43 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Y E O N N E, on 17 January 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

It's really not that complicated, dude.

When the group moves up, your pushers are taking the aggro while your LRMs peak out from between them to get a lock and fire volleys over their heads. It is just as toxic to play as sitting behind a ridge and doing the same thing, you are just trading away the risk of getting light-ganked for the risk of somebody deciding they should ignore the enemies ahead of you and taking a shot at your face. Same difference.

They reason they are providing a flat arc is specifically because they want you to be engaged as a front-liner yourself when using them directly. As-is, the DPS from a big-tube LRM boat can compete with a dakka boat if both of them do a power play, the difference is that one of them can jam and has to be aimed while the other one can be guided at the expense of being partially mitigated by AMS. If you want your high arc, drop a little further back behind a ridge or a rock to clear your LoS and get those missiles into the air. There's more depth to the play there than there is on the current live implementation.

Toxic? what?

People complain about LRMs no matter what it seems.

Here is what you are missing about LRMers being immediate second line.

ONE they can see the enemy and the unfolding battle from the front and have a broader understanding of the needs of the moment than some Lurmturtle behind a hill 800m away. So their choice of target is more informed than "hey their's one" from a secondary friendly lock.

TWO if the front liners become heat burdened the front line LRM carrier can move forward to shield their team mates and become the one on the front while the other guy "hides" and cools down.

THREE without the means to lob shots over the front line why use a garbage weapon with a boatload of countermeasures to do a job that pretty much any other option does better?


This just confirms what I stated before some players just can't grasp how to do it Or have their opinions shoved so far up their own backsides as to not want to grasp how it can be done or the needs of that tactic so it can be done well.

[R Valentine]

Having somewhat of an upward ark is still useful with LOS, because it lets you shoot over teammates in front of you. Even ATMs smack into your teammates rears when they're face blocking you. Just because you're in LOS doesn't mean you have to be at the very, very front.

[kf envy]

so PGI is working to lower the already low player numbers. thumbs up to you PGI. now when do yo louse the IP?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Y E O N N E, on 16 January 2019 - 05:12 PM, said:

The entire point is to force you to expose your face to enemy fire to gain the advantages of shorter time-to-target and decreased spread.

But that is also the issue. We already have these type of missiles in game, they are called MRM's and ATM's. Having LRM's function the same way is kind of redundant. Also just because most LRM users sit back in the outskirts of the battle lobbing LRMs doesn't mean all LRM users do this. Like the OP, when I use LRM's, I use a mixed build of direct and indirect fire and play very near the front lines where I can poke at the enemy with say lasers when they are directly in front of me and fire OVER my teammates when I can't fire around them. Having the LRM arcs acting like MRM's or ATM's when you have direct visability of the enemy just means my LRMs will be flying into the backs of my teammates.

I mean I get it. They want to encourage LRM users to get into the fight, instead of hiding in the back lobbing missiles indirectly but making them into a direct fire weapon when you have visibility of the enemy isn't the answer.

[Yiryi-Sa]

I think there are better solutions than the direct line of fire mechanic:

1. Increase AMS range and rate of fire (or do it just for Laser AMS while also decreasing heat)
2. Increase LRM spread significantly, and buff TAG to help decrease LRM spread while also decreasing max/optimal range for TAG (encourages players to get closer and expose themselves).

Edited by Yiryi-Sa, 18 January 2019 - 10:39 AM.

[Mystere]

So it's back to this kind of warfare?

[Kubernetes]

Y'all could just, ya know, scoot a few steps to the left or right to get a clear shot.


Since we're on topic...
I really feel that PGI should introduce a high arc for gauss, PPCs, and lasers. I mean, what's the point of these weapons if I can't shoot when a friendly walks in front of me? I swear, it's maddening when my 100 tonner with 50 tons of mech-smashing weaponry is made wholly impotent because some goofball Hunchy walks in front of me. Why doesn't PGI fix this nonsense and let my gauss rounds fly over my friendlies? Why??

Edited by Kubernetes, 18 January 2019 - 04:52 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Y E O N N E, on 17 January 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

It's really not that complicated, dude.

When the group moves up, your pushers are taking the aggro while your LRMs peak out from between them to get a lock and fire volleys over their heads. It is just as toxic to play as sitting behind a ridge and doing the same thing, you are just trading away the risk of getting light-ganked for the risk of somebody deciding they should ignore the enemies ahead of you and taking a shot at your face. Same difference.

