152 replies to this topic

[The pessimistic optimist]

Daurock, on 18 December 2018 - 07:59 AM, said:

This is true. They've specifically buffed LRMs several times in a row now, despite lots of negative feedback from doing it. If they didn't have some specific reason for doing so, (such as LRMs being under-performing) they wouldn't have buffed them in the first place. People would do well to remember that the devs want people to be able to use LRMs, and that they want them to be effective while using them.

Trying to convince the devs to blanket nerf LRMS using an argument similar to "LRMs should be less effective because they require less skill" or "LRMs should be less effective because LRM users stand in back and fire without risk" is likely to fall on deaf ears, as they're not new arguments and have been around long before the recent LRM buffs. If they were listening to them, they wouldn't have buffed LRMS in the first place.

That being said, are there further improvements to be made? Yes, IMO. With the recent buffs Indirect fire has been made a little too strong in my opinion, while Direct fire is still not strong enough when used against competent opponents. One way to help with this would be to put more focus on Lock-Times, and less focus on the long travel times that LRMS have regardless of how they're fired. Making LRMS travel dramatically faster, but nerfing Lock times when used indirectly would move them in a better direction. Further buffing LOS lock times would also help with this. One may have to re-evaluate Tag and NARC, if those types of changes go through, but that's really a secondary issue.

Still say ammo is a problem and makes for spam play. Part of making LRMs a more skill weapon is making it much hard to know when you should be taking shots. If your firing off loads of missiles hitting nothing and running out of ammo well that's going to suck. The better LRM users will know when and were to fire there missiles and get solid hits. Lets take spammyness out of LRMs that big step to making them a more "skilled" weapon.

Edited by SirSmokes, 18 December 2018 - 08:13 AM.

[Daurock]

SirSmokes, on 18 December 2018 - 08:13 AM, said:

Still say ammo is a problem and makes for spam play. Part of making LRMs a more skill weapon is making it much hard to know when you should be taking shots. If your firing off loads of missiles hitting nothing and running out of ammo well that's going to suck. The better LRM users will know when and were to fire there missiles and get solid hits. Lets take spammyness out of LRMs that big step to making them a more "skilled" weapon.

Here's the thing though -
What you just advocated for was a blanket nerf for LRMS, because they aren't a "Skilled" enough weapon. This is exactly the kind of post I mean when I talk about posts likely to be ignored by the developers.

If we want to talk about nerfs to the "sit in the back and lob LRMs" playstyle, we also need to be asking how to improve their value in more traditional engagements. (Peek/Poke, push, etc) Otherwise, the devs are unlikely to see it as nothing more than another complaint, to be thrown in the circular file with all the others. I've put forward my thoughts on that. (I.E. faster LOS locks, faster flight times, leading to better LOS performance at the cost of dramatically lengthened IDF lock times)

Edited by Daurock, 18 December 2018 - 09:04 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Daurock, on 18 December 2018 - 09:01 AM, said:

Here's the thing though -
What you just advocated for was a blanket nerf for LRMS, because they aren't a "Skilled" enough weapon. This is exactly the kind of post I mean when I talk about posts likely to be ignored by the developers.

If we want to talk about nerfs to the "sit in the back and lob LRMs" playstyle, we also need to be asking how to improve their value in more traditional engagements. (Peek/Poke, push, etc) Otherwise, the devs are unlikely to see it as nothing more than another complaint, to be thrown in the circular file with all the others. I've put forward my thoughts on that. (I.E. faster LOS locks, faster flight times, leading to better LOS performance at the cost of dramatically lengthened IDF lock times)

I do want all that but if ammo is left alone LRM will be broken. There less punishment for missing LRM hits.

Edited by SirSmokes, 18 December 2018 - 09:25 AM.

[Kubernetes]

Jaeger Hunter, on 16 December 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

is there anyone else out there that feels like the LRM mechanic of the game needs some serious re-work to reduce the DPS.

Lmao, no

[The pessimistic optimist]

Kubernetes, on 18 December 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:

Lmao, no

You limit DPS by making ammo more important....

[Kubernetes]

SirSmokes, on 18 December 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

You limit DPS by making ammo more important....

Don't care. LRMs are still poor weapons, and their dps is of low quality because it spreads everywhere. Direct fire dps is worth 2x LRM dps. So do I feel the need to reduce LRM dps? No, lmao.

Edited by Kubernetes, 18 December 2018 - 11:11 AM.

[Lykaon]

thievingmagpi, on 17 December 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

1) Dodging does not negate LRMs. It hasn't in a long time. RNG > skill = bad for gameplay, but it's good for pugs who can't aim or torso twist or really do much of anything.

2) irrelevant. lrms do not require you to see your target.

3) ^

4) I always find it funny that it's people below 70th percentile defending LRMs. nuff said.

You can in deed dodge the slowest traveling projectiles in the game by simply moving to cover as soon as you hear that missile launch warning from the "betty" if your mech is slow then you may want to twist as bit as you move to cover to difuse the damage a bit. Seeing that mechs that are slow enough to be hit are also covered in very heavy armor a few drizzels of LRM fire should be to difficult to survive.

LRM absolutely do require that something has LOS. let this sink in.Say it over and over if you have to.

LRMs DO REQUIRE A TARGET LOCK! to achieve a target lock on a target that target MUST be seen.

If you honestly do believe LRMs can hit a target that is completely out of any and all LOS this may be part of your problem. You are simply attributing magical powers to LRMs that they simply do not possess. But I believe what is actually going on is decemination of false information to strengthen a particular view point as is common these days.

If you want to counter someone's suggestions for LRM defense can we at least try to be factual with the counter argument.

