154 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 05:33 AM, said:

Rubellite is not very LRM friendly, trust me..

Weird, I've never had any trouble using LRMs on Rubellite. Are you LRMing from the front or from the back? I LRM from the front and that works fine.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 05:33 AM, said:

I agree that we should be able to choose mech based on map, I've been saying it for years..

In fact, it's probably why LRMs work well in FP as opposed to QP as people are saying..

We may have stumbled upon something here

Indeed! Maybe PGI should finally take notice.

The Mysterious Fox, on 08 August 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

stick to the 7 line for a good time

Yeah, that usually helps.

[Vellron2005]

Quote

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

So because it is still possible for a brawler to win on Polar, there is no problem?

Guess that's it then. Balancing solved. If a weapon CAN win, it's balanced. Don't mind that other weapons win significantly more, because it still CAN. Same with maps and mechs.

I was just saying that if somebody, instead of proper balancing, would remove or rework Polar because LRMs are OP there, then they should also rework maps where LRMs are useless..

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:

Weird, I've never had any trouble using LRMs on Rubellite. Are you LRMing from the front or from the back? I LRM from the front and that works fine.

I LRM from wherever I can get a lock and a hit.. front, back, sideways, and reverse, you name it..

And, mind you, have been known to pop my own UAVs..

Edited by Vellron2005, 08 August 2018 - 05:42 AM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I'd like to see all maps deleted and MWO matches decided by a nice friendly game of Scrabble.

[Savage Wolf]

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 05:40 AM, said:

I was just saying that if somebody, instead of proper balancing, would remove or rework Polar because LRMs are OP there, then they should also rework maps where LRMs are useless..

As long as your selected mech is thrown into a random map, then yes. Because those are the terms they have build the game upon. Otherwise niche weapons will never be as good as general purpose weapons like lasers. Especially if those few maps decide the balancing of the weapons which it appears to do.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 05:40 AM, said:

I LRM from wherever I can get a lock and a hit.. front, back, sideways, and reverse, you name it..

And, mind you, have been known to pop my own UAVs..

Well, then I don't know. Just can't say that it matches my experience.

[Tarl Cabot]

Kroete, on 08 August 2018 - 02:23 AM, said:

You have the numbers. How many of players of a team take ams at average?
If there are less then 50% of the players taking that easy and lightwheigt counter, it seems lrms are still not powerfull enough. Nerfing a weapon where a counter exists but the people dont take the counter seems wrong.
So please tell us, how many players are taking ams!?

The last changes, despite the speed buff, were all nerfs for skillfull usement.
The changes catered to more tubes, more ammo, more spam, less skill and staying futher away.
Before the artemis and arc nerf, lrms only needed the speedbuff to make them ok.

• Players are not taught/shown the value of AMS - Current trial mechs - only Atlas and Nova has AMS....and lower tier players then learn to flock to LRMS because of the perceived benefits. If 90% of the Trial mechs, both current and others that are rotated out, had AMS, they would be shown the actual value of massed AMS while still in the learning stages.
  
  • IDF to AVOID being fired upon, last longer in the fight. Even if team is being rolled, the last man standing.
    
  • Higher damage numbers because newbies are still learning the game and are setup with trial mechs that for the most part do not come with AMS.
    
  • Trial mechs, primarily Champion mechs voted in by the community without any real oversight on who would actually be using said mechs in said environment.
• Lower Tier players do not take AMS because they are not aware there is a counter to LRMS. It is not on most of their training wheels (trial mechs)
  
• Majority of upper tier players do not take AMS because generally there has not been a need, until PGI does something to bring to focus some buffs done to LRMS then they are slow to change.
  
• The above but the player him/herself is confident they are able to avoid and not die to LRM but not willing to spare the weight/slots to take AMS that could BENEFIT the team as a whole.... then have 10 out of 12 with that mindset..
  

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 08 August 2018 - 06:33 AM.

[Kalthios]

Sensors in this game are too abstract without enough detail to allow for properly balancing indirect fire weapons.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

They need to nerf indirect LRMs

There is no need. That is what AMS and (partially) ECM are for ...

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

if everyone brings AMS were right back to LRMs being useless again.

Not necessarily. That is where the "force multipliers" come in. Heck, you said it yourself:

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

and massively buff artemis, tag, and narc

Judah Malganis, on 07 August 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

Whatever nerfs come down should encourage players to stay work with the team and get visual locks on a target.