They reason they are providing a flat arc is specifically because they want you to be engaged as a front-liner yourself when using them directly. As-is, the DPS from a big-tube LRM boat can compete with a dakka boat if both of them do a power play, the difference is that one of them can jam and has to be aimed while the other one can be guided at the expense of being partially mitigated by AMS. If you want your high arc, drop a little further back behind a ridge or a rock to clear your LoS and get those missiles into the air. There's more depth to the play there than there is on the current live implementation.

Your right, it's not that complicated

You basically want to make them the worst direct fire weapon in the game.. The reason why it will suck even worse with the flat arc, because they now just became a direct fire weapon, that you now need to face the enemy the entire time. They also will have a longer travel time than any other direct fire weapon as well, even with the flat arc. I mean even MRM's you fire and twist to shield with your arms.. and Heavy lasers have a super long burn time which is there downside, but instant hit so if you do have to twist you still did some damage, but the Streak LRMs, sorry a complete miss with loss of lock unless the other player decides they don't want to move. Only an idiot stares down the enemy if they are taking fire, but an LRM user using them in this way now has too.

So while every other direct fire weapon around, people fire, twist, and spread.. the STREAK LRM user will have to stare down it's target the entire time. There are Streak LRMs and clan side has Streak MRM's Both of which could be added down the road with another new tech update, which could be added for people that just have to have flat arcs, i guess for those with bad aim, or low frame rates they could be semi decent, but they certainly are not LRMs

It's not like you can just duck behind a ridge anywhere a brawl is happening. I've been using LRM's in this Brawl range for years.. LRM's are best used in the 200-500m range, far closer than half the weapons in the game. At times you do use other mechs as cover, just like every other person out there with direct fire weapons, you also use small hills or ridges at times to lower your profile while Retaining your own locks/LOS.

Aggressive LRM users are out in the open exposing themselves as much as anyone else using the direct fire weapon bralwer. The reason why you use LRM's in these situations are purely for the whole adding indirect fire aspect.. (lobbing them over the heads) and yes you do rotate in ML's or ERML's or other direct fire weapons often while the missiles are in flight, so you are moving in and out of cover, and trading cover with other mechs ect. You fire your lurms, you use your direct fire lasers or what ever, and get hot, use your teammate as a bit of cover while they keep brawling and twisting while you keep the rain falling. You can't always just drop back 200m to get to a ridge so you now have the DEBUFFED LRM attack.. that makes zero sense.

This change totally takes that away and just makes them basically the worst direct fire weapon in the game, that if you can hold a lock will hit.. but in the 1-2 seconds of not twisting you just lost your ST, or maybe even got killed with a few well placed CT shots. Sounds like a horrible way to play and will just make LRM users even less likely to get out in the open and share armor. I don't want less reasons for them to hide.. I want more reasons for them not to!



I really don't get why a little buff for direct LOS, and a little debuff for no LOS is such a bad thing. You want to make LRM mechs be in the fight more, but not completely change the way the weapon works.. It would kinda be like ATM users.. Long range ATM users less damage.. Close range ATM users more damage. this is basically the same exact thing. The IS version of ATM's.. Clan side i think the main difference would be the missile count being able to over come the AMS a bit better than ATM's, while still doing a bit less damage per launcher weight/size.. and gives the LRM person that whole easier to use in a group with the slightly higher ARC, verse basting your mate in the back which is a great thing in PUGs

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

I think the solution to this problem is simple - If there's a mech between the LRM boat and the target that is in the open, be it friendly or not, than the LRM boat does not have LOS, and fires IDF as normal..

I suppose that is good in theory, but then you just took away the buff that LRM's would have by having mechs with LRM's in the lance which IMO defeats the whole purpose of buffing them with LOS





another side of this is the whole LRM rack as a support weapon for your Long brawl mech.. Like your centurion with an AC10 and an LRM rack, or your thunderbolts, or summoners.. all these mechs have direct fire weapons that you can use with the classic LRM racks. Those racks can be fired with on pushes while you are maneuvering to use your direct fire weapons. So while you are maneuvering in pseudo cover, you keep the rain coming.. and hold your lock and not twist.. when they are recharge you break cover, use your direct fire weapons and twist. When you do work with some push brawlers in this manner it is a ton of fun.. I've never played turret warrior, Nor do i want to.. these changes will force that on you far more often than would be worth it.. Because in every case outside of someone with super bad aim, an MRM would be a better choice

Edited by JC Daxion, 18 January 2019 - 06:10 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Kiran Yagami, on 18 January 2019 - 07:54 AM, said:

Having somewhat of an upward ark is still useful with LOS, because it lets you shoot over teammates in front of you. Even ATMs smack into your teammates rears when they're face blocking you. Just because you're in LOS doesn't mean you have to be at the very, very front.

