59 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Battlemaster56, on 19 February 2019 - 05:37 AM, said:

High damage missile weapon that strong in mid to short range only thing is one does't require lock while the other do.

Minimum range too.

Battlemaster56, on 19 February 2019 - 05:37 AM, said:

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

There should have been ammo-switching for ATMs, that would solve a lot of issues like having so much damage, and the short-range ability that has long-range vulnerability like the SRMs.

[Phyrce]

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..

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.

Are you literally talking about a change that would make Gauss similar Heavy Gauss for less weight and saying people would rage?

[Grus]

So... how are the lurms?

[The6thMessenger]

Grus, on 19 February 2019 - 03:28 PM, said:

So... how are the lurms?

The PTS changes hasn't been implemented yet.

Phyrce, on 19 February 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

Are you literally talking about a change that would make Gauss similar Heavy Gauss for less weight and saying people would rage?

Khobai and I are having a conversation whether LRMs are buffed or nerfed, and he's making a stand that it's a nerf just because LRMs is only used for IDF which I concluded to be too narrow of a view of LRMs, instead of acknowledging the DF playstyle that would actually mean LRMs now could better contribute to the team.

He's making a point that, there are people don't actually like the LRM IDF nerf, and he tries to frame it in a way which is just basically irrelevant and misses the point of the change. IIRC, just as bad as him equating AC2 to LRMs.

He's basically offended of me calling Khobai out, misunderstanding that I'm actually calling him out for his narrow view of LRMs being only used for IDF ignoring the good the LOS use of LRMs do, instead of calling people out for people feeling strongly for the IDF nerf.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 February 2019 - 10:54 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Phyrce, on 19 February 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

Are you literally talking about a change that would make Gauss similar Heavy Gauss for less weight and saying people would rage?

Would it not be a bad change for Clanners, who don't have access to Heavy Gauss?

I'm trying to illustrate how changing the very essence of a weapon many people like as-is, and then insulting the intelligence of those people who like the weapon as-is, in an effort to get your own agenda through, is simply a toxic **** move.

It never ceases to baffle me how some people take it upon themselves to dictate how other people play, what their builds should be, and what their playstyle should be.

It's toxic, unhealthy behavior, and it needs to stop.

Edited by Vellron2005, 20 February 2019 - 12:32 AM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 19 February 2019 - 10:13 PM, said:

The PTS changes hasn't been implemented yet.



Khobai and I are having a conversation whether LRMs are buffed or nerfed, and he's making a stand that it's a nerf just because LRMs is only used for IDF which I concluded to be too narrow of a view of LRMs, instead of acknowledging the DF playstyle that would actually mean LRMs now could better contribute to the team.

He's making a point that, there are people don't actually like the LRM IDF nerf, and he tries to frame it in a way which is just basically irrelevant and misses the point of the change. IIRC, just as bad as him equating AC2 to LRMs.

He's basically offended of me calling Khobai out, misunderstanding that I'm actually calling him out for his narrow view of LRMs being only used for IDF ignoring the good the LOS use of LRMs do, instead of calling people out for people feeling strongly for the IDF nerf.

I didnt say LRMs should only be used for IDF. I said the primary role of LRMs should be IDF. And that weakening their role at IDF to strengthen their role at DF is the exact opposite of what PGI should be doing to make the weapon system better.

My view of LRMs isnt narrow at all. LRMs can be used as both DF and IDF weapons. But what separates LRMs from other weapons and makes them unique is their ability to IDF. Weakening their ability to IDF only serves to weaken what makes LRMs unique and genericizes the weapon. Thats boring and I disagree with the direction PGI is going in.

LRMs shouldve been made better at what makes them unique. Not worse at it. Furthermore LRMs still dont even live up to their namesake of being long range missiles. Their effective range is laughable compared to actual long range weapons like the ERLL. LRMs only need two things: IDF and long range. Anything else is superfluous and doesnt help the weapon achieve its primary role.

