwise it breaks balance.

Brain Cancer, on 22 February 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

stuff

No what I want is LRMs to be a real decision and viable part of any loadout - especially a mixed one. If LRMs got faster at longer distances, locked, had a flat trajectory and better tracking than ATMs plus lower heat/faster cooldown I'd consider them a must-have on any mid-long range loadout. Mid-long can't really mix weapons usually - travel time. I can't have, say, LLs and AC5s because they're going to hit two different places. If I've got missile hardpoints though and I can put missiles on them that may arrive a bit slower than than the lasers or the AC5 rounds but will track and put out consistent damage? Oh hell yes. Especially if the heat is manageable - would be my ideal high-heat map loadout. Ballistics + LRMs.

That would give them a solid, useful space independent of SRMs, MRMs and ATMs with a bit of overlap - exactly like you have with AC2s, 5s, 10s and 20s. Or ERSML to Large lasers. Make sense? Of course all missiles will have some overlap - they're the same sort of weapon group.

They'd also need that minimum range fixed. Honestly? Way better option - give them wide spread at launch, narrowing down to a tight cluster at 180m. Make them accelerate based on range. Then there's no damage falloff. Let ATMs have a scaling damage from 1-120m; they get a huge damage boost but fewer missiles and weaker tracking, plus heavy and high heat.

This would also absolutely let you boat the **** out of LRMs if you want and viably so. Suddenly you've got LRM20A at the same slot/tonnage as an LB10X. Cut the heat and cooldown by, say, 30% or 40%. Still hotter, longer cooldown but better at range and more total damage potential.

As I've said, repeatedly - the issue is that if IDF is comparable to direct fire in performance it gives you the same benefits with the ability to almost completely eliminate the risks. There's no fix for that. No 'balance'. Either it provides significantly inferior results or it's totally superior and the go-to and the game becomes all about deploying or countering LRMs.

Which is why no other game has a weapon like that, it would be ****.