426 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Back in closed beta, we were just propping up on a hill and spamming LRMs. Direct fire mechs were getting wrecked. This would make the game upside down and worse than it is now.

Thats a completely irrational fear.

Because nobody wants to bring back the high angle of attack that allowed LRMs to divebomb over cover during LRMpocalypse

None of the changes proposed here would recreate that.

Quote

You cant have the mindless buttonmash abilities trumping things that take a little more skill to make work.

Did you even read the suggestions? Removing the ability to mindlessly buttonmash LRMs was one of them.

Slowing down the cooldown on LRMs would make them less spammable. It would also force you to time your volleys better since you couldnt fire unending streams of missiles anymore. Thus increasing the skill ceiling required.

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 12:40 PM.

[ROSS-128]

Hmm, on the tangent of TAG and NARC: in a way, NARC does kind of already have a secondary application besides being an LRM magnet: it silences ECM on a direct hit and puts a hard-lock on the enemy that lights them up on the map.

It's just that those two side-benefits by themselves *usually* don't justify its weight+ammo+short range risk.

I can't think of much else that would make sense within the mechanics we have without being a lot more video-gamey and straying pretty far from their original use though.

Maybe something like also speeding up target acquisition on the lit up mech so they also kind of work like a share-a-BAP?

Grus, on 14 February 2018 - 12:24 PM, said:

ahh the weight straw man again... Well stop making them out of lead and you won't have that problem!

A fact that you disagree with isn't a straw man. Tonnage matters. More so for IS than for Clans, but it does matter. Because they weigh twice as much, IS LRMs would in fact have to be twice as good to be balanced. If they're less than twice as good then that would mean Clan missiles are actually better on net, because you can take twice as many of them.

Honestly I don't even know what the original game designers were thinking when they made the Clan discount that large on missiles. Can you imagine what it would be like if the Clan AC/20 was only 7 tons, or the Clan Gauss Rifle was only 8 tons? That would be ridiculous. The only reason that huge gap isn't brought to light more is due to the current worthlessness of missiles in general.

[Khobai]

Quote

Hmm, on the tangent of TAG and NARC: in a way, NARC does kind of already have a secondary application besides being an LRM magnet: it silences ECM on a direct hit and puts a hard-lock on the enemy that lights them up on the map.

It's just that those two side-benefits by themselves *usually* don't justify its weight+ammo+short range risk.

I can't think of much else that would make sense within the mechanics we have without being a lot more video-gamey and straying pretty far from their original use though.

Maybe something like also speeding up target acquisition on the lit up mech so they also kind of work like a share-a-BAP?

Narc has different ammo types in lore.

They could combine the abilities of different ammo types from lore into a single more useful ammo type in MWO.

For example combine the current homing pod, with the explosive pod (explodes for X damage when its duration ends), and have the explosion cause the same effects as a haywire pod (makes your hud go all wonky, shuts down your sensors, and cant share sensor information temporarily).

Its still not great, but its better than it was.

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 12:57 PM.

[mogs01gt]

nehebkau, on 14 February 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would humbly submit that LRMs are a zero skill weapon, and as such should have a zero skill counter. In higher levels of game play actually aiming and using direct fire weapons is far more fun than LRMing.... unless you are LRMing T4s and T5s -- that is fun.

I'll feed the troll post.

Since when is pointing and clicking with a mouse hard? Alpha, Alpha, wait, wait alpha alpha...So hard!

If you want a game with nothing but PP weapons, go play a different FPS because that isnt what MWO was suppose to be.

Edited by mogs01gt, 14 February 2018 - 12:54 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

Thats a completely irrational fear.

Because nobody wants to bring back the high angle of attack that allowed LRMs to divebomb over cover during LRMpocalypse

None of the changes proposed here would recreate that.



Did you even read the suggestions? Removing the ability to mindlessly buttonmash LRMs was one of them.

Slowing down the cooldown on LRMs would make them less spammable. It would also force you to time your volleys better since you couldnt fire unending streams of missiles anymore. Thus increasing the skill ceiling required.

