426 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

Stinger554, on 14 February 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

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

There is no frickin' apocalypse waiting to happen. Why?

Because the weapon is so poor now, people don't even use the countermeasures that turn LRMs into confetti. If the LRM is a better weapon, people use AMS.

And if we make sure all Trials have AMS (cause, you know, they're meant for newbies and we shouldn't expect them to do well in skill-less builds with no piloting skill), there is no low-tier lurmageddon with better LRMs, because all the LRMs do in the hands of poor players is get fired into deathballs and explode in mid-air.

That's the point.

As for assaults standing a mile away shooting, they'll do it with or without LRMs. Get rid of LRMs, they'll peek over a hill at 700 meters and try and ERLL snipe, or use AC/2s, or whatever lets them stay as far away from an actual fight and "I'M HELPING" their team. I mean, I watch people 500 meters behind my Supernova firing ATMs like that as it is.

This is a pilot failure, not a weapon failure.

Metus regem, on 14 February 2018 - 01:41 PM, said:

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

I would too, but I wanted something as easily available to online types as the Something Awful forums.

And you'd rather be giant robot smart than a Goon, right?

Edited by Brain Cancer, 14 February 2018 - 02:05 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

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.

Tabletop-wise, it was part of the poorest piece of game design in Battletech history. Originally, "Clantech" was the stuff IS people use about at the point we are in MWO. Then someone had the bright idea to save themselves some effort and just make supertech stuff for them instead, and stick the IS with the "original Clantech" stuff instead so they had new toys, too.

It broke the game so badly it never really recovered. Still hasn't.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

I would too, but I wanted something as easily available to online types as the Something Awful forums.

And you'd rather be giant robot smart than a Goon, right?

I think I've shown many times on these boards what grouping I belong in...

I may play in Goontown, but I don't live there...

[HammerMaster]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

Tabletop-wise, it was part of the poorest piece of game design in Battletech history. Originally, "Clantech" was the stuff IS people use about at the point we are in MWO. Then someone had the bright idea to save themselves some effort and just make supertech stuff for them instead, and stick the IS with the "original Clantech" stuff instead so they had new toys, too.

It broke the game so badly it never really recovered. Still hasn't.

3039 was perfect timeline, but that ship has sailed. I have said it before and I'll say it again. They WERE chasing the $ because people said :"Where's muh madcat?!" So we got $500 mechpacks.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 February 2018 - 03:08 PM.

[Metus regem]

HammerMaster, on 14 February 2018 - 03:08 PM, said:

3039 was perfect timeline, but that ship has sailed. I have said it before and I'll say it again. They WERE chasing the $ because people said :"Where's muh madcat?!" So we got $500 mechpacks.

And look at the train wreak we've got... I would've gone as high as 3048, but nothing past that point, balance just becomes too hard.

Edit:

At least when you make it a mixed game like we've got here... if it was IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan for PVP it'd be fine, but as soon as you try to mix IS and Clan for PVP, it just doesn't work in this format... maybe if we had Clan vs IS or IS v Clan as PVE it would've been fine

Edited by Metus regem, 14 February 2018 - 03:11 PM.

[Variant1]

title seems a bit click baitey =/

id say lrms are broken. They either work or they dont, and thats mostly due to the controversial indirect fire they have. Also ams isint a skill counter, its an equipment. Bap counters ecm is it also a zero skill counter?

Ams reduces the dmg from lrm volleys you take, lrm 5 might do 1 dmg or no dmg at all it depends but if its larger or chained volleys the mech will still take dmg. Its effectiveness is based on how many there are and how many lrm launchers to deal with its all down to rng. Also ams takes tonnage so either armor, guns or speed has to be sacrificed to take less dmg from missiles (ams works against srms too just not as effective due to speed/range).

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 14 February 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

Edit:

At least when you make it a mixed game like we've got here... if it was IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan for PVP it'd be fine, but as soon as you try to mix IS and Clan for PVP, it just doesn't work in this format... maybe if we had Clan vs IS or IS v Clan as PVE it would've been fine

A lack of experience with tabletop is what made the infamous "We intend to balance Clan/IS 1:1 as our final goal" happen.

Anyone with even modest experience with TT can tell you there is no real chance of that happening, And anyone with previous MW experience can tell you the only real "balance" Clantech got in those editions was the fact that you could slap it on anything.

