59 replies to this topic

[Khale MacGregor]

Novakaine, on 18 February 2019 - 09:12 AM, said:

It won't be "Lurmageddon" however the trolls will turn it into "Trollageddon".
Why?
Because they try their damnedest to break everything in the game unless it suits them.

Aint that the bloody truth!

and since PGI's main focus has been with MW5, a lot more people are getting away with Wall hacks and aimbots.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 18 February 2019 - 02:58 AM, said:

Because there would be a short burst of people trying them out all at once.

Thats not LRMageddon though. I dont think you remember what LRMageddon is.

LRMageddon is when missiles come at you from a 90 degree angle so you cant even hide behind cover and a lot of the missiles hit your mech's head because of the tight spiral pattern of the missiles combined with the high angle and the bad head hitboxes on certain mechs at the time.

LRMageddon requires more than just lots of people using LRMs... the LRMs actually have to be deadlier than most other weapons too. Which isnt going to be the case.

Edited by Khobai, 18 February 2019 - 01:21 PM.

[Phyrce]

From what ive seen, this will make those LRM carrying Assaults finally be useful rather than wasting their armor at 900m from the fight. Be firing angle and the ability to fight at 300m, makes the positioning and play a lot more challenging and interesting.

[Kroete]

Phyrce, on 18 February 2019 - 02:57 PM, said:

From what ive seen, this will make those LRM carrying Assaults finally be useful rather than wasting their armor at 900m from the fight. Be firing angle and the ability to fight at 300m, makes the positioning and play a lot more challenging and interesting.

The players using lrms at 900m will still use lrms at 900m,
they were not very usefull at that range and they will not be very usefull at 900m,
so not much changed for them. They can still hide and spay.

The last patches punished people using lrms at low range, forcing you to stay futher away,
we will see if lrms are now viable again under 300m or are we still better using atms or streaks or srms,
who are better at direct fire then lrms ...

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:19 PM, said:

Thats not LRMageddon though. I dont think you remember what LRMageddon is.

Honestly, I wasn't there. I don't think you know how to language.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:19 PM, said:

LRMageddon is when missiles come at you from a 90 degree angle so you cant even hide behind cover and a lot of the missiles hit your mech's head because of the tight spiral pattern of the missiles combined with the high angle and the bad head hitboxes on certain mechs at the time.

Do you even know how to language?

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:19 PM, said:

LRMageddon requires more than just lots of people using LRMs... the LRMs actually have to be deadlier than most other weapons too. Which isnt going to be the case.

You don't know how to language.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 February 2019 - 03:47 PM.

[Ilfi]

LRMageddon? When the patch is nothing but nerfs to indirect firing LRM Assaults? lol. We've had ATMs for well over a year and MechDads still don't know how to use them (despite them being a direct upgrade for the most correct LRM play style), let alone LRMs.

I expect nothing but bitter potatoes unwilling or unable to adapt. After all, if anyone had hope of improving, they would have stopped using LRM Assaults by now.

[The6thMessenger]

Ilfi, on 18 February 2019 - 03:53 PM, said:

LRMageddon? When the patch is nothing but nerfs to indirect firing LRM Assaults? lol.

Meanwhile the guys that actually get their own locks and not a parasite would actually put it to good use. The leeching tactic shouldn't really even be rewarded in the first place, cause it's lazy.

Ilfi, on 18 February 2019 - 03:53 PM, said:

We've had ATMs for well over a year and MechDads still don't know how to use them (despite them being a direct upgrade for the most correct LRM play style), let alone LRMs.

Because of the sweet spot of 270m, it's balanced with it and so any other use is just inefficient, and a total waste on the 1 damage. People will barely use ATMs at midrange and above because of that, and that is what we see. What should have happened is Ammo-Switching for ATMs.

LRMs however, if anything it's much more Jack-Of-All-Trades than ATMs cause it works at a wider band of range than ATMs.