Yea.. I only use ATM's on clan mechs with JJ's for this exact reason.. As it is i only have a few LRM mechs.. with these changes every single clan mech with LRMs would get ATM's and every single IS mech i'd drop in MRM's.. it would be such a rare situation that Indirect fire would come into play there would be zero reason to even have them..

So my maybe 10 mechs out of 200 that have LRM's.. just turned to zero.. Wonderful change,, Not

[Y E O N N E]

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

Toxic? what?

Yes, toxic. You want your auto-aim weapon to shoot over all the objects so you never have to truly directly expose to fire. That's what you want. Everything else you wrote is absolutely elementary and I didn't need you to write it out, but it's all in service to the above. Your friends aren't going to get heat-capped if you are good at your job, and if you aren't you are not going to cycle to the front.

JC Daxion, on 18 January 2019 - 06:03 PM, said:

Your right, it's not that complicated

You basically want to make them the worst direct fire weapon in the game.

They should be, they aim for you.

[JC Daxion]

Y E O N N E, on 18 January 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

Yes, toxic. You want your auto-aim weapon to shoot over all the objects so you never have to truly directly expose to fire. That's what you want. Everything else you wrote is absolutely elementary and I didn't need you to write it out, but it's all in service to the above. Your friends aren't going to get heat-capped if you are good at your job, and if you aren't you are not going to cycle to the front.



They should be, they aim for you.

No.. that is not what LRM players want.. The worst direct fire weapon in the game..


What they want are LRM's that get a slight buff for LOS, and actually joining the fight, and encourage that sort of game play.


All these changes are doing, make the LRM players that hide in the back hide even more, and make aggressive LRM players swap to MRM's.. But maybe that is what you want.

[Y E O N N E]

JC Daxion, on 19 January 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

No.. that is not what LRM players want.. The worst direct fire weapon in the game..


What they want are LRM's that get a slight buff for LOS, and actually joining the fight, and encourage that sort of game play.

You aren't going to join the fight as long as you can shoot over peoples' heads. So ,no, that is not what you want. You want to fire from safety. You can try to spin it any way you'd like, but that is the objective end of the change you wish to see.

Quote

All these changes are doing, make the LRM players that hide in the back hide even more, and make aggressive LRM players swap to MRM's.. But maybe that is what you want.

That's already the status quo. But, assuming that PGI un-breaks what they've done (right now, it's MORE accurate to fire indirectly than it is to fire directly...the opposite of what the changes intend), hiding in the back will work way worse than it does now. So you can either grow a pair and take the front and DPS targets down with guided missiles, or you can splatter ineffective damage from the rear.

[Koniving]

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

I think the solution to this problem is simple - If there's a mech between the LRM boat and the target that is in the open, be it friendly or not (situations 1, 3 or 4), than the LRM boat does not have LOS, and fires IDF as normal..

HammerMaster, on 18 January 2019 - 06:16 AM, said:

Direct fire is normal.
Idf is the exception.
Only mwo makes idf normal.

I think you missed what he meant.
">" You or ally.
"<" Enemy.
"|" Wall.
"/" "-" LRM path
Situation 1:
>/ | \<
Indirect fire.

Situation 2:
> - <
Direct fire.

Situation 3:
> > <
Ally is in the way.
>-/ > \<
Indirect fire.

Situation 4:
> < <
Locked target is the guy in the second row.
>-/ < \<

Got it now?

----------

Yeonne, I get what you're trying to say, but Dax originally described this situation.

First few seconds. Assume the Stalker is a brawling LRM/laser vomit boat. Notice the Atlas and the Stalker are trading places as to whom is in front, and then the Stalker pushes the corner first, swings wide to take fire, and the Atlas pushes up in tight.

(I know that's not exactly what's happening, but the idea is to help you visualize it).

Its a tactic of taking alternating fire and sharing armor. Now just apply LRMs to the mix.... instead of having to stop shooting because the Atlas got in the way, an LRM user can keep firing... except now they can't if this patch goes through exactly as is.

I like Vellron's solution to this.