FTFY. There is a gigantic difference between "teamwork" and simple "death ball".

Judah Malganis, on 07 August 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

... there's should be a nerf to indirect locks, and a buff to direct ones.

See my response to Khobai above.

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2018 - 08:26 AM.

[Mystere]

jjm1, on 08 August 2018 - 01:59 AM, said:

I propose lasers can lock on with line of sight from any team member and curve over buildings.

I would have instantly given you an "F" if you ever attended my Physics class. And, worse, if you were a Physics major, I'd recommend a different field of study and do it right in front of both the Dean and the guidance counsellor.

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2018 - 09:01 AM.

[Phoenix 72]

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

That is not how artillery works, nor should it. People need to accept that when a LRM boat "shares armor", it is not doing it's job, it is effectively wasting itself.

Also, best LRM boats in the game are Assaults. Assaults are SLOW. If an assault moves into fire, it cannot easily escape. So if a LRM boat assault moves in to "share armor", it will probably lose a torso or more in seconds. So that is not good play for an Assault LRM boat. It is better spent raining on the enemy and keeping their heads down at maximum capacity.

You don't send a Howitzer to do the job of an Abrams.

I am fine with the Artillery comparison, if LRMs work like artillery. Someone in view of the enemy calls in a grid coordinate, you fire at said grid coordinate. If the enemy is still there, you hit, if he isn't, you don't. Maybe LRMs should just go to wherever the person being targeted is at that moment in time and should only be locked on as long as someone actually holds a tag to keep the target information up to day. Exactly like missiles work today. Opinions?

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 02:06 AM, said:

That's because, their purpose being Indirect-Fire is exactly why they are terrible.

Heck, if that's your only problem with them I say give LRMs a speed of at least 800m/s.

[Moira]

Uh huh Nerfs again towards missiles, but this time completely wrong direction.

Hello it's Moira from [LURM] one of few silly ppls that use LRM's / missiles every day.

* First of all things - Nerffing TAG is completely wrong since this nerfs several other missile weapons at the same time and ATM's or SSRM's dont need that change. Artemis nerf on top of that.. oh dear since 2015's I havent used artemis at all because its proven several times that using smaller missile launchers is ALOT more effective and artemis doesnt do anything there. Sure artemis is handy if you carrying like 4x LRM15 or more, but cLRM or LRM10's and 5's are most effective in the long run. OOPS TAG nerf aint coming yet, but surely in the upcoming days =)

* This change is just a bust, doesnt change anything and just creates more problems since now you actually have a reason not go in front lines with big old LRM boat.
-----

Im 99% sure that we are able to take our dear beloved MDD's and piss em LRM5's to enemies disgust until end of days and not to worry at all. LRM's are weapon system that has its tactical place in games like MWO, one just needs to adjust your gameplay abit.

Still LURMing and keeping at it !

[Mystere]

Kroete, on 08 August 2018 - 02:23 AM, said:

You have the numbers. How many of players of a team take ams at average?
If there are less then 50% of the players taking that easy and lightwheigt counter, it seems lrms are still not powerfull enough. Nerfing a weapon where a counter exists but the people dont take the counter seems wrong.
So please tell us, how many players are taking ams!?

The last changes, despite the speed buff, were all nerfs for skillfull usement.
The changes catered to more tubes, more ammo, more spam, less skill and staying futher away.
Before the artemis and arc nerf, lrms only needed the speedbuff to make them ok.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 03:08 AM, said:

So I agree, nerfing LRMs because people don't use the counters is wrong.

The fact that most players would rather build meta-whoring load outs instead of equipping AMS actually says a lot.

[KoalaBrownie]

Yes let's remove LRM indirect fire and make light mechs even more useless as the spotting role disappears.

One needn't worry about 6thMessenger's diatribe, the game will never adopt those ideas. Dude just needs to get good

[Mystere]

Savage Wolf, on 08 August 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

We had that once and it was stupid back then and it's stupid now.

I would rather they just removed the poorly designed maps where Narc is OP, like Polar Highlands, since on most maps Narc is underwhelming.

Pardon me, but I think removing maps where a piece of equipment dominates is even more stupid. The problem could be easily solved by creating more maps to add variety. <shrugs>

[Phoenix 72]

Kroete, on 08 August 2018 - 02:23 AM, said:

You have the numbers. How many of players of a team take ams at average?
If there are less then 50% of the players taking that easy and lightwheigt counter, it seems lrms are still not powerfull enough. Nerfing a weapon where a counter exists but the people dont take the counter seems wrong.
So please tell us, how many players are taking ams!?

