Wil McCullough, on 27 June 2018 - 07:01 PM, said:
The.contention is the word "intended".
You (in a broader sense) can't say this is how the weapon is intended to be used without showing that yes, this is how the designer intended it. This often involves a quote. Most quotes point to pgi intending it to be an indirect fire, long range weapon. Paul has even come out and said he wouldn't buff lurms because t5s would experience another lurmageddon. Basically they've recognized that indirect fire, long range use of lurms is the "defacto" use of the weapon and are balancing according to that. That shows the intent for the weapon to fill the indirect fire, long range role.
Unless someone can produce a quote from paul, russ or chris saying something to the tune of "lurms are supposed to be direct fire weapons with a secondary indirect fire capability", the argument of "what you're doing isn't the intended way to use it THIS is the intended way to do it" falls apart.
Now if what was said was "that isn't the most EFFECTIVE way to use the weapon, THIS is", i would be in agreement.
I agree that lurms are better as direct fire weapons than indirect. But they also suck in direct fire compared to other direct fire weapons. That is an objective statement. Saying "but i use it to great effect" is a subjective one abd has no place in weapon performance.
As an example, just because i'm an incredible nerf gun shot who can calculate wind, trajectory and whatnot to blap someone in the eye 200m away doesn't make the nerf gun suddenly a viable weapon to use in a gunfight against actual rifles that can do the same.
Ok that's a pretty ingenius example so i'll use another, more relevant one. Good players can use spls to harvest lots of robot per game. That doesn't mean the spl isn't in a bad place. The weapon has been nerfed to ****.
Here is were you have the issue. PGI has stated that this game was going to hold it's roots to as much of it's core game (TT) and lore as it could, while still providing as much of a fun video game as it could. They realized that not everything would translate over exactly, as it never has on any MW title to date, even if TT was the reference.
With that statement already mentioned, then PGI has already referenced that TT rules are the basis of this game, thus how LRMs were used in TT was it's "intended use", even if that isn't how it became when transferred into the game. Then again, TT is not MW:O, as we both agree.
As far as PGI's refernece to not wanting to buff LRMs much more because of T5 play levels is not indicative of how LRMs may have been intended to be used, but more of a statement of how LRMs are being used.
For an example, Gauss Rifles. Before we had charge up mechanic and higher explosion chance added in, Gauss was often used as a brawling weapon that produced nearly no heat. It was replacing AC20s as a brawling weapon. It was never intended to be used in such a manner, and TT indicates that it shouldn't be able to be used as such. However, that was how players where using it (before PGI made changes). That doesn't mean (at that time) that Gauss wasn't intended to be a sniper weapon, just that it was able to be used as a brawling weapon even if that wasn't it's intention.
How a weapon is used by players often doesn't perfectly represent how it may have been intended to be used nor it's original (reference TT again) purpose. Even in this game, as mentioned previously by myself, LRMs can and are in fact still direct fire weapons. They can perform indirect fire, and all too often players perceive this strength as "it's only purpose", often to the point were they might avoid potentially beneficial positions or actions to use their "optimized" build indirectly "only".
(Sorry, no. I'm not going to go back 5+ years into this game's announcements/history/whatever to try and drum up what might have been said in closed beta... A bit much of an expectation for something like this.)
LRMs can be effective in direct fire engagements, depending upon the situation and use. Their strength is their flexibility in being able to home in as well as indirect fire. They pay for this flexibility in usage and tactics by falling behind other direct fire weapons in other area's, such as determining where damage will be placed (accuracy), spread, velocity, etc.
Just because they can be used indirectly, doesn't mean they are an indirect only weapon, nor that indirect was it's main goal. Personally, I find they make great terror weapons, are able to shoot over allies in congested fire lines and... as a side note... Artemis only works in direct line of sight (for everything but faster missile lock on times), which should be another indicator that LRMs are in fact a direct fire weapon (with indirect options). (FYI: Even if you say LRMs are an indirect fire weapon with direct fire capabilities, it's still a true statement.)
5