Edited by Koniving, 20 January 2019 - 01:07 AM.

[Koniving]

My personal concern is the behavior of dumbfired LRMs, it'll be harder to use them if they take a direct fire route, when the intention is to exploit their flight paths in order to hit enemies behind cover by dumb firing them such that the enemy is "on the way" to the destination, allowing the missile to fly just high enough to go over the obstacle and low enough to nail the guy that's completely out of sight.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 17 January 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

Except that the LRMs are inferior in pretty much every meaningfull way when forced to compete with autocannons,lasers,PPCs or Gauss weapons.

So now I need to wonder what is the point if LRMs are just as restricted to clear lanes of fire as more conventional direct fire weapon options.
...

TLDR: If LRMs are not as good as other direct fire weapons and lack the capacity to reliably operate in close second line (firing over friendlies) then why use them ? And since LRMs are of questionable value as direct fire weapons when other more effective options are available then wouldn't this create a trend where indirect fire LRM use is heavily leveraged?

And if this does occur then there is little to no incentive to utilize LRMs as direct fire weapons.

Probably because they would work more reliably in DF than they would IDF, such as them landing faster and putting more in the center-mass (Which PGI apparently messed up). They're not meant to compete with DF, but rather it's meant for that they are less of a burden to the team.

Now all they need is faster Lock-Speed when there's LOS, and then they'll be less lame.

Lykaon, on 17 January 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:

I feel LRMs need to retain their purpose as second line direct fire support (with LOS and "getting their own locks") without losing the uniqueness that gives them purpose. Without that little unique ability to lob over a friendlies heads the LRM is just a crap front line weapon with piles of weaknesses and little to no advantages over other weapon options on the front lines.

Well, you do lob them over if there's an obstruction in front of you. Hell, an allied-mech is an obstruction and you would lob over them if there's obstruction.

That being said, PGI shown that they are capable of making mechanical changes, what's one more that lets you IDF if there's nearby ally that's brawling with your target.

Another solution would be, make TAG and NARC mandatory for IDF so that it could be more powerful as it is.

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

Here is what you are missing about LRMers being immediate second line.

They are missing, because it's not like every LRM user does that.

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

ONE they can see the enemy and the unfolding battle from the front and have a broader understanding of the needs of the moment than some Lurmturtle behind a hill 800m away. So their choice of target is more informed than "hey their's one" from a secondary friendly lock.

Basically situational awareness. I don't see why front-liners wouldn't see that too.

But sure, okay, they are better than the Background-Lurmers. It's not like they still couldn't be better for DF.

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

TWO if the front liners become heat burdened the front line LRM carrier can move forward to shield their team mates and become the one on the front while the other guy "hides" and cools down.

Well, yeah. But shooting as they shield their team-mates, with a more effective LRM in DF would be a boon, don't you agree?

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

THREE without the means to lob shots over the front line why use a garbage weapon with a boatload of countermeasures to do a job that pretty much any other option does better?

Then use the other weapons, that's a no-brainer. But then, LRMs do have the option to IDF, that's a given.

But your concern sounds more about balancing, than the update on playstyle. This would probably be solved if LRMs were a lot more powerful in DF than they are in IDF.

The idea of LRMs being IDF is that it's easier to do, it's more convenient, and it's supposed to be effective by dogpiling on a target. But if it were simply people after another on a firing-line, the LRMs could stand to be better at delivering damage, and that was the aim of PGI and the PTS, albeit again, handled poorly (check out Navid A1's criticisms).

I'd rather they make the effectiveness between DF and IDF a lot wider.

Lykaon, on 18 January 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

This just confirms what I stated before some players just can't grasp how to do it Or have their opinions shoved so far up their own backsides as to not want to grasp how it can be done or the needs of that tactic so it can be done well.

That moment you're describing yourself, how ironic.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 January 2019 - 01:49 AM.

[Kroete]

Y E O N N E, on 19 January 2019 - 10:18 PM, said:

That's already the status quo. But, assuming that PGI un-breaks what they've done (right now, it's MORE accurate to fire indirectly than it is to fire directly...the opposite of what the changes intend), hiding in the back will work way worse than it does now. So you can either grow a pair and take the front and DPS targets down with guided missiles, or you can splatter ineffective damage from the rear.

