183 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

I just find the ball coming out of left field suddenly about Gauss and stuff, when I don't recall anyone here (recently) mentioning those weapons at all. Was kind of bizarre.

I don't know what is happening here. I was thinking maybe it was a miscommunication or something, so for the moment I would like to give the benefit of the doubt as to what and why things are happening.

[Recal7]

The Lurm damage is too damn low now.

[Tesunie]

Recal7, on 26 December 2023 - 09:41 AM, said:

The Lurm damage is too damn low now.

Either that, or maybe to spread out, homing strength not strong enough, velocity not high enough, missiles not maneuverable enough... More to LRMs than just solid damage, and it needs to be balanced between direct fire and it's ability to indirect fire, with it's homing ability (similar to SSRMs vs SRMs)...

[Void Angel]

A major part of the difficulty in balancing LRMs and ATMs is their indirect capability. Removing it will probably make a lot of people mad, but I don't see a way to make them satisfying and balanced to use otherwise. If direct-fire functionality is on par with other weapons, its capacity to go indirect edges other options out. If indirect fire is on par with other weapons, the ability to fire indirect edges other options out. The only way to balance LRMs - the only possible way - is to find a trade-off point between direct and indirect modes - but that point is moving based on player behaviors and builds.

LRMs are hard to do.

[ambosen]

Void Angel, on 26 December 2023 - 02:16 PM, said:

A major part of the difficulty in balancing LRMs and ATMs is their indirect capability.

And there's the first problem with any proposed nerf to LRM's or ATM's. There's only one indirect fire capable weapon type left in this game, and any attempt to change it negatively effects the game's play balance as a whole. Even artillery strikes are LOS weapons functionally.

Quote

Removing it will probably make a lot of people mad, but I don't see a way to make them satisfying and balanced to use otherwise.

No offense kid but you aren't arguing for balance to begin with. Noone whining about LRM's is. LRM's and ATM's are already a weapon of situation specific use that has several up front nerfs not applicable to other weapon types. To be rather blunt, PGI significantly buffed MRM's, Rocketr launchers and SRM's while all but functionally crippling the core functionality of LRM's in a bid to please an inherently unpleasable group of people with a specific hate on for one of the most difficult to use effectively to begin with weapons in the game.

They then rather hamfistedly have tried to undo some of the damage in rather hamfisted and problematic ways while simultaneously introducing new buffs to other weapon types and continunig to directly nerf LRM's. Then there are changes which have negatively affected the game as a whole such as removing AMS scoring as well as effectively turning them into weapons that don't ewngage SRM's, MRM's or rocket launchers. Were you even around when they still did?

Quote

If direct-fire functionality is on par with other weapons, its capacity to go indirect edges other options out.

And yet indirect fire capability was significantly weaker in comparrison to other weapons types at launch of the game and has if anything gotten worse. Yet your proposal is to further nerf the core functionality of the weapon type.

Quote

If indirect fire is on par with other weapons, the ability to fire indirect edges other options out.

There are no other functional indirect weapon fire types in the game. That's the whole point of having LRM's. There's no mech mortars, or mech mounted artillery pieces, or ARROW IV missile platforms as exist in the tabletop.

Any attempt to negate the indirect fire capability of the LRM's or ATM's which already fulfill the proposed role you suggest later in your post negatively effects one of the few weapon types capable of doing something very important in this game: flushing enemy mechs from cover and disrupting team cohesion. Without this mechanic, which you and many others keep trying to nerf, games inevitably end up in tonnage and armor value contests between mechs peaking briefly out of cover.

This role of flushing enemy mechs out of cover is also coincidentally the same role many light and medium mechs were intended for, but thanks to constant attempts to buff and nerf various weapon types, mech chassis ect has fallen by the wayside as well. PGI has directly negated the primary role of multiple ways to deal with an existing problem in this game, and why?

Because a bunch of people who prefer not to risk getting damaged complain about one of the few ways the game has previously had to get thm to actually play the game.

