Jump to content

Lrms Are Balanced To The Skill Level Of T4-5 Players: But They Don't Take Into Account Zero-Skill Counters?


426 replies to this topic

#41 Lugin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 210 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 12:54 AM

View PostLuminis, on 14 February 2018 - 12:18 AM, said:

free C3 network.


*TWITCH*

Ain't no such thing. What we have is the spotting rules.

LRM indirect rules, from Total Warfare, pg 111:
Spoiler



C3 only affects range-based targeting bonus/penalty.

From Total Warfare, pg 131:
Spoiler


Seriously, you want to "fix" LRMs? Triple or quadruple the base velocity. 5+ seconds to reach max range is beyond ********.

I'd also point out they SHOULD be fire-and-forget, but start with that velocity first.

#42 Luminis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:08 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 February 2018 - 12:38 AM, said:


you cant get a lock with indirect LRMs unless someone on your team is exposed


Exactly. And it's quite unpleasant to be the one that has to expose himself. People are way too happy to sit in cover all day, every day and the last thing I want in MWO is a tool that further rewards that behavior.

View PostLugin, on 14 February 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:


*TWITCH*

Ain't no such thing. What we have is the spotting rules.

LRM indirect rules, from Total Warfare, pg 111:
Spoiler



C3 only affects range-based targeting bonus/penalty.

From Total Warfare, pg 131:
Spoiler


Seriously, you want to "fix" LRMs? Triple or quadruple the base velocity. 5+ seconds to reach max range is beyond ********.

I'd also point out they SHOULD be fire-and-forget, but start with that velocity first.


My bad, I went by Sarna's description of the C3 which specifically mentions guided LRMs and targeting data which is what happens in the game, that threw me off. That said, I'm not sure whether the spotting rules alone account for everything going on in MWO, still.

#43 Jack Booted Thug

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • IS Exemplar
  • IS Exemplar
  • 549 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:13 AM

While we're on the on the subject of lurms, can we make narc and tag worth a damn?

I'm so bored I've turned to running a quad narc summoner, with all the narc quirks, I want points for that damn it!!!

#44 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:16 AM

Quote

Exactly. And it's quite unpleasant to be the one that has to expose himself. People are way too happy to sit in cover all day, every day and the last thing I want in MWO is a tool that further rewards that behavior.


and the solution to that is to properly reward the spotter.

if you risk your armor to spot for someone elses lrms you should get rewarded for it. fair is fair.

Quote

While we're on the on the subject of lurms, can we make narc and tag worth a damn?


well one of the problems with tag/narc is youre not always guaranteed to get an lrm mech on your team.

so it would be nice if tag/narc had other applications besides just buffing someone elses lrms.

narc for example could explode for 6-8 damage when its duration ends and maybe also cause some kindve haywire effect that disrupt the enemy's HUD. essentially take abilities from the other narc ammo types in lore and incorporate them into the current narc to make it more useful.

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 01:27 AM.


#45 Lugin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 210 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:17 AM

View PostLuminis, on 14 February 2018 - 01:08 AM, said:

That said, I'm not sure whether the spotting rules alone account for everything going on in MWO, still.


UAVs and JesusBox ECM aside, what we have fits the rules almost exactly.
Any 'mech can lock("spot") exactly one target at a time, and any number of friendly units can rain on the target. (Last paragraph)

#46 Zergling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 2,439 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:30 AM

TBH, I still favor reworking LRMs entirely, along with other homing missiles (Streaks and ATMs).

I'd much prefer LRMs to be useful at all skill levels than their current state, because it would increase variety.

Edited by Zergling, 14 February 2018 - 01:30 AM.


#47 Luminis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:45 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 February 2018 - 01:16 AM, said:


and the solution to that is to properly reward the spotter.

if you risk your armor to spot for someone elses lrms you should get rewarded for it. fair is fair.

I'll be honest, the last thing I care about is a paltry C-Bill bonus for spotting. I'm fundamentally opposed to allow the weapon system that allows players to minimize risk (by minimizing contact with the enemy) to reap the same rewards (damage, kills and so on) as other weapons.

View PostLugin, on 14 February 2018 - 01:17 AM, said:


UAVs and JesusBox ECM aside, what we have fits Themen rules almost exactly.
Any 'mech can lock("spot") exactly one target at a time, and any number of friendly units can rain on the target. (Last paragraph)

Does that include targeting data (loadout etc) and retaining lock on a target that breaks LoS?

#48 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:46 AM

I believe its entirely plausible to increase the skill ceiling on LRMs and also increase the power level on them.

They will never be viable at top level play. But they can be better than they are now without breaking T4-T5.

Paul should not let his irrational fears paralyze him from even trying to make them better.

Quote

I'll be honest, the last thing I care about is a paltry C-Bill bonus for spotting. I'm fundamentally opposed to allow the weapon system that allows players to minimize risk (by minimizing contact with the enemy) to reap the same rewards (damage, kills and so on) as other weapons.


but it doesnt allow you to minimize risk. someone has to spot the enemy for you to get a lock. and that spotter assumes risk by exposing themselves.

the problem is when youre indirect firing youre not sharing armor. youre letting your teammates assume all the risk while you reap the benefits. lrms are parasitic in that regard.

which is why giving the spotter a portion of the damage done by the lrms would be fair. thats all thats needed.


and I wouldnt make it paltry. it should be like 50%. because thats what assuming the risk is worth.

so for example, if a light mech spots for an lrm boat. and the lrm boat does 200 damage with indirect lrms. the light mech should get 100 damage and the lrm boat should get 100 damage.

since the indirect damage would not be possible without both mechs, both mechs should share the damage equally. 50/50 split is perfectly fair.