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 03:16 PM, said:

title seems a bit click baitey =/

id say lrms are broken. They either work or they dont, and thats mostly due to the controversial indirect fire they have. Also ams isint a skill counter, its an equipment. Bap counters ecm is it also a zero skill counter?

LRMs are broken because they've been so poorly statted as to only function in a very narrow band of parameters. If you exceed them, LRMs rapidly fall towards useless.

And yes, BAP is a zero skill ECM counter.. If we had reflective armor, it'd be a zero skill counter to energy weapons,as it takes no pilot ability to function, it only has to exist to do it's job.

Quote

Ams reduces the dmg from lrm volleys you take, lrm 5 might do 1 dmg or no dmg at all it depends but if its larger or chained volleys the mech will still take dmg. Its effectiveness is based on how many there are and how many lrm launchers to deal with its all down to rng. Also ams takes tonnage so either armor, guns or speed has to be sacrificed to take less dmg from missiles (ams works against srms too just not as effective due to speed/range).

And AMS stacks. It also stops NARC rounds, chips a bit off SRM or MRM damage, and utterly owns ATMs.

But if you're in newbietown and fire your 40 LRMs into a cluster of 6 opponents, all with AMS- how effective will you be? The point here is to create a T4-5 environment for newbies (who, naturally generally pilot Trials) that increases their basic ability to take LRM fire and simultaneously teach LRM users to be more picky than "lock on red square, hold down fire button". We need a higher "bottom" to allow LRMs to be better, hence making them a better option longer.

Mandatory newbie AMS is how that happens. That you might see a little less firepower slung around at those levels in general is a side benefit, and not an unpleasant one.

[wizwoz]

I honestly don't get the "fun" factor people get lrm boating, half the time you're just aiming at red marks behind a hill. You're not involved in the actual fight no matter how you spin it, probably the same people who like cricket.

[Mystere]

Mole, on 14 February 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

Funny thing is we get people from tiers 4 and 3 complaining about how LRMs are OP as well.

Go higher.

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2018 - 04:30 PM.

[Mystere]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 February 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

So a weapon system that is twice the weight will actually be better? *gasp* The horror!

What did you just say?

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!

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2018 - 04:42 PM.

[Mystere]

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

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.

Tripling or quadrupling NARC signal duration would be a good start.

[Deathlike]

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

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 !

Um, you know walls are still LRM's worst enemy? Just saying. You can make them faster, but walls are OP last I checked.

Also, PGI's ear is literally filled with T4s and T5s. I mean, LRMs had to be nerfed according to PGI, and that was totally not a comp-player's decision (they didn't care for them since day 1).

[Variant1]

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

LRMs are broken because they've been so poorly statted as to only function in a very narrow band of parameters. If you exceed them, LRMs rapidly fall towards useless.

And yes, BAP is a zero skill ECM counter.. If we had reflective armor, it'd be a zero skill counter to energy weapons,as it takes no pilot ability to function, it only has to exist to do it's job.

a weapon that can shoot over terrain, track a target, blind them and shake their aim is useless? is it still a counter if the lrms destroy an ams mech or if an energy boat destroys a mech with reflective armor?

Brain Cancer, on 14 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

And AMS stacks. It also stops NARC rounds, chips a bit off SRM or MRM damage, and utterly owns ATMs.

But if you're in newbietown and fire your 40 LRMs into a cluster of 6 opponents, all with AMS- how effective will you be? The point here is to create a T4-5 environment for newbies (who, naturally generally pilot Trials) that increases their basic ability to take LRM fire and simultaneously teach LRM users to be more picky than "lock on red square, hold down fire button". We need a higher "bottom" to allow LRMs to be better, hence making them a better option longer.

Mandatory newbie AMS is how that happens. That you might see a little less firepower slung around at those levels in general is a side benefit, and not an unpleasant one.

true ams stacks, but thats not my point. Its down to matchmaking to which will prevail, so in a sense ams is balanced but not at the same time. I dont think ams should be a newbie mandatory thing, since mechwarrior is all about choice they should learn it by themselves overtime. As for lrms its an auto lock weapon that shoots over terrain, its going to be controversial and it needs careful balancing but it should not be tier 1 viable because of what it is: indirect fire. just my 2 cents

[SeventhSL]

Firstly I agree with Paul. If you buff LRM to fit into the higher Tier poke alpha Meta they would decimate the unskilled and that includes a lot of Tier 1 players. In my opinion there is couple of things we need to do.