If you somehow increase the skill floor of LRMs, then they wouldn't make as good a new player weapon anymore.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you somehow increase the skill floor of LRMs, then they wouldn't make as good a new player weapon anymore.

thats fine

new players can use lasers instead

laser skill floor is even lower than lrms. although lasers have a higher skill ceiling than lrms.

lasers are instant hitscan with built-in aim correction. and they can deliver massive damage. they are literally the easiest weapons to use in MWO. and new players using lasers can do more damage to higher tier players than they ever could with lrms. and theyre skilling up in a weapon thats also still effective in higher tiers.

lasers are your basic entry weapon in MWO. not lrms.

lrms are not supposed to be a noobtube weapon. that is a completely distorted view of how they should be.

Edited by Khobai, 14 February 2018 - 01:17 PM.

[Metus regem]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

thats fine

new players can use lasers instead

laser skill ceiling is even lower

lasers are instant hitscan with built-in aim correction. and they can deliver massive damage. they are literally the easiest weapons to use in MWO. and new players using lasers can do more damage to higher tier players than they ever could with lrms.

I remember having to use a flame shield with 100% fire resist when I said that during the first laser vomit meta....

I had so many "high skill" players telling me that I was wrong about lasers, that they took more skillz to use good over ballistics or PPC's...

[Brain Cancer]

Luminis, on 14 February 2018 - 12:18 AM, said:

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

Basically, kill indirect fire.

No. LRMs are already terrible indirect fire weapons, but get reviled about it because basically, they're the only indirect fire weapons other than a well-placed airstrike. And no, there is no freaking "free C3" in MWO. If there was, every lurmer would basically lock, fire and their missiles would move at warp speed to simulate the equivalent of accurately firing at 181m where the spotter was. PGI will never actually give us the basic self-guidance LRMs really get, so the current IDF mode is how it's gonna be. Don't think it belongs in MWO? Without indirect fire, it's all poke-and-peek with the occasional poptart. In other words, a big river of P's.

Forcing half a weapon's function to depend on another player hoping someone ELSE brought LRMs in order to waste 4+ tons on a NARC+ ammo is as incredibly unfun and awkward a mechanic as it gets. No. IDF shouldn't get any benefits without NARC, but it shouldn't be impossible given a spotter.

Making direct fire better than indirect? Absolutely, it should be, that's the whole point to Artemis and I'd be happy even if there was an improved non-Artemis direct fire mode.

[Khobai]

Quote

I remember having to use a flame shield with 100% fire resist when I said that during the first laser vomit meta....

I had so many "high skill" players telling me that I was wrong about lasers, that they took more skillz to use good over ballistics or PPC's...

I actually meant lasers had a lower skill floor than lrms. not a lower skill ceiling. Theyre not the same thing and I corrected it in my post.

skill floor being the amount of skill you need to make a weapon minimally viable (i.e. just grazing across the target with a laser for a partial burn)

and skill ceiling being the amount of skill you need to use the weapon effectively as possible (i.e. holding a beam on the same location on a moving target for the whole duration)

the point is, lasers are the obvious entry level weapon in MWO. they are the easiest weapon to learn. and theyre still effective at higher tiers as you get better at using them.

LRMs are slightly harder to learn than lasers. But once you learn them theres not a whole lot of room for improvement due to the low skill ceiling. And thats what needs to be changed with LRMs. Raising the skill ceiling on LRMs would allow them to be more powerful, without breaking the game at T4-T5.

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

[Brain Cancer]

Luminis, on 14 February 2018 - 01:45 AM, said:

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.

There's a tradeoff- you're delivering the least efficient form of damage (spreads for days) and increasing focus on the rest of your team if all you do is go full IDF mode. Minimal risk, minimal effectiveness.

Quote

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

Yes to the first, no to the second- but TT is in 10-second bites and there's no "travel time" for weapons. The reason we have target retention is simple: LRMs are so horribly slow that they had to kludge in a skill that allows you to magically keep seeing someone hiding to compensate and to represent the "not-so-smart" guidance system missiles actually have and give them some chance of actually hitting a target.

If LRMs weren't deliberately ultraslow, you could easily dispense with (and should) things like target retention. Blame PGI and people whining about LRMs in general.