Ilfi, on 18 February 2019 - 03:53 PM, said:

I expect nothing but bitter potatoes unwilling or unable to adapt. After all, if anyone had hope of improving, they would have stopped using LRM Assaults by now.

Well of course. They chose LRMs precisely so they could IDF, the hiders won't change. But now, the guys who actually know better, the guys that dismiss LRMs because they are precisely incompetent, they will be able to put LRMs to better use because LRMs are much more effective on it's own now.

That means if you can't make LRMs work, it's really just your playstyle -- that means it's really just the background lurming playstyle.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 February 2019 - 04:03 PM.

[Papaspud]

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

How does the nerfing of LRMs lead to LRMageddon? Not following the logic.



IDF is the entire purpose of LRMs. If you want DF guided missiles use ATMs, they are vastly better.

You think making LRMs worse at IDF and slightly better at DF, but still worse than every other weapon at DF, is a buff? Because its not.

Making a weapon worse at what its supposed to be good at (IDF and long range) and better what its not supposed to be good (DF and short-medium range) can in no way be considered a net buff. Its a net overall nerf. And worse than that its just genericizing LRMs by undermining what makes them unique from other weapons (IDF).

You really dont have to worry about LRMageddon... however I do think ATMs will get used more now that LRMs have been relegated to being worse ATMs. IDF was the only reason to use LRMs over ATMs and weakening that only makes ATMs that much more favorable.

Hmmm, looking at my choices as an IS player.... there aren't any ATM options to be had......

[Khobai]

Papaspud, on 18 February 2019 - 04:15 PM, said:

Hmmm, looking at my choices as an IS player.... there aren't any ATM options to be had......

so switch to clans. thats always an option.

besides its not just ATMs that are better at direct fire. virtually all other weapons are still better at DF than LRMs. LRMs arnt getting enough of a buff to make them competitive at DF.

again the whole reason to take LRMs is for the ability to IDF and weakening their ability to IDF is a net nerf of the weapon system. PGI has made it worse at what it was the best at and better at what it was the worst at. thats not in any way a buff.

so lets at least truthfully acknowledge what these changes are. Theyre a nerf to LRMs. Because the entire role of LRMs in MWO can be summed up as twofold: long range and IDF. And these changes dont make LRMs better at either of those two things.

Edited by Khobai, 18 February 2019 - 05:40 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 05:26 PM, said:

besides its not just ATMs that are better at direct fire. virtually all other weapons are still better at DF than LRMs. LRMs arnt getting enough of a buff to make them competitive at DF.

Not exactly the point of the changes.

It's to make LRMs actually decent, not just some joke the lot of us laugh at.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 05:26 PM, said:

again the whole reason to take LRMs is for the ability to IDF and weakening their ability to IDF is a net nerf of the weapon system. PGI has made it worse at what it was the best at and better at what it was the worst at. thats not in any way a buff.

Wrong, again. Buff is about it's standing, so if LRMs being capable of carrying it's own weight, to contribute to the team much better -- as it was tested and demonstrated in the PTS, that is a buff.

I will repeat this point over and over again, it's only really a nerf to IDF playstyle, so basically it's the person's fault if they can't make LRMs work.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 05:26 PM, said:

so lets at least truthfully acknowledge what these changes are. Theyre a nerf to LRMs. Because the entire role of LRMs in MWO can be summed up as twofold: long range and IDF. And these changes dont make LRMs better at either of those two things.

No they aren't, they are a nerf to a certain playstyle that we actually frown upon because it allows people to lazily leech off the team, but a buff to another that we actually encourage because it actually contributes better for the team.

The effective IDF restricted with use of TAG or NARC, which usually comes from spotting build, allows the power to shift to DF use, without making IDF incredibly more OP than it is now with adequate teamwork to back it up.

LRMs being powerful at DF means they could hold their own, and weaker at IDF unless with NARC or TAG means forced used for IDF and thereby necessitate spotting builds that have understood implications of "Hold Locks Plz" that isn't glaringly stupid, that if they ever bring NARC-TAG as a spotter it's sure that there's teamwork at play to actually make IDF effective than simply wishing for the best.