PGI is messing with things that dont need to be messed with. If PGI wants to buff DF on LRMs, thats fine, but they need to leave the IDF alone. Preferably they should find a way to make LRMs more effective at long range instead of trying to make them better at short to medium range. What theyre doing makes NO sense.

Edited by Khobai, 20 February 2019 - 01:35 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 20 February 2019 - 12:31 AM, said:

Would it not be a bad change for Clanners, who don't have access to Heavy Gauss?

The fragile clanners that usually take advantage of their longer-ranged lasers? So in most cases, not really, no.

That being said, again, what warrants the changes? LRMs do have this problematic history, why they get this in the first place, else if they were actually decent, where people aren't ******** on them, you won't see this change. This is not the same case with Gauss.

Vellron2005, on 20 February 2019 - 12:31 AM, said:

I'm trying to illustrate how changing the very essence of a weapon many people like as-is, and then insulting the intelligence of those people who like the weapon as-is, in an effort to get your own agenda through, is simply a toxic **** move.

I wasn't insulting the intelligence of the people who like the weapon as is. I am calling out Khobai, for insinuating that the current change is nothing but a nerf, because he considers the LRMs simply just for IDF, regardless of the fact that the actual changes in testing actually shows promising result that would help the weapon system.

And like I said, he was too thick and narrow-minded to understand with what he seems to imply.

Vellron2005, on 20 February 2019 - 12:31 AM, said:

It never ceases to baffle me how some people take it upon themselves to dictate how other people play, what their builds should be, and what their playstyle should be.

It's toxic, unhealthy behavior, and it needs to stop.

Meanwhile, you still get to actually do your IDF by hiding from behind cover, little of substance is taken away but the lock-speed penalty which I am vocal against.

As for dictating people how to play, where dafuq is my 2x Gauss + 2x PPC without GH link? No? Well here's the thing, certain playstyles aren't entitled to be just as effective as others, such as why should it be even rewarding for people to just launch missiles on the air behind safety, while others who get locks for them are taking a beating?

Khobai, on 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

I didnt say LRMs should only be used for IDF. I said the primary role of LRMs should be IDF. And that weakening their role at IDF to strengthen their role at DF is the exact opposite of what PGI should be doing to make the weapon system better.

My view of LRMs isnt narrow at all. LRMs can be used as both DF and IDF weapons. But what separates LRMs from other weapons and makes them unique is their ability to IDF. Weakening their ability to IDF only serves to weaken what makes LRMs unique and genericizes the weapon. Thats boring and I disagree with the direction PGI is going in.

Oh okay, sure, fine, I guess my mistake.

But guess what, it is still, nonetheless a buff for LRMs within their place in the game. You might disagree with that, but guess what the LRMs in the PTS show promising result, even if somewhat redundant to ATMs. LRM users, if employed at LOS, would have better chances of contributing, of carrying their own weight, of standing on their own.

Don't you just dismiss that.

Khobai, on 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

LRMs shouldve been made better at what makes them unique. Not worse at it.

We've tried that, problem with balancing LRMs as mostly IDF is that you can't make them too powerful, they are already borderline OP against terribads, or with really coordinated teams. Look up TheB33f's Maximum-LRM video.

And because it has to be weak by taking account IDF, it inevitably also has to be weak at DF, which what we see all these years, and it just made LRMs basically the toilet of weapons, because we **** on them.

Khobai, on 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

Furthermore LRMs still dont even live up to their namesake of being long range missiles. Their effective range is laughable compared to actual long range weapons like the ERLL. LRMs only need two things: IDF and long range. Anything else is superfluous and doesnt help the weapon achieve its primary role.

Well, it's going to be MOAR effective at long range now if used with LOS because of the lower trajectory, because of less time to target. So that's something.

Khobai, on 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

PGI is messing with things that dont need to be messed with. If PGI wants to buff DF on LRMs, thats fine, but they need to leave the IDF alone. Preferably they should find a way to make LRMs more effective at long range instead of trying to make them better at short to medium range.

