57 replies to this topic

[D V Devnull]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2019 - 12:42 AM, said:

To then say Comp players should leave the game because of some wild misconception, when you have them on your side, is just poor form.

This one sentence of yours has set me off... Rather angrily, too... I had to double-check my own post to confirm, but I said absolutely nothing about having Competitive-Type Players leave the MWO game. I only spoke about how MWO could die if the NON-Competitive Players left.

That said, check my post just above yours which I'm quoting. I just came up with a possible solution that defeats any need for IDF Spread Nerfs. If there isn't enough LRM Ammo to spam safely, then it makes one think a bit more about actually pulling that trigger.

~Mr. D. V. "kicking the conversation out of something I never said" Devnull

[justcallme A S H]

MegaBopper, on 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM, said:

Once you have managed to lock and fire at a target it is unconscionable that a person can fire over 800 missiles in range at a locked target that is not under cover and only achieve 36 damage. Or that just about every time you push the fire button at a locked target the lock just simply disappears and your missiles just dump into the ground

MegaBopper, on 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM, said:

The strength of the Mechwarrior game lies in strategy, tactics, teamwork, cooperation, coordination, making use of cover

You have contradicted yourself in your own post mate.
By your enemy using cover/strategy is why you are only doing 36 dmg when firing, an apparently, 800 missiles.

MegaBopper, on 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM, said:

Further by destroying more easily playable weapon systems for lower level players to "limit their use by higher level players" it becomes apparent that the intent is to drive the lower level players away because that is surely what will happen. If you really want to keep higher level players from abusively exploiting use of good weapon systems then increase their difficulty for playing the game and lower it for the lower level players.

Actually it's the opposite. The sheer amount of high skill players that have left the game in the past 18 months is astronomical and another discussion entirely.

As for a separate difficulty level for being a high skill player? Come on, that's a bit silly and open to absolute expoitation and therefore no online game balances this way.

MegaBopper, on 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM, said:

Stop nerfing things that work for players who are not at competitive level. It is destroying the game.

Read my post above about the NGNG Podcast, better yet, go listen to it.

LRMs are simply unbalanced after repeated buffs in 2018. They can keep most of them IMO, as I said, just a minor touch and it's literally done.

[General Solo]

D V Devnull, on 30 January 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

Well, I can at least see where to stop any need for an Indirect Spread Nerf,

~Mr. D. V. "seeing a possible solution where nerfs are made unwelcome" Devnull

No, indirect fire leaches should be nerfed

[D V Devnull]

OZHomerOZ, on 30 January 2019 - 01:08 AM, said:

No, indirect fire leaches should be nerfed

Having fun teasing me, eh?

I can already tell you the 'IDF Leeches' have been nerfed. I keep seeing people royally steal kills the 'IDF Leeches' think should have been theirs. And that's even when the 'IDF Leeches' try to quickly Alpha their own launcher barrage

So, if we only make the change of giving WILDLY MASSIVE BUFFS (Yeah, I really had to put that in caps because of how big they feel to me that they should be!) to those willing to acquire their own Locks with a mix of their own LOS and their own Target Decay, but without touching IDF at all, that will force (or at least severely encourage) in a subtle manner those who can potentially become more capable to break out of their IDF mentality in order to receive the Rewards that only come with going LOS Direct-Fire. At the same time, we don't further alienate those who are unable to properly jump "whole hog" into LOS Direct-Fire, at least barely managing to hold onto them as well. And if we tear down the available LRM Ammo-Per-Ton to 200 each (180 seemed too low, 220 seemed too high), instead of that overly-high 240, we can potentially even allow a very tiny IDF Spread Buff that will allow those who are using IDF like a "Baby Bottle" to feel like someone actually gives a care about wanting more players to stick around MWO, which then gives all of us with experience the opportunity to then start better training people and growing the Player Base into something a lot larger than it is now. That ultimately becomes a win for everyone, finally teaches Chris Lowrey a lot more about how to use Buffs alone to reach a desired result (No offense to him, but after a bunch of comments from other people, I really feel he doesn't get this all that much!), teaches IDF LRM Users how to start getting into the kind of Direct-Fire LOS where one sticks with their Team, and leaves the rest of us to feel less headaches and stop having to argue with each other quite so much. This scenario feels to effectively be a complete win for everyone, at least to me.

Pardon me at this point, but I feel like I'm in need of a serious chunk of snooze time. Well, unless I want to be an insomniac on the battlefields. Although, I think that would be a rather insanely silly idea.

~Mr. D. V. "I kept plugging scenarios in my head. This was the only one to come out 100% positive." Devnull

[Nomad One]

I am interested in seeing the 2nd phase of testing and how much of an improvement direct fire mode will require to be able to stand up against the more contemporary weapon systems.