Edited by Lykaon, 18 December 2018 - 12:40 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

Lykaon, on 18 December 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

You can in deed dodge the slowest traveling projectiles in the game by simply moving to cover as soon as you hear that missile launch warning from the "betty" if your mech is slow then you may want to twist as bit as you move to cover to difuse the damage a bit. Seeing that mechs that are slow enough to be hit are also covered in very heavy armor a few drizzels of LRM fire should be to difficult to survive.

LRM absolutely do require that something has LOS. let this sink in.Say it over and over if you have to.

LRMs DO REQUIRE A TARGET LOCK! to achieve a target lock on a target that target MUST be seen.

If you honestly do believe LRMs can hit a target that is completely out of any and all LOS this may be part of your problem. You are simply attributing magical powers to LRMs that they simply do not possess. But I believe what is actually going on is decemination of false information to strengthen a particular view point as is common these days.

If you want to counter someone's suggestions for LRM defense can we at least try to be factual with the counter argument.

1) oh, I guess you don't understand what the term dodge means. okay.

2) they do not require los. next.

3) it doesn't need to be seen by you. nor do you need to aim at it, just at a large red box around its general vicinity. next.

4) if you're out of any and all los, you're not in the fight. next.

5) i'm attributing "magical powers" to rewarding low skill-floor.

6) lrms do not require skill to achieve near parity with actual skilled play

Edited by thievingmagpi, 18 December 2018 - 01:10 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Lykaon, on 18 December 2018 - 12:33 PM, said:

LRMs DO REQUIRE A TARGET LOCK

No, they don't. You can deadfire and your LRMs land where your reticle was placed. You don't know what you're talking about.

Also, UAVs and Narcs can get you locks without a single teammate being in LOS to the target. So again, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Oh these guys are back do remember to keep your heads down;)

Edited by SirSmokes, 18 December 2018 - 03:02 PM.

[HammerMaster]

This thread

thievingmagpi
Don't even give this guy the time of day anymore.
Its just toxic post after toxic posts.
Suggestions were made and it only degrades to you Unskilled you are and how good he is.
No matter the suggestion to even the playing field of weapons regardless of skill.
Else you'll be labelled a "MechDad".

Edited by HammerMaster, 18 December 2018 - 03:14 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

This thread

thievingmagpi
Don't even give this guy the time of day anymore.
Its just toxic post after toxic posts.
Suggestions were made and it only degrades to you Unskilled you are and how good he is.
No matter the suggestion to even the playing field of weapons regardless of skill.
Else you'll be labelled a "MechDad".

That's the point.

There should be no "leveling of the playing field". Skill should never be matched or challenged by rng, skill-floor handicaps or gameplay systems.

[The pessimistic optimist]

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

This thread

thievingmagpi
Don't even give this guy the time of day anymore.
Its just toxic post after toxic posts.
Suggestions were made and it only degrades to you Unskilled you are and how good he is.
No matter the suggestion to even the playing field of weapons regardless of skill.
Else you'll be labelled a "MechDad".

Oh these guys I find them mildly amusing. There in ability to hold conversation beyond GRRRRRRR me no like LRM me sad. Also there shallow personal attacks thinking I will get upset its fun

Edited by SirSmokes, 18 December 2018 - 03:32 PM.

[HammerMaster]

thievingmagpi, on 18 December 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

That's the point.

There should be no "leveling of the playing field". Skill should never be matched or challenged by rng, skill-floor handicaps or gameplay systems.

The LRM weapon system currently may need less skill to start but not to flourish.
Suggestions to make it more skill based and other suggestions have been put on the table.
The one day arc fix and removal was a good start.
RNG is not a dirty word.
Some people are proud to be "MechDads".
Your CONSTANT toxicity to the players who would like to use LRM needs to DESIST.

Edited by HammerMaster, 18 December 2018 - 03:53 PM.

[Kubernetes]

I don't know about you, thievingmagpi, but when some of the worst players in the game come at me in a thread, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like I must be doing something right.

[thievingmagpi]

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

The LRM weapon system currently may need less skill to start but not to flourish.

That's right. That's low skill floor. It takes very little effort to perform with LRMS. It actually takes a modicum of skill to perform with weapons that require things like aim and movement. I.e. actual online pvp videogame shooter mechanics. There are a small handful of players that can break 1k damage with a Spider.

It's difficult to not break 1k with LRMs.

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

RNG is not a dirty word.

For an online fps, it really is.







low-skill LRM prevalence also act as a barrier to new players to the game, as attempts at navigating complex mechanical and strategic systems in an attempt to "get gud" are not rewarded because hey, shoot the big red box.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 18 December 2018 - 04:05 PM.

[HammerMaster]

All the more reason for a complete REWORK as has been asked multiple times.
The current system does nothing but,
Foster parasitic game play.
Disparity in low and high tiers.
Griefing game play wise and verbally.

[thievingmagpi]

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

All the more reason for a complete REWORK as has been asked multiple times.
The current system does nothing but,
Foster parasitic game play.
Disparity in low and high tiers.
Griefing game play wise and verbally.

And you're
assuming
I want
what?

[HammerMaster]

thievingmagpi, on 18 December 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

And you're
assuming
I want
what?

I assume nothing.
What is clear to me is we are of differing opinion.

Edited by HammerMaster, 18 December 2018 - 04:31 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

I assume nothing.
What is clear to me is we are of differing opinion.

So when you said this:

HammerMaster, on 18 December 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

All the more reason for a complete REWORK as has been asked multiple times.
The current system does nothing but,
Foster parasitic game play.
Disparity in low and high tiers.
Griefing game play wise and verbally.

You think I feel different? How in the world would you ever take away that I think LRMs are in need of anything beyond a major rework?