I agree. I really do.

I have been vocal about this, to make the PTS IDF spread and lock-speed that of live, and only give DF bonuses like lock-speed and spread.

Khobai, on 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM, said:

What theyre doing makes NO sense.

Aside the IDF nerf, actually they do make sense. LRMs employed with a proper team, with spotters, it would be borderline op, check out TheB33f's Maximum-LRM, and it's not fun to fight against, so it makes sense to nerf IDF at that way. IDF isn't just effective individual, but also an effective team, it takes two to tango, if you are IDFing you are inevitably cooperating with a spotter, so the power of IDF should be taken in the context of the team, not the individual.

Now consider the context of a shooter game, with a random team that may not be that cohesive, it makes sense to make LRMs more self-sufficient by making DF more powerful, and to achieve that to separate the effectiveness of two facets.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 February 2019 - 02:32 PM.

[JediPanther]

pgi: makes small change to de lurms.
tier 5: Lurmagedon is upon us! Flee! Flee!
tier 4: My atlas needs more ammo/ton.
tier 3: Stealth/ECM mechs every where.
tier 2: Tri-Ams Kfox ***** F***ers!
tier 1: What are lrms? Do you even position brah?

[The6thMessenger]

https://mwomercs.com...nd-change-list/

Somehow they are going to **** this up. I ****** knew it.

They could have just gone with a lower arc for better distinction between time-to-target of different arcs, but no, lets just buff the damn velocity.

And they still double-downing on IDF lock-time penalty -- there's already the smaller Lock-Cone to boot, the time-to-target is already long-enough for IDF use that it prompts closer use which the LRMs were prescriptively for 400m use in the first place, IDF doesn't need any more nerfs than what we already have in live.

Faster LOS lock should have been integrated with range as LOS bonus, than IDF penalty. It makes sense for DF users to get faster lock-on the closer they are, because they're the ones showing their faces and easier to retaliate with.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 27 February 2019 - 07:52 PM.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 27 February 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

And they still double-downing on IDF lock-time penalty

This is literally the only good part of these changes.

Want danger free damage? WAIT for it.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 27 February 2019 - 08:40 PM, said:

This is literally the only good part of these changes.

Want danger free damage? WAIT for it.

Oh sure, but if they are doing that on top of really small lock-cone, that's dumb. They are already simulating a much more precise aiming, and defeats the purpose of locking.

I'm not one for elite aiming skills, you do you. But i'd rather have stompy robots, than basically COD.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 27 February 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

Oh sure, but if they are doing that on top of really small lock-cone, that's dumb. They are already simulating a much more precise aiming, and defeats the purpose of locking.

I'm not one for elite aiming skills, you do you. But i'd rather have stompy robots, than basically COD.

Please. That lockon cone nerf didn't do **** and tracking objects further from the user is easier than up close.

[Mystere]

Prototelis, on 19 February 2019 - 10:47 AM, said:

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

Yes, those IDF-based LURMAGEDDONS were so completely ineffective at contributing to the destruction of the enemy players asked them to be removed.

Phyrce, on 19 February 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

Are you literally talking about a change that would make Gauss similar Heavy Gauss for less weight and saying people would rage?

Psst! Clanners would like to have a word with you.

Edited by Mystere, 27 February 2019 - 11:47 PM.

[Mystere]

Vellron2005, on 20 February 2019 - 12:31 AM, said:

It never ceases to baffle me how some people take it upon themselves to dictate how other people play, what their builds should be, and what their playstyle should be.

It's toxic, unhealthy behavior, and it needs to stop.

But MWO is serious business. It is the apex of high-stakes eSports with a whole lot of generous payouts and industry recognition … Oh, wait!

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2019 - 12:04 AM.

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 27 February 2019 - 11:38 PM, said:

Yes, those IDF-based LURMAGEDDONS were so completely ineffective at contributing to the destruction of the enemy players asked them to be removed.