1. Change the lock mechanic of LRM. If your lock is coming from someone else (without Narc or Tag) then your spread and lock time should be double what it is now. Noods are smashed by other noods who can't even get their own locks. Changing this means we can make LRM far more deadly in the hands of skilled players who get their own locks or coordinate with Tag/Narc team mates. Playersgetting their own locks expose themselfs to counter play from direct fir weapons.

2. Add an indirect fire mode as a soft counter to cover. Open your map, drop an LRM point on it, exit the map and now you have a point in game you can lock onto without visual aid. When firing at this point the LRM descend in a near vertical tragectory. Not breathtaking good, requires skill to use but could fill a niche in compedative play.

3. Add a couple more maps that are not carpeted in noob friendly, look at me I'm right here with nice clean edges for your convenience, cover. This would probably cause a revolt with some higher Tier players as they struggle without the safety blanket of hard cover.

[ROSS-128]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

What did you just say?

There are quite a few problems with that analogy:
1: the Inner Sphere isn't running on vacuum tubes in the first place, in fact IS tech and Clan tech is so similar in description that the vast difference in their statlines has basically no justification beyond handwavium.

2: this is a PvP giant robot arena, not a Clan wanking simulator. Tonnage is a cost we pay for firepower, so the two have to be balanced.

3: We're talking about missiles here, these things are something like 70% propellant and 20% explosive, they don't shrink *that* much without some serious handwavium.

4: If we really did just run with "newtech beats the ever-living pants off oldtech" as a policy for the game, then RACs would have to be unholy murder machines that make a laughingstock of all Clan ballistics, Heavy PPCs would have to make the older CERPPC look like a popgun, MRMs would have to laugh at your outdated missiles, and Compact Heatsinks would be the ultimate cooling system. Funny how people who use "newtech" as some kind of excuse for Clan BS are not so eager for the IS newtech to leapfrog them.

[Mystere]

Stinger554, on 14 February 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

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

So you want to kill a game feature because you do not like how some people use it with their chosen play style?

In that case, why don't we kill all long range and PPFLD weapons so we can have an end to the extremely annoying peekaboo play style and just brawl 24x7?

[Mystere]

ROSS-128, on 14 February 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

There are quite a few problems with that analogy:

A few problems or not, it's the perfect reply to the post I was responding to.

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2018 - 06:48 PM.

[Stinger554]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:

So you want to kill a game feature because you do not like how some people use it with their chosen play style?

In that case, why don't we kill all long range and PPFLD weapons so we can have an end to the extremely annoying peekaboo play style and just brawl 24x7?

Well indirect fire is still possible in that system so it's not killing it and as I said doing so would allow the weapon system to receive buffs in order to improve their viability without making them completely dominate in lower tiers,

If long range and PPFLD weapons could hit their targets with indirect fire I'd concur but since they can't it's meaningless to bring them up when discussing indirect fire.

[Mystere]

Stinger554, on 14 February 2018 - 06:47 PM, said:

Well indirect fire is still possible in that system so it's not killing it and as I said doing so would allow the weapon system to receive buffs in order to improve their viability without making them completely dominate in lower tiers,

If long range and PPFLD weapons could hit their targets with indirect fire I'd concur but since they can't it's meaningless to bring them up when discussing indirect fire.

As you yourself implied, you do not like the:

Stinger554, on 14 February 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

assaults standing 600+ meters away yelling "get me locks"

nonsense and want it gone.

Others don't like the peekaboo play style.

[Brain Cancer]

Variant1, on 14 February 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

a weapon that can shoot over terrain, track a target, blind them and shake their aim is useless? is it still a counter if the lrms destroy an ams mech or if an energy boat destroys a mech with reflective armor?

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.

Quote

true ams stacks, but thats not my point. Its down to matchmaking to which will prevail, so in a sense ams is balanced but not at the same time. I dont think ams should be a newbie mandatory thing, since mechwarrior is all about choice they should learn it by themselves overtime. As for lrms its an auto lock weapon that shoots over terrain, its going to be controversial and it needs careful balancing but it should not be tier 1 viable because of what it is: indirect fire. just my 2 cents

Newbies don't learn that well. That's why we have endless LRM whinge topics. And people don't use AMS, because aside from the whingers, they're good enough to easily deal with a poorly statted weapon system even taking indirect fire into account.

And they will never bother until LRMs are actually at least partially un-broken.

By the way, there is "good" indirect fire that the top players use all the time.

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.