[mogs01gt]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

thats fine
new players can use lasers instead
laser skill floor is even lower than lrms. although lasers have a higher skill ceiling than lrms.
lasers are instant hitscan with built-in aim correction. and they can deliver massive damage. they are literally the easiest weapons to use in MWO. and new players using lasers can do more damage to higher tier players than they ever could with lrms. and theyre skilling up in a weapon thats also still effective in higher tiers.
lasers are your basic entry weapon in MWO. not lrms.
lrms are not supposed to be a noobtube weapon. that is a completely distorted view of how they should be.

The issue is new players lack the unlocked skill tree and heat management knowledge to handle high alphas.

Edited by mogs01gt, 14 February 2018 - 01:24 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

LRMs were never really all that dangerous in battletech

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

They were a middle-of-the-road primary weapon, actually. Didn't focus damage per hit as well as PPC/Gauss/big ACs, but less spread than SRMs (yes, in TT SRMs are the scattershot weapon, LRMs are better by far). Five point hits was enough to threaten armor quite decently, and bigger launchers had the advantage of each hit getting multiple chances for a weak spot along with hitting hard enough to make said weak spots. Not a sandblaster, nor a holepuncher, but right in between and could give either weapon type opportunity as well.

Quote

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

Beyond that- PGI is incapable of making weapons that have alternative fire modes, which is why the CAC is still there out of sheer Paul-stubbornness.

[Metus regem]

Khobai, on 14 February 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

I actually meant lasers had a lower skill floor than lrms. not a lower skill ceiling. Theyre not the same thing and I corrected it in my post.

skill floor being the amount of skill you need to make a weapon minimally viable (i.e. just grazing across the target with a laser for a partial burn)

and skill ceiling being the amount of skill you need to use the weapon effectively as possible (i.e. holding a beam on the same location on a moving target for the whole duration)

the point is, lasers are the obvious entry level weapon in MWO. they are the easiest weapon to learn. and theyre still effective at higher tiers as you get better at using them.

Oh I know, way back when I first said that about lasers, I gave them the lowest skill floor, lower than LRM's but I gave LRM's the lowest skill ceiling, with lasers being about half way between Gauss Rifles and PPC's for the skill ceiling.

I just had a lot of the so called 'elite players' telling me I was stupid for calling Lasers easy to start with...

[HammerMaster]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:

Blame PGI and people whining about LRMs in general.

Blame assigned. Mission success.

[Brain Cancer]

nehebkau, on 14 February 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would humbly submit that LRMs are a zero skill weapon, and as such should have a zero skill counter. In higher levels of game play actually aiming and using direct fire weapons is far more fun than LRMing.... unless you are LRMing T4s and T5s -- that is fun.

I disagree on the zero skill bit. Is it as easy to kill skilled players as it is noobs with LRMs? I mean, go ahead and take that guy mashing the fire button at 900m in the underhive. Let him borrow your account for a few rounds in the upper tiers. Bet he doesn't hit nearly as often, as well, or perform at the same easymode of the Land Of Sealclubbing.

So are LRMs zero skill? Not at all. Being able to overcome that evasiveness is what makes a skilled missile boater. However, I don't expect newbies to be able to evade worth beans, thus the proposal to give all Trials AMS (and as much as the market can bear chassis-wise) in the first place.

HammerMaster, on 14 February 2018 - 09:22 AM, said:

It's great that you have the book next to you. Can you get Paul and Russ a copy?

Also recall our discussion about my out of date and now spotty knowledge. My apologies for no longer being the rules lawyer I once was. I think if we all chip in we can afford the $40.00 each for them two.

Even easier:

https://store.cataly...ttlemech-manual

Literally tenbux and you can have all the relevant rules, up to date on giant Battletech robots and how they work in TT. Shoot, it's half the price of an Urbie package and an essential forumwarrior piece of work.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

Even easier:

https://store.cataly...ttlemech-manual

Literally tenbux and you can have all the relevant rules, up to date on giant Battletech robots and how they work in TT. Shoot, it's half the price of an Urbie package and an essential forumwarrior piece of work.

I like my hard copy that I got signed by Mitch and Jordan at MechCon'17....

[Stinger554]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 01:11 PM, said:

Basically, kill indirect fire.

