274 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

It's clear from the Steam player data, the wait times in the queues, and the failed matchmaking, that gaining new players, and retaining players are the two biggest issues confronting MWO.

In my opinion, PGI continue to buff LRMs because they are traditionally the weapon system used by new and less-skilled players. Many new and relatively unskilled players rely on them to do enough damage be able to earn the XP and C-Bills necessary to level their Mechs.

PGI's logic seems to be: "Let's keep buffing the weapon system - LRMs - most used by most new players. That way we can gain new players and retain them in the game."

However:

As LRMs grow in usage and effectiveness, more and more matches devolve into stagnant engagements where massed LRM boats on both sides are forced to hide and wait out the massed incoming missiles. It's not "fun". It's not creating the engaging kind of game that folks will want to play for a long time. I'm not confident that new players will hang around for a game like this.

Worse, many old hands and long-time dedicated supporters of MWO are heartily tired of LRM-fests. Even taking ECM and AMS, the unengaging gameplay of having to focus most of all on staying out of the missile rain is simply less fun than alternative playstyles including brawling, sniping, backstabbing etc.

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

Edited by Appogee, 03 March 2019 - 05:27 PM.

[El Bandito]

I think the original idea was to buff only LRM direct fire. As usual they botched it up.

[The6thMessenger]

El Bandito, on 03 March 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think the original idea was to buff only LRM direct fire. As usual they botched it up.

THIS^

Although, if LRMs were just properly made in the first place -- as in mechanically -- we wouldn't be in this mess. With LRM's I mean.

Of course we still have that stigma of Homing Weapons, the need for it to be weak because it's self-aiming. Never mind the fact that there's has to be constant lock and aiming because of it, so realistically, if you already have good aim you're just handicapping yourself with a slower projectile, and spread damage.

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

25-degree lock-cone isn't what I would call "Noob-Friendly", in fact it is a step towards a lot more precise aiming than before which is more detrimental to new players.

If they retained the 45-degree lock-cone, the IDF-use could have still set up as weak which wouldn't have been an issue, but the difference is the LOS use which would have at least garnered interest of experienced players, because it's one way to use LRMs with better results. Lock-cone-nerf not necessary.

Having LRMs kinda weak but a true "easy-weapon" would have been better than an "easier-weapon" but with more bite. Now we just got an "easier-weapon" but still ain't competitive, resulting to new players having difficulty in getting with the game, yet it's still not as competitive as actual weapons used in higher-skill environment.

[Appogee]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

25-degree lock-cone isn't what I would call "Noob-Friendly", in fact it is a step towards a lot more precise aiming than before which is more detrimental to new players.

Really...? I struggle to believe that anyone who is not physically handicapped could find it even mildly difficult to keep the big red reticle in the big red target box. Even with a joystick.

El Bandito, on 03 March 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think the original idea was to buff only LRM direct fire. As usual they botched it up.

I am suggesting that the even more original idea - which has now driven several buffs to LRMs - was to buff the easiest weapon system in order to attract and retain new and unskilled players.

So their decision to buff indirect LRMs isn't a 'botch'. It's a further step in a deliberate strategy.

The 'botch' is that buffed LRMs may tank the playerbase further, not increase it.

Edited by Appogee, 03 March 2019 - 06:16 PM.

[crazytimes]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

Really...? I struggle to believe that anyone who is not physically handicapped could find it even mildly difficult to keep the big red reticle in the big red target box.

There may be a lot of much older and less able people playing than you think. MWO is at about the upper limit of what I can play speed and reflex wise.

If that upsets you then you can show me on the doll where it touches you.

[GeminiWolf]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

It's clear from the Steam player data, the wait times in the queues, and the failed matchmaking, that gaining new players, and retaining players are the two biggest issues confronting MWO.

In my opinion, PGI continue to buff LRMs because they are traditionally the weapon system used by new and less-skilled players. Many new and relatively unskilled players rely on them to do enough damage be able to earn the XP and C-Bills necessary to level their Mechs.

PGI's logic seems to be: "Let's keep buffing the weapon system - LRMs - most used by most new players. That way we can gain new players and retain them in the game."