Quote

The only way to balance LRMs - the only possible way - is to find a trade-off point between direct and indirect modes - but that point is moving based on player behaviors and builds.

And there it is again. The fundamental problem with the vast majority of balance arguments for games period. The idea that things have somehow changed so fundamentally some big drastic change has to be made to fix the issue, instead of letting solutions develop organically.

Quote

LRMs are hard to do.

Helps a whole lot if people are actually willing to look at weapons, support systems, mechs and more based off of their actual role in the game. A large part of PGI, the cauldron and playerbase's as a whole's failings are they not even pretending to look at the role of weapons, support systems mechs ect in general, within the context of how their lack or substantial nerfs or changes to game mechanics negatively affects the game, by significantly altering or completely negating the existing game role of all of the above.

The fundamental problem with suggestions to nerf or otherwise alter LRM's is that the people doing so are not actually doing that. If they had, they'd have noticed the role of everything they're trying to change and how trying to change that role inevitably creates fundamental problems with gameplay as a whole.

[Nunspa]

Wait AMS does not work against MRM or SRM? I came back after taking a LONG *** time off... when did that happen and who's bright idea was that? makes zero sense. ::grumbles:::

so as an old school player coming back.. LRMs totally and completely suck now, I can go though an entire match maybe getting one or two locks that barely last long enough to get birds in the sky.

They should add some functionality to UAV's that speed up lock time once one is in the air or something like that. I have stripped LRMs off almost all my mechs and replaced them with MRMs....it feels unless you have a NARC runner or someone with tag there is no point.

[Tesunie]

Nunspa, on 26 February 2024 - 05:39 AM, said:

Wait AMS does not work against MRM or SRM? I came back after taking a LONG *** time off... when did that happen and who's bright idea was that? makes zero sense. ::grumbles:::

As far as I last knew, AMS works on ANY missile, but is most effective against LRM/ATMs due to reaction time/distance. Either that, or I am slightly confused and it only works on any form of lock on missiles.

I don't think AMS's core abilities (what it works against) has ever been changed since it's inception. Ammo, damage, reaction speeds, etc have been changed though, the more physical parameters.

[Void Angel]

Nunspa, on 26 February 2024 - 05:39 AM, said:

Wait AMS does not work against MRM or SRM? I came back after taking a LONG *** time off... when did that happen and who's bright idea was that? makes zero sense. ::grumbles:::

so as an old school player coming back.. LRMs totally and completely suck now, I can go though an entire match maybe getting one or two locks that barely last long enough to get birds in the sky.

They should add some functionality to UAV's that speed up lock time once one is in the air or something like that. I have stripped LRMs off almost all my mechs and replaced them with MRMs....it feels unless you have a NARC runner or someone with tag there is no point.

Tesunie, on 26 February 2024 - 07:17 AM, said:

As far as I last knew, AMS works on ANY missile, but is most effective against LRM/ATMs due to reaction time/distance. Either that, or I am slightly confused and it only works on any form of lock on missiles.

I don't think AMS's core abilities (what it works against) has ever been changed since it's inception. Ammo, damage, reaction speeds, etc have been changed though, the more physical parameters.

AMS does work on any missile, to include SRMs. However, the system is far less effective at downing SRM and MRM missiles because of their faster speeds and higher per-missile health. This has always been true, though certain conditions can increase short-range missile kills. For example, Inner Sphere FW teams during the Clan Invasion found that dual-AMS Lights in a pack - particularly, when running away from their attacker- could largely neutralize the Clan streakboats trying to stop them from swarming the generators.

[ambosen]

Nunspa, on 26 February 2024 - 05:39 AM, said:

Wait AMS does not work against MRM or SRM? I came back after taking a LONG *** time off... when did that happen and who's bright idea was that? makes zero sense. ::grumbles:::

Actually, they never worked against MRM's to begin with. As in, ever. Nor against rocket launchers. This is somewhat based off of the lore for the tabletop setting, where AMS systems require a a signal from an actual targeting system to make it so they can engage missiles. Most SRM's, and all MRM's in setting are dumbfire systems, and thus have no onboard targeting systems to target.