It's basically like MW:LL necessitating NARC for IDFing which is a good way of balancing LRMs - you want effective IDF? bring TAG-NARC. You can hide behind the "LRMs is for IDF" mentality all you like, I hope you sleep at night, but it all ever just pushed the game at an unhealthy direction.

Unfortunately, you are too thick and narrow-minded to understand.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 February 2019 - 07:51 PM.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 18 February 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Not exactly the point of the changes.

It's to make LRMs actually decent, not just some joke the lot of us laugh at.



Wrong, again. Buff is about it's standing, so if LRMs being capable of carrying it's own weight, to contribute to the team much better -- as it was tested and demonstrated in the PTS, that is a buff.

I will repeat this point over and over again, it's only really a nerf to IDF playstyle, so basically it's the person's fault if they can't make LRMs work.



No they aren't, they are a nerf to a certain playstyle that we actually frown upon because it allows people to lazily leech off the team, but a buff to another that we actually encourage because it actually contributes better for the team.

The effective IDF restricted with use of TAG or NARC, which usually comes from spotting build, allows the power to shift to DF use, without making IDF incredibly more OP than it is now with adequate teamwork to back it up.

LRMs being powerful at DF means they could hold their own, and weaker at IDF unless with NARC or TAG means forced used for IDF and thereby necessitate spotting builds that have understood implications of "Hold Locks Plz" that isn't glaringly stupid, that if they ever bring NARC-TAG as a spotter it's sure that there's teamwork at play to actually make IDF effective than simply wishing for the best.

It's basically like MW:LL necessitating NARC for IDFing which is a good way of balancing LRMs - you want effective IDF? bring TAG-NARC. You can hide behind the "LRMs is for IDF" mentality all you like, I hope you sleep at night, but it all ever just pushed the game at an unhealthy direction.

Unfortunately, you are too thick and narrow-minded to understand.

I wonder what people would feel like if saaaay, Gauss suddenly got much better crit, damage and charge length if fired in sub 200 meters, to promote the frontline brawling playstyle and got screen shake and nerfs to crits, damage and charge to nerf the sniper playstlye.. how many people would rage about that?

And then when they rage, they would get told they are too thick and narrow-minded to understand..

Go ahead and buff DF LRMs, but don't mess with the IDF nature of the weapon.

And don't be a **** about it either.

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 February 2019 - 01:04 AM.

[Dogstar]

Spheroid, on 17 February 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

You clearly don't understand the nature of these proposed changes.

To be fair 6th doesn't really understand this game all that well in the first case

[Acersecomic]

Death to LRMs! Nerf them into the grave!

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 19 February 2019 - 01:03 AM, said:

I wonder what people would feel like if saaaay, Gauss suddenly got much better crit, damage and charge length if fired in sub 200 meters, to promote the frontline brawling playstyle and got screen shake and nerfs to crits, damage and charge to nerf the sniper playstlye.. how many people would rage about that?

And then when they rage, they would get told they are too thick and narrow-minded to understand.

You do realize that Khobai is arguing that LRMs are ultimately a nerf right? That it's objectively nothing but a nerf, because he's assuming that the ONLY use for LRMs is the IDF playstyle. I acknowledged that it's a nerf to IDF playstyle, but a buff to DF playstyle -- because I acknowledge that there are the play-styles existing to begin with and somehow, you do too as per your later statements. You are quite literally inserting yourself to an argument you don't understand the context.

Outrage isn't really relevant in our conversation.

But okay, let me take a crack on your point.

Is the Sniper playstyle of Gauss problematic like the IDF of LRM is problematic? Say is Gauss just as unreliable as LRM in IDF is? That in coordinated groups, LRMs are borderline OP and aren't fun to go up against? (See TheB33f's Maximum-LRM)

No on all three. Your argument falls apart because there's the need of change for the LRMs, while there isn't to Gauss cause it works fine. Almost as bad as equating AC2s to LRMs.