No. LRMs are already terrible indirect fire weapons, but get reviled about it because basically, they're the only indirect fire weapons other than a well-placed airstrike. And no, there is no freaking "free C3" in MWO. If there was, every lurmer would basically lock, fire and their missiles would move at warp speed to simulate the equivalent of accurately firing at 181m where the spotter was. PGI will never actually give us the basic self-guidance LRMs really get, so the current IDF mode is how it's gonna be. Don't think it belongs in MWO? Without indirect fire, it's all poke-and-peek with the occasional poptart. In other words, a big river of P's.

Forcing half a weapon's function to depend on another player hoping someone ELSE brought LRMs in order to waste 4+ tons on a NARC+ ammo is as incredibly unfun and awkward a mechanic as it gets. No. IDF shouldn't get any benefits without NARC, but it shouldn't be impossible given a spotter.

Making direct fire better than indirect? Absolutely, it should be, that's the whole point to Artemis and I'd be happy even if there was an improved non-Artemis direct fire mode.

Well "killing" indirect fire(even though it doesn't) as you put it would be better for the weapon system overall(and game health IMO no more assaults standing 600+ meters away yelling "get me locks" nonsense) as it would allow buffing without instantly creating a apocalypse in lower tiers

[Asym]

Mole, on 14 February 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

I understand where Paul is coming from. We still occasionally get scrubs in here whining about how OP LRMs are. The reasons behind LRMs being such trash at higher tiers have never been a mystery to me. PGI's a bit stuck. If they make them powerful enough to be useful at T1 then T4 and under get destroyed and no new player will want to stay after logging on their first time to eat LRMAGGEDON death. This will have a negative impact on new player retention. On the other hand, what we have now is LRMs that are useless against highly skilled players. But highly skilled players are less likely to leave the game because they feel a weapon system is bad whereas noobs will certainly leave a game if they feel a weapon system is OP as hell. It's a ****** situation, but that's the situation we have.

Look, I believe you're tied up in what's called the psychological reversal of risk and certainty.... It's the old "if I do that I'll get fired...." and someone asks "has anyone ever been fired for that? the answer is no.......so, what are you worrying about?

That's where this discussion is: if we make LRM's effective we will lose T4 and T5 players...... No.... We'd lose comp players because their 2D comfort zone would evaporate the first time they were faced with a team that actually understands IDF......and, now, the battle space is 3D and there really isn't anywhere to hide.....and snipe from open positions all game long... That's what really would happen. AND, most importantly, who has PGI's ear?????? T4-and T5's? NOT !

There's this no skill weapons system called AMS. And a well developed skill called Radar Deprivation. And another called ECM. And, and a entry level basic combat skill called using Cover and Concealment.... No, T4's and T5's aren't even close to the issue..... Do you see them leaving in droves every time a 2 CHLL - 4 CERML Hellbringer eats their lunch in one shot? Where a 2 gauss/ERPPC sniper kills them at 800 meters; that they never saw? Where a SNV with an ATM-36 load out destroys them in one volley?

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

[Grus]

ROSS-128, on 14 February 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

Honestly I don't even know what the original game designers were thinking when they made the Clan discount that large on missiles. Can you imagine what it would be like if the Clan AC/20 was only 7 tons, or the Clan Gauss Rifle was only 8 tons? That would be ridiculous. The only reason that huge gap isn't brought to light more is due to the current worthlessness of missiles in general.

So I'm gonna take a stab at answering this.; it down to the way/how the missiles are fired. So in the IS you launch all 20 (lrm20 for example) at the same time. That's a lot of force, if the AH-64 fired off all the rockets in a single pod that side eng has a chance to shut down due to all the air being gone for a second lol. But also inspections required to figure out any damages and or why that happened.

In contrast the clan version fires 1 at a time. So a lot less force (impulse) translates to not needing heavier / more sturdy construction for said launcher... witch also translates to a much lower heathpool than the IS equivalent.

[Brain Cancer]

HammerMaster, on 14 February 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

Blame assigned. Mission success.

That's pretty much it, though.

Paul literally says the reason LRMs are not good is because he thinks they'll turn the bottom of the game into Missilewarrior Online. Heck, any topic with "LRM" in it is guaranteed replies and salt, regardless of how reasonable the initial conversation is.

Paul is PGI. The forums are the forums. The combination is why LRMs are deliberately over-nerfed.