Then again, if Void Angel had played this game at any point post 2019ish, he'd know that. This has been pretty common knowledge, with literal videos on youtube demonstrating these missile behaviors for almost 6 years now.

There was a brief time where AMS systems would try to engage MRM's and SRM's but that was a not a popular change with the SRM or MRM missile boat crowd for numerous reasons, and they literally had the actual tabletop game lore to point to as a reason why LRM's should be priority or sole targets since in universe, all LRM's have at least some level of guidance signal being broadcast between them and the targeting mech, unlike the majority of SRM's and *ALL* MRM's which again, are dumbfire only. Streak or Artemis guided SRM's in comparison could in fact be targeted initially as they explicitly had vulnerability in table top game lore. But the devs for whatever reason included them in the blanket AMS systems won't engage ruleset they made clear back in 2020. Which is one reason why MRM's and SRM's got so popular. They specifically bypass AMS by design in the game as of about 6 years ago to the present.

Coincidentally the velocity and typical engagement distances both of of MRM's and SRM's is so much faster and at closer range then LRM's there really wasn't any point trying to make them engage the missiles using the behavioral rules for targeting LRM's as the majority if not all would get through largely unscathed to begin with anyways. Essentially, to have the kind of effect on SRM's and MRM's you'd need AMS systems to have multiple interception rules for variant of missile they were targeting where they could fire a lot faster or do more damage to missiles fired up close, ideally both. This would've meant you'd end up in a situation where a mech would do quantifiably more damage to SRM's and MRM's, and then for once the crowd of perpetually demanding continual nerfs to LRM's mioght have for once had a point despite themselves.

[redacted]

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 20 March 2024 - 11:20 PM.

[Tesunie]

[Redacted]

As for my last knowledge, last I knew SSRMs, LRMs, ATMs and SRMs all had AMS trigger against them. With this knowledge, I would probably go out on a limb and guess that AMS also triggers on MRMs. However, with the above stated, I will mention here that AMS normally didn't trigger against SRMs (and SSRMs to some extent), and due to missile health and the short distance for missile flight, because AMS was left with very little time to react to said missiles. I will also comment now, before being called out for "being wrong", my information could be out of date as I know they have made a lot of changes. As I said before, I try to stay informed and up to date. I read every patch note, but that doesn't mean I recall it all perfectly.

[Tesunie]

Just wanted to leave this, but didn't want to edit above post besides "for clerical issues" such as grammar and stuff...

https://leaderboard....el%0D%0ATesunie

According to Jarl's, and this isn't indicative of knowledge or correctness exactly, but...

Void Angel has played more matches for the life of his account than you, has a better average match score per match than both of us, and has remained fairly active even to this day. Even you have missed months of play here or there, just like he has. Void has even manged to make it to the top 98% of players a few months here or there, and averages as a lifetime top 84% of players. (This means he is considered better on average than 84% of players for the lifetime of active players game play.) His average match score lifetime is 262 per match.

I am counted as "retired", but have played about as many matches lifetime as the two of you combined as of Jarl's last updating (which doesn't include data from before the Jarl's started, such as Open Beta period). I have hit top 80% of players for several months. If my average top percentile was shown rather than displayed as "retired", I'd imagine I'd probably be a lifetime average top upper 60% to lower 70% as a guess. Average match score lifetime is standing at 231 per match.

Now, given that you have played fewer matches than both of us, but started more recently, there is a reasonable chance that you might be armed with more recent data, and aren't suffering from "well, I thought it worked like this", "It did, but they changed it back a month ago", "oh, sorry". This game also has a rather steep learning curve, and player skill =/= player technical knowledge.