However:

As LRMs grow in usage and effectiveness, more and more matches devolve into stagnant engagements where massed LRM boats on both sides are forced to hide and wait out the massed incoming missiles. It's not "fun". It's not creating the engaging kind of game that folks will want to play for a long time. I'm not confident that new players will hang around for a game like this.

Worse, many old hands and long-time dedicated supporters of MWO are heartily tired of LRM-fests. Even taking ECM and AMS, the unengaging gameplay of having to focus most of all on staying out of the missile rain is simply less fun than alternative playstyles including brawling, sniping, backstabbing etc.

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

Already walked away to play something fun...but you all keep enjoying the "dynamic" mech balance changes as you all so defended when I posted a request for PGI to leave it alone. Appogee you are correct in what you say but the White Knights will flood your post.

[The6thMessenger]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

Really...? I struggle to believe that anyone who is not physically handicapped could find it even mildly difficult to keep the big red reticle in the big red target box. Even with a joystick.

Meanwhile, we actually see noobs who are terrible at aiming, yet you quite literally cannot even? You expect too much of them.

They are noobs, new players, we cannot reasonably expect them to just get on our level. Simmilarly there's different machines of different capabilities, such as people playing 30 FPS and below. And there are also actual handicapped people, they do exist BTW.

I'd rather they keep LRMs and other homing weapons as the easy-weapon they are supposed to be, LRMs already have that incoming dual-arc feature, just keep IDF borderline-useless without NARC-TAG support, and make LOS kinda decent. No need to make LRMs that harder to use.

[Appogee]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

You expect too much of them. They are noobs, new players, we cannot reasonably expect them to just get on our level.

But there's almost no 'level' for them to be on. I mean, it takes less hand-eye coordination to keep an LRM reticle in a target box than it does to position a cursor in a block of text in Microsoft Word.

Handicapped people - fine, they deserve all the help we can give them. But you're not suggesting that PGI are balancing MWO on the basis of meeting the needs of handicapped people, are you?

Edited by Appogee, 03 March 2019 - 08:03 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

But there's almost no 'level' for them to be on. I mean, it takes less hand-eye coordination to keep an LRM reticle in a target box than it does to position a cursor in a block of text in Microsoft Word.

Do i really need to point out the different factors at play with MS Word and MWO? Such as one is actively trying to retain aim at an opponent? Another is a line of text that doesn't move, which you practically have all the time in the world which has less pressure to do?


Unless you got a boss or a job pressuring you, but still it's far easier than tracking different targets actively, than on a static plane just filled with texts.

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

Handicapped people - fine, they deserve all the help we can give them. But you're not suggesting that PGI are balancing MWO on the basis of meeting the needs of handicapped people, are you? (Witness: ongoing absence of colour-blind mode.)

No I am not. However I am merely poking holes in your thoughts. There's also "color blind reticle", which is something (not a big thing, but it IS something).

[Prototelis]

The original idea was to nuke the **** out of IDF because there aren't considerable drawbacks.

All they literally had to do was make IDF function as a cone of fire instead of bone homing.

[Appogee]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2019 - 07:48 PM, said:

There's also "color blind reticle", which is something (not a big thing, but it IS something).

They finally did that? Then they are to be commended for it. I will fix my earlier response to reflect it.

[MrMadguy]

ATMs should be buffed then, cuz LRM will take their niche, but will be much more effective. ATMs will not worth their tonnage, if LRMs will be buffed this way.

My opinion - it's another change just for the sake of change. There was a time in the past, when LRMs were so overnefed, that I replaced them by SRMs on all my 'Mechs, despite of fact, that this weapon is more suitable for Light and Medium 'Mechs. They're cheap, lights, don't take many slots and of course effective at short-range - the best variant for Light. There wasn't that MRM middle ground for Heavies and Assaults. Then, when PGI needed to sell Archer, LRMs were overbuffed and I replaced all SRMs by LRMs. Then MRMs were implemented (IS only), that are the most suitable weapon for Heavy and Assault 'Mechs. All SRMs/LRMs were replaced by MRMs then. For Clans ATMs aren't that effective, as MRMs, cuz they're extremely overweighted. And now PGI think, that I will replace all my missiles by LRMs again, cuz they will be the most effective again? No way, you know. I've got sick of all this balance shaking just for the sake of milking CBs from me.