Depends, are you talking about accidental/bug related lrmaggeddons, or the recent velocity bugg faux lrmageddon?

[Web Death]

I think the only thing the "LRM"ageddon makes me sad for, is the indirect Lock on Nerf that will affect SSRMs and ATMs. It was noticeably longer then live when I tested it.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 27 February 2019 - 09:52 PM, said:

Please. That lockon cone nerf didn't do **** and tracking objects further from the user is easier than up close.

Exactly. If it didn't do ****, why even have it, right? So where is this resistance coming from?

As for easier far-away, wouldn't mean that IDF is actually "harder" up-close? Now if that's the case, why have systems that incentivizes the opposite? You have one system that penalize being close, another penalizes being far away, so what range is LRMs supposed to be used in IDF again?

Perhaps it works to force NARC or TAG with effective IDF, and I could respect that, so I guess the lock-time could be retained, sure. But I'd rather they increase the Lock-Cone to at least 35 (from 25, original was 45), cause you already have a lot of systems that's penalizing the weapon system already.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 February 2019 - 12:38 AM.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 28 February 2019 - 12:30 AM, said:

So where is this resistance coming from?

Auto-aim weapons should not be direct competition to weapons that actually need to be aimed.

Quote

As for easier far-away, wouldn't mean that IDF is actually "harder" up-close?

Marginally. Auto-aim weapons in this game are still the easiest to use in the game. The increased time to lock on IDF+distance is supposed to be incentive to move up where the user has to contribute to health pool in order to maximize damage potential.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 28 February 2019 - 12:40 AM, said:

Auto-aim weapons should not be direct competition to weapons that actually need to be aimed.

Sure, of course. But again, with the small cone, it is, at a degree, simulating good amount of aim anyways that would somewhat defeat the purpose, because you're still aiming it. Being "easy mode" should mean that it has poor performance, but it's not THAT of an "easy-mode" because of it, so the poor-performance isn't exactly justified.

But you already got the need to lock, the slow projectile speed (albeit somewhat remedied by being homing), and quite abhorrent spread that would it alone make it less effective. It has a lot of hoops which makes it less competitive to other DF weapons already. Even if the missiles are homing, it's still unlike lasers that you deal damage immediately and is pin-point if you could steady it. Increase the lock-cone, and you'd still have a weapon that is less effective than other DF weapons.

That being said, the current PTS changes, such as the faster velocity, is a dumb move. I'd rather they put it back at at-least 160 to 175 m/s, with lower LOS arc for better IDF/DF distinction of time-to-target, and THEN increase the ease of use.

Prototelis, on 28 February 2019 - 12:40 AM, said:

Marginally. Auto-aim weapons in this game are still the easiest to use in the game.

"easiest" is just a matter of comparison from references. I would rather have it easier by gaining at least up to 35-degree of lock-cone back.

Prototelis, on 28 February 2019 - 12:40 AM, said:

The increased time to lock on IDF+distance is supposed to be incentive to move up where the user has to contribute to health pool in order to maximize damage potential.

Yes. But again, the problem, you got a lock-cone that is small, which is basically harder up close which, in the end, compromises the incentive to "move up" -- why would they move up if it's harder to retain lock closer right?

That was the point.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 February 2019 - 01:20 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

So having played with lrms for a couple days I gotta say I don't like the direct-fire lower trajectory change. At least in 40% of instances I would have preferred my LRMS to go the higher arc rather than direct. Direct-fire low arc is either causing my missiles to entirely, or at least a significant portion of them, hit terrain. Even if I see just a hair of the enemy, my missiles all fly low right into a wall. IT MAKES NO SENSE. This lrm change was unnecessary and uncalled for. We have ATM's and MRM's if we want this kind of missile play. Did anyone even ask for this change?

PGI, please implement a toggle that allows the user to select what arc he wants his missiles to take.
Thank you.