274 replies to this topic

[Weeny Machine]

While I agree with the OP, I think there is another reason for the wide-spread use of LRMs:
More and more people discover that "bigger is better" fact in MWO. Most lights are either so big (like the 35t mechs) that they get hit easily, lack the agility needed to outmaneuver heavies in close range - or both. The smaller lights are also easily taken care of either by dual heavy gauss or simply by the myriads of lock-on weapons. Also, as soon as a light mech is seen as dangerous and the crying starts on the forum you can be sure it gets nerfed into the ground

The point is: we have more and more matches with maybe 1 light and 2 mediums because aforementioned . The rest consists of heavies and assaults. Heck, it is not uncommon to see 5-6 assaults per team. Against those LRMs are quite effective, especially vs assaults because it is hard for them to get into cover quickly.

[Antares102]

Bush Hopper, on 04 March 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

The point is: we have more and more matches with maybe 1 light and 2 mediums because aforementioned . The rest consists of heavies and assaults. Heck, it is not uncommon to see 5-6 assaults per team. Against those LRMs are quite effective, especially vs assaults because it is hard for them to get into cover quickly.

This is actually something that I also noticed in SoloQ.
Having only 3 assault is a rarity and 5-6 assaults is now common.
And this has been the case before the WHM-IIC dropped.

[R Valentine]

Bush Hopper, on 04 March 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

While I agree with the OP, I think there is another reason for the wide-spread use of LRMs:
More and more people discover that "bigger is better" fact in MWO. Most lights are either so big (like the 35t mechs) that they get hit easily, lack the agility needed to outmaneuver heavies in close range - or both. The smaller lights are also easily taken care of either by dual heavy gauss or simply by the myriads of lock-on weapons. Also, as soon as a light mech is seen as dangerous and the crying starts on the forum you can be sure it gets nerfed into the ground

The point is: we have more and more matches with maybe 1 light and 2 mediums because aforementioned . The rest consists of heavies and assaults. Heck, it is not uncommon to see 5-6 assaults per team. Against those LRMs are quite effective, especially vs assaults because it is hard for them to get into cover quickly.

I don't think lock on weapons or necessarily lights being nerfed is the issue. The issue is that assaults do the most damage, and damage is all MWO cares about. I mean, freakin' duh that the mechs with the most tonnage to spend on guns are going to out damage other classes. That isn't rocket science. But the contributions other mechs have to make aren't reflected in score, and thus c-bill gains. And as far as having 6 or 7 assaults per match, I only started seeing that after the Whammy IIC patch. That hype apparently still hasn't died down yet, as I still kill at least 2 of those mechs per match.

As far as LRMs go, it made zero sense to buff their indirect fire capability with a velocity buff. The fact of the matter is, with the way MWO plays LRMs will never be good at direct fire. It takes too freakin' long for the missiles to travel even with shortened flight paths and you have to get a lock first, which further adds to the initiative deficit. LRMs cannot trade with direct fire and they will never be able to. With as peek heavy as MWO is, it's pointless to try to make them good at it, because you can't do it without making them absurdly good. Indirect fire is fine as is. It's just annoying enough to force you into thicker cover, but not so smothering as to completely overwhelm you if you're out in the open for even a second. Sure, if 3 or 4 LRM mechs get on you its curtains, but that's true for any weapon system. There's a lot of wasted damage with LRMs. I've seen people take LRM 105 and shoot all match and still not break 1,000, because even when you have LOS not every missile hits, and when you don't have LOS you have no idea how many missiles are hitting. It could be 1 out of every 20 for all you know. All the reticle will tell you is that something hit. And of course, all you need to do is get underneath minimum range its curtains. The only real issue is that maps are too specialized and we don't get to tailor our mechs to the map, so LRM pilots will build up their multiplier for Polar Highlands and everyone else will vote for anything but Polar to avoid LRMs. I don't see any good reason why every weapon system shouldn't be viable on every map and no weapon system should be top king on any map, but PGI doesn't see it that way. PGI likes you to play map roulette, then wonders why generalist builds are meta.

[JediPanther]

Lrms are not direct fire. You can use any other weapon and do far more damage and kills than with lrm. I swear pgi just snorts elmers with a shot of bleach and rum before making their 'balance' passes when it comes to lrms. I have only a 30% hit rate with lrms and a 75% hit rate with most of my other weapons yet the worst one gets nerfs.

[Oberst Wilhelm Klink]

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

...that gaining new players, and retaining players are the two biggest issues confronting MWO.

The biggest issue is PGI.

[MechaBattler]

Plenty of deeper issues going on other than LRMs.

[Lances107]

Actually no. LRMS are the issue now, that they dumped there planned velocity buffs on reddit. People are already planning to leave the game, myself included. If matches turn into LRM vrs LRM. There is no point in playing. As the game will have become ******** and stupid. It will become like so many games today, games that require no thinking.