What I do not like the sound of is making indirect fire consistently worse in the process. Unless you make LRMs have a better firing profile against targets in line of sight than most ballistics, all these changes will achieve is force LRMs to just sit back and keep throwing missiles, only worse off than they are currently. When they're already in a good spot overall.

The ghost heat penalty increases make sense in that it pushes them further towards being damage per second type weapons, but considering how much tonnage has to be spent on ammunition and tube counts just to have actual effect on targets without being anything more than an annoyance due to the massive spread on the weapon systems makes the argument for increasing heat cost sound more like personal grievances rather than striving for balance.

Furthermore, if weapon lock and sensor game mechanics are being changed along with spread for testing, will you reduce the effectiveness of the counters to these weapon systems as well? Because those will have a considerable impact on results, just like how we saw during the 1st phase of this LRM PTS with multiple 3x AMS mechs hard countering any attempts to test the weapon system.

The big question is: What is the Long Range Missile systems role supposed to be?

[General Solo]

D V Devnull, on 30 January 2019 - 01:44 AM, said:

Having fun teasing me, eh?

No I'm being serious


So many games, lrm boat is last man standing

Or maybe I should use lrm meat shields better

Its for their own good, they may even learn to aim at the mech in the big red box

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 30 January 2019 - 04:41 AM.

[orcrist86]

A purely cosmetic but useful feedback tool is audio. Have you considered differentiated lock tones for los and non Los locks? A low tone for obstructed lock and a high tone for direct? Or maybe a pulsing audio tone for the direct fire lock rather than constant tone for obstructed?

[HammerMaster]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2019 - 01:05 AM, said:

The sheer amount of high skill players that have left the game in the past 18 months is astronomical and another discussion entirely.

We can't afford to lose any more players from ANY strata of skill in this game. No matter how much we annoyingly disagree.
The solutions need to address the out of whack buffs/nerfs. The percieved domination/real abuse of LRM. Stale chassis/power creep. Buckets.
Matchmaker. (Zero sum please)
We can't just cater to one while dismissing others. (Elites, meat+potatoes, steering wheel users)
My sincere hope is we get this LRM issue ironed out and people RELEARN how to play LRM.
We see an EXCELLENT steam release of MW5 which has players return to MWO and new players discover the deep and rich BattleTech universe.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 January 2019 - 06:35 AM.

[General Solo]

Seriously, if Match Maker aint fixed all that stuff won't do jack IMO

[MechTech Dragoon]

Very happy to see the indirect nerf and direct buff.
While i should be able to fire in an indirect fashion, i shouldn't be landing hits much, especially against smaller targets.

Nobody wants to get absolutely decimated by a supernova thats sat behind a rock across the map.

And having those lrm assaults actually be at least semi-frontline will be much nicer.

[HammerMaster]

OZHomerOZ, on 30 January 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

Seriously, if Match Maker aint fixed all that stuff won't do jack IMO

That too. Added.

[Nomad One]

MechTech Dragoon, on 30 January 2019 - 06:24 AM, said:

Very happy to see the indirect nerf and direct buff.
While i should be able to fire in an indirect fashion, i shouldn't be landing hits much, especially against smaller targets.

Nobody wants to get absolutely decimated by a supernova thats sat behind a rock across the map.

And having those lrm assaults actually be at least semi-frontline will be much nicer.

One, a 15 to 20 class LRM launcher won't hit many missiles against a quickly moving light. Certain larger lights and ones stuck with low rated engines are more vulnerable to LRMs, but in general so long as you can move fast and keep moving, most of the missiles from a launcher will be splattering the ground. Artemis, TAG and NARC do increase the number of missiles hitting these lights, but not by much unless combined. Players already have access to radar deprivation, which combined with speed or ample nearby terrain makes for very effective avoidance. Properly played, light mechs are already extremely competent in avoiding getting hit by the weapon system.

Two, how does getting rained to oblivion by a Supernova differ from getting jumped by two or three opponents at the same time? You're still getting absolutely decimated. If a mech without any arm weapons is underneath a UAV, or being locked onto by a stealthy opposing mech, is it the LRM mechs fault for a lapse in judgement?

Three, LRM boating assaults won't be hanging closer to the frontline. They'll be attempting to use those missiles from long range. Unless LRMs are made capable of holding their own and trading shots favorably against already existing direct firepower, there won't be much incentive to walk into view only to get obliterated in the time it takes for a lock to be achieved and a volley to reach a target.