With that said and out of the way, your current lifetime average sits you in the top 20% of players, meaning you are better than 20% of the players in the game. Your average lifetime match score is 140 per match.


With statistics out of the way, and with no offense, but I'm slightly more inclined to believe that Void Angel has a better grasp on game mechanics than you (or even myself) due to his performance in his matches. This isn't to say he can't be wrong, as we all completely can be. I've noticed your own stats have been improving over time, which is expected. So, I'm not looking at these stats as static lines of data. This doesn't tell me how often you like to experiment with "crazy and wacky mech builds" (my honest issue with my own performance), or "I always play in a 4 man group of friends, and they are all tier 1 players" (AKA: "I've been thrown into the deep end, someone help me!"), etc.


I'm also seriously wondering how Jarl's List figures out Top Percentages. You've never been above 17% of players, but your lifetime average is 20%? But, once again, we've all had to start somewhere. I probably wouldn't want to know my averages during most of Open Beta...

[Void Angel]

Jarl's rankings are based on their adjusted score, I think. The discrepancy between average score and overall ranking is probably due to player churn somehow. If they're comparing your average adjusted scoring against their total dataset, that might explain the discrepancy.

[Redacted]

Case in point for making up nonsense: AMS attacks missiles, all missiles. It prioritizes those locked onto you first, if I recall correctly, but It will still take chunks out of any missile that's fired. The effect is often negligible with SRMs and MRMs at close range because of their higher missile health and velocity, but it still happens.

Edited by GM Patience, 22 March 2024 - 09:07 AM.
Name and Shame

[Void Angel]

Similarly AMS in Battletech also affects any missiles, so I'm at a loss to what "lore reasons" might have been brought into play by those wicked missile enthusiasts. AMS works on all missiles - the only exception being Thunder-FASCAM, and Swarm. AMS even works on NARC beacons.

The main differences between AMS in-game and RAW Tabletop is that the systems can engage volleys targeted against teammates - and that the Clantech version doesn't shoot down twice as many missiles.

[Tesunie]

Void Angel, on 11 March 2024 - 08:58 AM, said:

Jarl's rankings are based on their adjusted score, I think. The discrepancy between average score and overall ranking is probably due to player churn somehow. If they're comparing your average adjusted scoring against their total dataset, that might explain the discrepancy.

It could also be adjusted based upon "active" players. If 5% of players under someone is no longer playing, it might be calculating that into the percentage, making it higher because those players are no longer considered active? My random guess. I mean, for the most part besides as fun numbers to crunch and look at, statistics are normally just meaningless numbers in the end.

[Void Angel]

Right; either case could account for the discrepancy, I think, but I haven't done any math to prove it. =]

[Tesunie]

I actually should have added that AMS also, last I knew, targets NARC projectiles as well... Not saying this hasn't changed since I last knew. Lots of changes to lots of things... (Not trying to poke the bear, but just recalling I didn't mention it.)

[Void Angel]

No, it's almost certainly still correct.

[martian]

AMS targets NARC missiles both in MWO and tabletop BT, although the missile gets through sometimes.

[Tesunie]

martian, on 01 April 2024 - 04:09 AM, said:

AMS targets NARC missiles both in MWO and tabletop BT, although the missile gets through sometimes.

And this is why I highly suspect that AMS targets "all missiles in range, prioritizing missiles locked onto you", rather than "it only targets locking missiles prioritizing missiles locked onto you, and doesn't affect MRMs or SRMs", which was what someone else was saying in this thread.

[martian]

Tesunie, on 01 April 2024 - 06:22 AM, said:

And this is why I highly suspect that AMS targets "all missiles in range, prioritizing missiles locked onto you", rather than "it only targets locking missiles prioritizing missiles locked onto you, and doesn't affect MRMs or SRMs", which was what someone else was saying in this thread.

Of course Anti-missile system engages all missiles in MWO - SRMs, MRMs, LRMs, RLs, etc.