[Lily from animove]

every buff makes the newbie ranks being even more filled with lrm's and crying about them, so a really bad choice.

What it would need is skill involvement, so maybe like:

If you directly fire it, it should aim for the location your mouse is over, and at best only spreads to an location next tot hat one. But this sounds like a lot of hitscan issues. But that way the stupid, spreads damage like useless would turn into a semi accurate weapon.

[Asym]

The6thMessenger, on 04 March 2019 - 04:46 AM, said:

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.

If we got rid of the "incoming missiles" they'd complain that LRM's now are stealth weapons ! I'm not sure some players even realize that COVER means something militarily: i.e. cover and concealment.....

The only people that suggest that (shouldn't be competitive weapons) are the players that can't cope with lethal IDF weapons because they'd actually have to use tactics and not traipse around out in the open or pop-tart.........cause, if they did, that FO would easily spot them and they'd die outside of their effective ranges..... Game over man..........!

Think about why PGI would nerf the least effective weapon in the game:.........the answer is: to appease the veteran players..... Remember, we tried the epic fail e-Sports route and they were crying big alligator tears if IDF weapons were effective...... "how could we fight back" "They aren't fair........" Ever wonder why the old Soviet Union went bonkers with their Artillery? Their RAGs and DAGs are insane to plan against. Or, that the US calls artillery: "The King of Battle..."

Yes, the nerf makes my Huntsman PA a little more difficult to use....... Why did they do that......the very same group complained yet again that "Streaks are un fair, skill less weapons" How bizarre is that? Even with 7 SSRM 4's, it takes a lot of ammo to kill an assault..........what in the world were they afraid of??? The only mechs that are in danger were lights and GoD knows that we don't see PGI getting even involved with the what, 12 mg meta pain in the butt PIRs.... Like they are aiming at 4 meters...........

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

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

What is your view?

My view is that if they should have "fixed" LRMs by removing all of the changes made in 2018. With that done and out of the way, they could have spent the considerable time and resources that have been wasted on the LRMs on a matchmaker that could put together two teams such that the outcome wasn't generally already known at the drop screen.

[K O Z A K]

Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS, on 04 March 2019 - 05:32 PM, said:

considerable time and resources that have been wasted on the LRMs

what if I told you.....changing a few numbers for 8 weapons doesn't actually require considerable time and resources

[GeminiWolf]

Hilarious, I decided to log in for one match last night with my AMS beast. I did 50 dmg and got top match score from LURMs shot down. Sad state of the game really.

[The6thMessenger]

Hazeclaw, on 04 March 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

what if I told you.....changing a few numbers for 8 weapons doesn't actually require considerable time and resources

Changing XML maybe, but coding new missile-targeting system is, especially PGI's track record of poor effort and execution.

GeminiWolf, on 04 March 2019 - 06:14 PM, said:

Hilarious, I decided to log in for one match last night with my AMS beast. I did 50 dmg and got top match score from LURMs shot down. Sad state of the game really.

How is that you're getting dumb lrm matches, while i'm getting poke matches?

Asym, on 04 March 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

If we got rid of the "incoming missiles" they'd complain that LRM's now are stealth weapons ! I'm not sure some players even realize that COVER means something militarily: i.e. cover and concealment.....

Lol, I could see that being terrible. Maybe they should be grateful that homing weapons actually prompt their targets instead of whining how it slows the game.

Asym, on 04 March 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

The only people that suggest that (shouldn't be competitive weapons) are the players that can't cope with lethal IDF weapons because they'd actually have to use tactics and not traipse around out in the open or pop-tart.........cause, if they did, that FO would easily spot them and they'd die outside of their effective ranges..... Game over man..........!

Think about why PGI would nerf the least effective weapon in the game:.........the answer is: to appease the veteran players..... Remember, we tried the epic fail e-Sports route and they were crying big alligator tears if IDF weapons were effective...... "how could we fight back" "They aren't fair........" Ever wonder why the old Soviet Union went bonkers with their Artillery? Their RAGs and DAGs are insane to plan against. Or, that the US calls artillery: "The King of Battle..."

I have nothing to comment about history. As far as I'm concerned, it's all fair in love and war, but this is a game.

I can't really speak for others, but I do think that IDF means an effective team, not just an effective individual, this means it takes for a cooperating team, a properly set up team for IDF to work stellar. I don't agree with lethal IDF by a single individual, but I don't believe it should be utterly useless either.

I do have a nagging suspicion of entitlement for the elites for aiming to be most rewarded, the "muh skeelz" attitude at the back of my mind as if it's all about how they want to play the game, but they do make some good points. But with them just calling one nerf after another without actually evaluating the current state of homing weapons -- which they are already less competitive -- it's coming more and more like a "LRM-Is-OP".