[HammerMaster]

Nomad One, on 30 January 2019 - 06:47 AM, said:

One, a 15 to 20 class LRM launcher won't hit many missiles against a quickly moving light. Certain larger lights and ones stuck with low rated engines are more vulnerable to LRMs, but in general so long as you can move fast and keep moving, most of the missiles from a launcher will be splattering the ground. Artemis, TAG and NARC do increase the number of missiles hitting these lights, but not by much unless combined. Players already have access to radar deprivation, which combined with speed or ample nearby terrain makes for very effective avoidance. Properly played, light mechs are already extremely competent in avoiding getting hit by the weapon system.

Two, how does getting rained to oblivion by a Supernova differ from getting jumped by two or three opponents at the same time? You're still getting absolutely decimated. If a mech without any arm weapons is underneath a UAV, or being locked onto by a stealthy opposing mech, is it the LRM mechs fault for a lapse in judgement?

Three, LRM boating assaults won't be hanging closer to the frontline. They'll be attempting to use those missiles from long range. Unless LRMs are made capable of holding their own and trading shots favorably against already existing direct firepower, there won't be much incentive to walk into view only to get obliterated in the time it takes for a lock to be achieved and a volley to reach a target.

Did you read the parts where I and DevNull alluded to people RELEARNING how to LRM?
Honestly after they roll out a REAL change NERFING indirect and boosting direct fire. THOSE people you're talking about will get squashed and not paid. So good. I hope they keep up that crap.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 January 2019 - 07:53 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

If people think LRM user behaviour is going to change as a result of all of this...

That's some high levels of delusion.

[HammerMaster]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2019 - 01:45 PM, said:

If people think LRM user behaviour is going to change as a result of all of this...

That's some high levels of delusion.

It won't be overnight.
Thanks for being optimistic.
So basically according to you LRM is a wash and we should't even attempt to end parasitic lock farming and abuse spam.
Care to expound on how to address these where direct LOS boosts/ out of LOS nerfs won't?

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 January 2019 - 01:57 PM.

[starscream75]

i wish on 1 of these patches they would fix the bug which drops u in invasion matches without ur HUD system

[MegaBopper]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2019 - 01:05 AM, said:

You have contradicted yourself in your own post mate.
By your enemy using cover/strategy is why you are only doing 36 dmg when firing, an apparently, 800 missiles.

You clearly have difficulty understanding what you read. I specifically said that they were NOT under cover. Further my cursor was flashing red indicating hits. Most of what you are saying so clearly seems to ignore real facts because you either don't seem to see them or you are intentionally ignoring them that I have a great deal of difficulty putting stock in what you are posting.

[justcallme A S H]

800 missles and 36 damage just doesn't equate if the reticule is flashing red the entire time. You're doing something very wrong, it just over exaggerating it (which is what's at play here the more I think about it)

Edited by justcallme A S H, 30 January 2019 - 09:12 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 29 January 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

Chris Lowrey, on 29 January 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

direct fire LRMs in a spot that allows them to compete with more contemporary direct fire weapons.

This is why these changes ultimately mean nothing. Auto-aim weapons should not compete with direct fire weapons that require you to track and lead targets.

Okay, sure, I guess. Kinda elitist, but you do you.

But as opposed of leaving LRMs to rot in the hands of background lurmers being a parasite of the team, at least if LRMs are decent -- if not competitive -- at DF, the weapon system would be less to blame and subject to ridicule and more of the player's stupidity.

HammerMaster, on 30 January 2019 - 01:48 PM, said:

So basically according to you LRM is a wash and we should't even attempt to end parasitic lock farming and abuse spam.
Care to expound on how to address these where direct LOS boosts/ out of LOS nerfs won't?

Honestly, those Background Lurmers chose LRMs specifically to IDF, because it can IDF in the first place. Had they actually be interested in DFing, they would have picked some other weapon system in the first place. The change isn't for them, they'd be IDFing all the same.

Not that I agree with what he seem to be saying, I'm actually cool with LRMs being good for DF. But i'd rather focus with what good it will do, by garnering better interest to DF users like me.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 January 2019 - 10:08 PM.

[General Solo]

Lerms are decent now, I do well will only 40 (Quad 10's) and narc

As for background lermers, that partly our fault. We don't use the meat shield strat on them nearly enough, because of impaitence.

When I get frustrated by background lurmers, I will go and sit behind a background lurmer untill enemy contact. And use him as moving terrain whilst poking the enemy.

Ma lock Mang... Priceless

Besides sticking with the background lurmers makes a deathball

Roight!!!!!

So partially our fault for not devising a strat/tactic to deal with it

As for the PTS..meh
Did much come out of the last Lasor one...Just asking

To me whilst balancing stuff is great......skill gap, and matchermaker struggling due to low population and upward bias creates more in game dissatisfaction than lerms ..IMO

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 30 January 2019 - 10:58 PM.