[Jyrox]

I don't think this is a balanced view, but more gripe, if you'll excuse me...and I do mean that sincerely,

Take these videos...and then I'll explain...







Now, what you are seeing in MWO is LRM's appear to be OP, but the data is held by erm, MWO, and well, they did give us that stupid fish micro-laser mech, but over-all, money aside, which is important to them, are LRM's really that OP...

YES YOU ***! I hear you cry...

But no...they appear that way...

The best weapon on the battlefield is actually, ahem, the small pulse laser (do the math)

I'm nasty to my lover, because my love is nasty to me...is not a frigging rational train of thought (think about it)

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 03 March 2019 - 08:02 PM, said:

The original idea was to nuke the **** out of IDF because there aren't considerable drawbacks.

All they literally had to do was make IDF function as a cone of fire instead of bone homing.

Pretty sure that LRMs right now actually follow a COF.

And now that the LOS and IDF performance could be differentiated, I hardly see the point of much of the nerfs that was given for LRMs for IDF use.

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 08:03 PM, said:

They finally did that? Then they are to be commended for it. I will fix my earlier response to reflect it.

Not really big. It's really just the damage visual indicator, as opposed of simply pulsating red when you're hitting something, it also adds either arrows or lines around the reticle.

[Kroete]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

Really...? I struggle to believe that anyone who is not physically handicapped could find it even mildly difficult to keep the big red reticle in the big red target box. Even with a joystick.

It was more about how much can you go away from the targertcenter without losing you lock to bend your missiles around or above an obstacle or how much can you bend donw to get a few more meter and still hit the enemy under crimison or hpg.

The conenerf only hit lockweapon users under 200m and bending (up to 300m, over that bending did not work well, because to much correction of the path by the missile), but at 900m you notice no change.

LRMs were ok (10-15% speed and nothing more were needed),
until they startet all the buffing and nerfing.
And they started with indirect buffs and direct nerfs ...

Should i mention that the low flightpath for direct fire is another automatic implemented after they nerfed the skill-option with bending (only difference, you get a few more meters to hit enemys under something (How often does this situation happen?) but cant bend your missiles around or above some obstacles anymore).

The people want more skill for lrms and the same people cheered for the indirect buffs and direct nerfs. They want lrm users up front but cheered for a nerf to the cone who forced lrms users to stay futher away, they cheered for the artemis nerf making direct lrms use more worse because locktimenerf.

And now they cheer again for buffs how give some of the old options back,
but automated, with less tons, with no skill use and less tactical options.

But in the age of the orange clown, nothing is stupid anymore.

Prototelis, on 03 March 2019 - 08:02 PM, said:

The original idea was to nuke the **** out of IDF because there aren't considerable drawbacks.

All they literally had to do was make IDF function as a cone of fire instead of bone homing.

Simple xml-edit:
More spread for all missiles,
more spread reduction from tag, artemis, narc.
Maybe a little too simple?

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

LRMs got boring,
now you can only hold the circle over the cross and press fire,
not much options left to control the flightpath at least a little.
They got as boring then lasers for me.

Not much nerfs for indirect, the ammo buff still outwights them (quantity over quality).
And the dual arc makes then even more easier,
no need to find the right distance and no need to bend to use them under something.

All these changes made lrms a lot easier and boring and removed the last bit of skill.

Edited by Kroete, 04 March 2019 - 12:38 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave.
What is your view?

I don't know about Loyal, experienced players and don't want to speak for them but as a new player myself, (started around the middle of October last year), I played until the end of December and then, only ever log in occasionally to fool around in the testing ground and log off in under 20 mins.

While installing MWO, I bought the Solaris 7 pack. Started with the Revenant as my first ever mech. I got bored and ended up dueling with others with my MPLs. After it was skilled, I moved to the following mechs... Javelin 11F, Ares, Bounty Hunter, Kraken and a few mechs in between like the Urbie Street Cleaner, Cipher, Hellbringer, etc., I had the most fun while playing as a frontline leader in the Kraken (MRM 60 + AC20). Bought quite a bit of MC during the sales and bought some mechs and so on. But overall, I haven't found the need to play a match anymore. I just haven't had any inclination to come home from work and pilot my big, stompy mech 'cause for far too often, I had dealt with LRM assaults and just really bad match-making experience. To be frank, I don't have much time to play games anyhow but whatever time I do spend, isn't by playing MWO. It's sad, really.