I currently mostly play a Crab 27 fielding 2 AMS. I rarely see more than 3-4 AMS in the field and that is including those I bring. I rarely see the odd match where we actually have 6-8 AMS.

But I feel that calling an AMS a counter to LRM is somewhat generous. I bring 4400 ammo into the field. In the end results screen, with using 2 AMS nodes, that usually leads to around 600-650 missiles destroyed. I am told that a good lurmer fields at least 3500 missiles. So what I just did is neutralise 20% of the lurmers firepower. Or more precisely, I probably neutralised half the missiles a lurm boat shoots for the first 2 minutes of the match.

All AMS does is buy some time. But when reading the comments on the boards it often sounds like 3 tons of equipment completely neutralise 100 tons of Battlemech.

[Chados]

Let’s understand what they’re doing: Removing Artemis lock time and tracking bonuses. They already significantly nerfed Artemis spread boosts, and in concert with this they are tightening lock angle by 50%, and nerfing NARC, and buffing ECM.

Why would anyone invest a ton of weight and a crit slot per launcher for a virtually nonexistent spread bonus, after this? Why would any LRM user do anything other than boat as many launchers as possible and hide at the map edges? How does this not reward the worst, most spudly LRM play? ATMs and Clan SSRMs aren’t that prevalent as to justify a banhammer like this. I run lights these days. I can counter streaks. I can usually counter LRM boats. Why are we now encouraging the worst potato play in derogation of using LRMs tactically and sharing armor? The devs claim that they don’t want any weapon system to be irrelevant. Artemis, after this, is wholly irrelevant!

Edited by Chados, 08 August 2018 - 09:08 AM.

[Lethe Wyvern]

Chados, on 08 August 2018 - 09:07 AM, said:

Let’s understand what they’re doing: Removing Artemis lock time and tracking bonuses. They already significantly nerfed Artemis spread boosts, and in concert with this they are tightening lock angle by 50%, and nerfing NARC, and buffing ECM.

Why would anyone invest a ton of weight and a crit slot per launcher for a virtually nonexistent spread bonus, after this? Why would any LRM user do anything other than boat as many launchers as possible and hide at the map edges? How does this not reward the worst, most spudly LRM play? ATMs and Clan SSRMs aren’t that prevalent as to justify a banhammer like this. I run lights these days. I can counter streaks. I can usually counter LRM boats. Why are we now encouraging the worst potato play in derogation of using LRMs tactically and sharing armor? The devs claim that they don’t want any weapon system to be irrelevant. Artemis, after this, is wholly irrelevant!

Because 90% of MWO community are incredible low skilled, so LRM spam is basically their only chance to git gud.

[Moira]

Chados, on 08 August 2018 - 09:07 AM, said:

Let’s understand what they’re doing: Removing Artemis lock time and tracking bonuses. They already significantly nerfed Artemis spread boosts, and in concert with this they are tightening lock angle by 50%, and nerfing NARC, and buffing ECM.

Why would anyone invest a ton of weight and a crit slot per launcher for a virtually nonexistent spread bonus, after this? Why would any LRM user do anything other than boat as many launchers as possible and hide at the map edges? How does this not reward the worst, most spudly LRM play? ATMs and Clan SSRMs aren’t that prevalent as to justify a banhammer like this. I run lights these days. I can counter streaks. I can usually counter LRM boats. Why are we now encouraging the worst potato play in derogation of using LRMs tactically and sharing armor? The devs claim that they don’t want any weapon system to be irrelevant. Artemis, after this, is wholly irrelevant!

You pretty much nailed it down, just with better english that I could push out =) They are just rubbing the wrong spot and hoping that it works even they know it doesnt.

[Moira]

Lethe Wyvern, on 08 August 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Because 90% of MWO community are incredible low skilled, so LRM spam is basically their only chance to git gud.

I wouldnt go so far as calling 90% LRM users as bad. I personally do it for fun and giggles.. because its bloody hilarious that single heavy can do alot with LRM's for the teams benefit, yeah sometimes missiles do give big numbers on the damage table but that just extra bonus.

Edited by Moira, 08 August 2018 - 09:20 AM.

[Mystere]

Lethe Wyvern, on 08 August 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Because 90% of MWO community are incredible low skilled, so crying about LRM spam is basically their only chance to git gud.

FTFY for a different viewpoint.