Vellron2005, on 19 February 2019 - 01:03 AM, said:

Go ahead and buff DF LRMs, but don't mess with the IDF nature of the weapon.

Restricting effective IDF use through NARC and TAG is a great idea, much like the approach on MW:LL, which means LRMs at IDF could be powerful because there's another hoop in the mix, and you don't have to second-guess the reliability of the target-lock because the spotter is built-in for it. I'd rather have the IDF tweaked so LRMs aren't laughable.

PGI has been preventing certain playstyles from being too effective before, like the 2x Gauss + 2x PPC due to Gauss-PPC GH link, why would this be any different? Guess what, you still basically have your IDF, it'll still be pretty damn effective when you got a dedicated team for it, just bring NARC or TAG.

You like not exposing yourself while attacking, sure, you are entitled to what you want, but if it's not as risky as other builds, why should it be that rewarding? As for the actual numbers, I have stated it time and time again, I would have preferred the lock-speed IDF penalty turned into DF bonus. The spread for IDF should be the current live spread, and the DF spread is at least 25% less of it.

Vellron2005, on 19 February 2019 - 01:03 AM, said:

And don't be a **** about it either.

Don't mistake my harshness for being a ****. But just because of that, I'm going to be a **** about it.

CLAN SMOKE JAGUAR ARE *******

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 February 2019 - 10:21 PM.

[Battlemaster56]

Papaspud, on 18 February 2019 - 04:15 PM, said:

Hmmm, looking at my choices as an IS player.... there aren't any ATM options to be had......

MRM's.

I don't know if it blatant stupidity, ignorance, or what for someone to not know a weapon system like this, espically one that really good.

[The6thMessenger]

Battlemaster56, on 19 February 2019 - 04:53 AM, said:

MRM's.

I don't know if it blatant stupidity, ignorance, or what for someone to not know a weapon system like this, espically one that really good.

It's not an ATM though, and its not like IS-LRMs would be encroaching on the role of MRMs, unlike C-LRMs encroaching on the role of ATM.

[m]

Spheroid, on 17 February 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

...
High trajectory is one best features of lurms. Taking that away in no way buffs them. ...

A higher arch will allow for the target to have the missiles fall on their shoulders rather than strike the upper-side of their shoulders at an angle, while having the LRM boat behind relative cover more-so than before. Getting cover from the missiles will definitely be different also. Travel time to a target should be different (slower) as well unless they also increase missile speed.


As for "lurm-ageddon", I personally don't care if there is a temporary "lrum-ageddon". Would be like old times where people actually played missile boats. Just as long as it doesn't last forever if this patch does come to pass...which we all know it won't last forever.

[Battlemaster56]

The6thMessenger, on 19 February 2019 - 05:06 AM, said:

It's not an ATM though, and its not like IS-LRMs would be encroaching on the role of MRMs, unlike C-LRMs encroaching on the role of ATM.

High damage missile weapon that strong in mid to short range only thing is one does't require lock while the other do. And also yeah when asking for a change like DF you gonna step on the toes of other weapons, but it become apparent now because the change gonna be implemented, and no one thought hey x is gonna be doing the same thing as y.

But hey gonna see how they try to make one more distinct from another in mid range now(probably for the worst).

[Prototelis]

"IDF playstyle" must stand for "I don't give a **** about actually contributing"

Edited by Prototelis, 20 February 2019 - 10:14 AM.

[Wild Pegasus]

m, on 19 February 2019 - 05:14 AM, said:

As for "lurm-ageddon", I personally don't care if there is a temporary "lrum-ageddon". Would be like old times where people actually played missile boats. Just as long as it doesn't last forever if this patch does come to pass...which we all know it won't last forever.

I think it's going to be overshadowed by Whammygeddon for the next few days least, until people get bored of their new shiny and everyone else stops running for their own assaults out of fear of being facerolled by the sheer overload of them that's occuring right now.

Edit: Disregard, I thought they were making the change in this current patch.

Edited by Wild Pegasus, 19 February 2019 - 12:19 PM.