So, yes, in short, I can say that "New players get bored and leave quickly" is extremely accurate from my p.o.v.

[Vellron2005]

If you ask me, the original idea was simply to lower the trajectory arc when the target is in LOS..

That was all.. no buffs, no nerfs.. just to make LRMs useful on brawly maps like Solaris or HPG..

Then the vocal minority went and did it's thing.. and now we have buffs and nerfs and all the things in between..

I don't really understand why people are calling LRMpocalypse?

Things aren't gonna change that much..

People who used to play IDF LRMs will keep doing so. People who played ATMs, might switch to LRMs, but that's unlikely,because ATMs will still be superior close in..

Sure there will be a week or two where people will be trying the new LRMs, and after that, it will be business as usual..

If some of the "more prominent" players leave the game, it won't be because people have suddenly started playing LRMs.. and such meta shifts are no different than Gauss+PPC, or SRM bombing, or high alpha laservomit..

If you're tired of the game, that's the reason.. not lrms.. not meta shift.. not nerfs or buffs..

Edited by Vellron2005, 04 March 2019 - 01:42 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

What is your view?

That non-stop “balance passes”, which have nothing to do with balance (what was meta a year ago? Is it still?), have done more to hurt player retention (new and old) than any other aspect of the game. This latest focus on LRMs is just more of the same misguided nonsense. Old players want content, and new players want understanding so they can play the damn game reasonably competently. PGI has not done anything to further these two aspects of the game since the last map and the introduction of the academy respectively. More ****ing “balance” will not change that.

[Asym]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

I, to this day, still find this discussion interesting. Here we have the least effective weapon in the game having some of the most effective players in the game spooked enough to want to ban a weapon system...... Interesting, isn't it.

To make matters worse, the least effective weapon in the game has the most available, direct counter systems available ! And, a lot of the time, they simply aren't used !!! And then, those veteran players complain, and whine and confront and threaten to leave. All the while, those very same players have three complete game modes to themselves (Solaris, Faction Play and Group play) and those venues are just about vacant out side of prime time???? Want to guess why: because your modes of play have been rejected and a great number of players left because of it !!!

Without new players there is no game. And, this is one of the worst new player experiences I've ever seen and getting worse when MW5 drops. I've actually tested the game with college ages players and I've reported over the years what they said... They find the game, at it's highest levels, boring. The IP is great but, the game play is stuck between goals and since it is stuck in the middle, it achieves neither purpose.... It can't be an arcade FPS and a team game at the same time..... Solaris is a fail because the team members don't like being on their own and Faction Play is a fail because individual players and the teams themselves made that mode of play toxic......toxic as in "too extreme"'.....

Well OP, I guess I could use the standard cliches: don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out or get GuD Sparky.......so, I won't......they are just rude anyway. We need to keep everyone we can. So, ignore them (LRM's), everyone else does and just play the game your way. After all, it is just a game and not to be taken seriously. !!!

[The6thMessenger]

Asym, on 04 March 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

I, to this day, still find this discussion interesting. Here we have the least effective weapon in the game having some of the most effective players in the game spooked enough to want to ban a weapon system...... Interesting, isn't it.

Well, I kinda notice the stigma of homing weapons too. And that "Incoming Missiles" that slow the game, because they have to take cover, it's like they are afraid of taking cover. PPCs and lasers don't warn you, and you do near incognito damage with them, why would "incoming missiles" that actually gives you a chance to take cover is worse? I wonder what will happen if we took away that "incoming missiles".

It has been said that homing, or basically self-aiming weapons shouldn't be competitive to DF weapons, and you know what, sure. But so far all I just heard it time after time, they justify nerfs after nerfs, like they want to nerf homing-missiles to the ground and never be viable in the first place.

They already admitted that the lock-cone nerf barely did anything, so what's the point of it in the first place? "Shouldn't be competitive to aimed weapons?" As if an additional 20-degrees would make homing weapons more competitive, it's not like LRMs were competitive pre-nerf -- streaks maybe. This mantra, this dogma really, it's too elitist for my taste.