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 02:25 AM.


#49 Asym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:13 AM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:


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.

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.

What you are saying is true ! I have no fault with you.....

What Paul is saying in meant to save the e-Sports efforts.... That is PGI's focus. Oh please, I won't buy that swamp property.

Yes, LRM's are dangerous. ATM's are dangerous. SRM's are dangerous. Streaks are dangerous. Have you seen an ATM/SRM/Streak-ageddon? No. LRM's, if reverted to an "effective state" would be no different.

The real issue here is playstyle and the gameplay engines that support that playstyle... It's simple when you go forward and backward, left and right and that is about it: longer TTK, less precision, simplier weapons effect calculations, shorter distances, etc....... The "over the horizon" IDF weapons really don't exist now and should.... Warfare is three dimensional and has been for a very long time. But, the gameplay engine is maxed out. Errors are compounding. 3D battlespaces have shorter TTK, have precision, a whole lot more complicated weapons effect algorithms and are meant for long distances.....

Look, this is simple: if LRM's were in the original game and were dangerous, they should be now along with the Long Tom (redesigned), the Thunderbolt and Arrow-IV systems.....

Yes, it would radically change comp play because 3D tactics are so much different than what we've seen in events... Roles would re-emerge and it would be a whole lot more exciting !
Good grief. JMO.

#50 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:30 AM

Quote

Look, this is simple: if LRM's were in the original game and were dangerous, they should be now along with the Long Tom (redesigned), the Thunderbolt and Arrow-IV systems.....


LRMs were never really all that dangerous in battletech

They were never a good primary weapon and always more of a support/utility weapon.

I mean thats another way they could make LRMs more useful without making them overpowered: different ammo types.

LRMs could be transitioned into more of a utility weapon with a variety of ammo types that could be deployed in different situations. Like thunder and swarm LRMs.

PGI would need to figure out how to do different ammo types though. We all know its possible. PGI just doesnt know how Posted Image

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 02:33 AM.


#51 Kargush

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 973 posts
  • LocationNorway

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:34 AM

View PostKhobai, on 13 February 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

AMS would also become slightly more effective simply because there would be less missiles in the air

Posted Image

#52 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:35 AM

lesser missiles in the air

#53 Luminis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:47 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 February 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

but it doesnt allow you to minimize risk. someone has to spot the enemy for you to get a lock. and that spotter assumes risk by exposing themselves.

the problem is when youre indirect firing youre not sharing armor. youre letting your teammates assume all the risk while you reap the benefits. lrms are parasitic in that regard.

Yeah, that's a better way of putting it, agreed. LRMs allow the lurmer to shift the risk to his fellow team mates. Instead of compensating for that sort of parasitic play style, I'd rather see the weapon system redesigned to be less parasitic in the first place.

#54 Dago Red

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 672 posts
  • LocationOklahoma

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:55 AM

I mean would it break anything for them to stay as is when indirectly locked(annoying but hot garbage) and launch with the speed and arc of ATM's when directly locked?

I'm also pretty into the idea of of upping the damage but proportionally increasing cooldown so picking your shot is more rewarded over spamming.


#55 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,457 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:15 AM

oh yes ...give Thunder LRMs or mines and all brawl only Players hate you Posted Image gives 300kmh fast Aerospacefighters and tanks and all Mech only with convergence Weapons hate you...

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 14 February 2018 - 03:15 AM.


#56 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:21 AM

I wouldnt make the mines invincible or invisible or anything. You should be able to see them and shoot them to detonate them.

But having minefields would add an element of zone control to the game that its currently lacking

And obviously thunder lrms would need an obnoxiously long cooldown to prevent the minefields from being spammed. As well as a set duration before the minefields despawn on their own.

Weapons dont necessarily need to damage the enemy to be useful. LRMs have the potential to be useful as utility weapons if theyre given the right ammo types. And if PGI can figure out how to implement ammo types lol.

thunder LRMs for minefields
smoke warheads for smokescreens
swarm LRMs for weak AOE bombardment

etc...

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 03:45 AM.


#57 Luminis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:39 AM

Why don't we re-introduce the Long Tom? Was great in CW, right? :P

#58 Burke IV

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:48 AM

View PostAsym, 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.



I am inclined to beleive this tbh. It might not even be "comp players" just that who ever did the podcast threw them under the bus. Maybe somebody at PGI saw sometihng they didnt like or couldnt understand and its been nerfed. All they hear is the "LRMs take no skill" mantra they probably saw sometihng that contradicted this and decided it was op.

#59 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:05 AM

View PostYosharian, on 13 February 2018 - 06:38 PM, said:

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.

You literally proved my point. New players do not understand positioning so they need to take AMS. They need to stop running Meta builds they find online.They dont even had the skill nodes to be effective against LRMs.

#60 process

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel II
  • Star Colonel II
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:25 AM

View PostDago Red, on 14 February 2018 - 02:55 AM, said:

I mean would it break anything for them to stay as is when indirectly locked(annoying but hot garbage) and launch with the speed and arc of ATM's when directly locked?

I'm also pretty into the idea of of upping the damage but proportionally increasing cooldown so picking your shot is more rewarded over spamming.


For starters I would only reduce the arc with a direct lock. They'll feel faster since it will take less time to connect with the target. Trading damage for cooldown isn't a bad idea, although it might just encourage people to commit even harder to high-capacity LRM boats.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users