The people that hide with lrms, not the best use of lrms, will still hide, maybe take more tubes or ammo to compensate. They are allready using them not optimal, nothing will change, you will still cry about hiding lrms, maybe a little more, because it will take a little longer to kill you and show you even more that you have bad position or no counter. And your teammates with lrms will do less with that change and give you another option for even more whining.

You cant force people to play a game the way you want it, they will do what they want.

Edited by Kroete, 20 January 2019 - 01:27 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 01:21 AM, said:

You cant force people to play a game the way you want it, they will do what they want.

Like I've said before:

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2019 - 05:32 AM, said:

Telling other people what to like isn't my place, but I do know what I like and I don't like, and quite simply I don't like them background-lurmers. And while we are at an impasse, just as we have to get used to the dumb background-lurmers, they too better get used to the saltiness.

Just that simple.

[Kroete]

But this change will do nothing about the hiders,
dont know why lots of people dont understand this.

The acr-nerf(bending) and locktimenerf (artemis) was bad for direct lrm use,
no change on 1+ minute narcs and the ammo buff maked indirect better,
now we got lrms that will hit terrain or teammates if you use them direct (even worse then the bending-nerf),
i dont belive that the direct buffs are enough to compensate the reduction of tactical options
and i also dont belive that the indirect nerfs will change anything for the hiders.

If one of two direct salvos hit dirt, 2 indirect salvos are better and a hider dont even think about that.

Sad thing is, that lrms were ok until all the buffs for indirect and nerfs for direct we had in the last year.

Edited by Kroete, 20 January 2019 - 01:41 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 01:36 AM, said:

But this change will do nothing about the hiders,
dont know why lots of people dont understand this.

They're missing out on a more effective way to use LRMs than just leeching off locks. If anything, they might be pushed towards it.

Though, why bother with them in the first place? After all, let them play as they want. They were less effective with IDF before the change, they'll still be less effective with IDF after the change, why bother?

But with DF, now there's a good change, there's a change in playstyle that players could adapt into LRMs.

Perhaps, just perhaps, have you thought that this change for the LRMs weren't for the hiders in the first place?

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 01:36 AM, said:

The acr-nerf(bending) and locktimenerf (artemis) was bad for direct lrm use,

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that too, and if anything I advocate the removal (or at least lessening) of those nerfs.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 01:36 AM, said:

no change on 1+ minute narcs and the ammo buff maked indirect better,
now we got lrms that will hit terrain or teammates if you use them direct (even worse then the bending-nerf),
i dont belive that the direct buffs are enough to compensate the reduction of tactical options
and i also dont belive that the indirect nerfs will change anything for the hiders.

I get your point, the changes before discouraged the use of DF, and now with lower-arc means less clearance over obstacles, there would be people that wouldn't like that and would choose to just stay behind cover more.

A lot of us aren't strangers to the poor choices of PGI.

But it seems to me, regardless of the change, them hiders aren't really interested in showing themselves in the first place, so I don't see the point. But mechanically, PGI is showing the will to change it, so I'd rather focus on the interesting aspect it could do for me, than to the hiders that aren't really interested in changing their selfish, parasitic ways.

Perhaps (though not a lot of faith), they'd make DF a lot better than IDF to be much more interesting. I can dream.

Right now, Navid is showing us that there's actually about 30% increase in volleys to kill in DF than IDF, and that is not ideal. If anything, it should be around.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 01:36 AM, said:

If one of two direct salvos hit dirt, 2 indirect salvos are better and a hider dont even think about that.

Sad thing is, that lrms were ok until all the buffs for indirect and nerfs for direct we had in the last year.

PGI will be PGI.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 January 2019 - 02:07 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2019 - 01:59 AM, said:

Right now, Navid is showing us that there's actually about 30% increase in volleys to kill in DF than IDF, and that is not ideal. If anything, it should be around.

Around would not be ok,
direct should be 10-20% better then indirect,
spread is the way to go for this,
because in both ways you would use the same ammo and heat,
but indirect you would get a little less back.

Buff direct by lower locktimes and the option to manipulate the flightpath,
(bending worked best at 200-300m and was useless over 500m, even under something you could bend your lrms a little to get a little futher without hitting the ceiling. You needed a little skill do to it but you are not forced to a form flightpath. Dont want the players more skill for lrms?)
and a worthy artemis (THE direct fire upgrade) and we can go.

Maybe nerf narc a little, more then 1 minute is too much,
nerfing the cooldown is a typically pgi,
doing something for the doing without understanding the problem.

Edited by Kroete, 20 January 2019 - 02:20 AM.