Asym, on 04 March 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

Yes, the nerf makes my Huntsman PA a little more difficult to use....... Why did they do that......the very same group complained yet again that "Streaks are un fair, skill less weapons" How bizarre is that? Even with 7 SSRM 4's, it takes a lot of ammo to kill an assault..........what in the world were they afraid of??? The only mechs that are in danger were lights and GoD knows that we don't see PGI getting even involved with the what, 12 mg meta pain in the butt PIRs.... Like they are aiming at 4 meters...........

To be fair, Streaks ARE one giant weaknesses for little lights that rely on speed, such as the venerable locust or the piranha, or the flea -- basically a lot of mechs that rely on speed. Like I said, i do have this nagging suspicion of entitlement from the elites, but it is meritable to point out that it's quite the hard-counter that would make it less fun for the lights.

That being said, I do think that the lock-cone nerf is overboard. I'd rather they just nerfed the streaks in the first place, like they should have made it stream-fired that would have made it vulnerable for juking, or made it hotter or made it fly slower. The dogma of homing missiles that should be weaker isn't helping, it's only justifying nerf after another without much context, and PGI putting out stupid balancing decisions is making it worse.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 March 2019 - 07:55 PM.

[Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS]

Hazeclaw, on 04 March 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

what if I told you.....changing a few numbers for 8 weapons doesn't actually require considerable time and resources

I guess I would then remind you of the number of test sessions that have taken place, the (obviously ignored) discussions on this forum, twitter, etc., and whatever time it took to copy paste the ATM travel arc to LRMs and the LOS non-LOS coding.

[Besh]

Asym, on 04 March 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

If we got rid of the "incoming missiles" they'd complain that LRM's now are stealth weapons ! I'm not sure some players even realize that COVER means something militarily: i.e. cover and concealment.....

The only people that suggest that (shouldn't be competitive weapons) are the players that can't cope with lethal IDF weapons because they'd actually have to use tactics and not traipse around out in the open or pop-tart.........cause, if they did, that FO would easily spot them and they'd die outside of their effective ranges..... Game over man..........!

Think about why PGI would nerf the least effective weapon in the game:.........the answer is: to appease the veteran players..... Remember, we tried the epic fail e-Sports route and they were crying big alligator tears if IDF weapons were effective...... "how could we fight back" "They aren't fair........" Ever wonder why the old Soviet Union went bonkers with their Artillery? Their RAGs and DAGs are insane to plan against. Or, that the US calls artillery: "The King of Battle..."

Yes, the nerf makes my Huntsman PA a little more difficult to use....... Why did they do that......the very same group complained yet again that "Streaks are un fair, skill less weapons" How bizarre is that? Even with 7 SSRM 4's, it takes a lot of ammo to kill an assault..........what in the world were they afraid of??? The only mechs that are in danger were lights and GoD knows that we don't see PGI getting even involved with the what, 12 mg meta pain in the butt PIRs.... Like they are aiming at 4 meters...........

Imho, the thinking behind "max PPFL dmg., min rear armor" feels a bit threatened by a) IDF b ) SSRMs/SRMs being brutally effective when played well . Both of these can be very dangerous to the playstyle preferred by said school of thinking .

Edited by Besh, 04 March 2019 - 07:46 PM.

[Feral Clown]

I don't get the general attitude that you balance a game around casual players. For a game to be the best it can be, it should be balanced around the best that play it. You don't change the rules for chess to make it easier for kindergarten students, you get them playing the game and learning it properly from the start.

As much as this debate has gone on though, PGI to me looks clearly focused on making the game better and addressing the age old gripe of many players, playing this multiplayer game have, and that is the parasitic playstyle commonly found in game.

So making lrms suck for a guy hiding behind a rock, while making them good for the guy running with his team sounds like the best move regarding lurms I have seen since I started playing.

However what I would really like to see PGI do is make lrms a 'class' and limit the number per side. The over saturation of lurms and atm's degrades gameplay. Back to the chess analogy, it is as if everyone wants to play the queen and variety of game play suffers....it is also why bad players think lights are OP and why a lot of the good players I know right now are running around in lights in solo queue.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 04 March 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

I don't get the general attitude that you balance a game around casual players. For a game to be the best it can be, it should be balanced around the best that play it. You don't change the rules for chess to make it easier for kindergarten students, you get them playing the game and learning it properly from the start.

MWO is a massive departure from chess. It's not like you're fighting people of equal skill all the time, you have to account players of different skills.

But sure, okay, I agree, game should be balanced based on the opinions of the people who best understand the game. However, my concern is how it becomes stagnant because it's mostly tuned as how the try-hards play it, and how they would want to play it, and a result of it is the stigma of homing weapons.

Extra-Credits mentioned FOOS, something I realized is that this is basically just "Meta" --It's the Laser-Vomit. If you're working up your score, or competing, it's only common-sense to use the optimal builds. People just constantly playing either Dakka, or Laser-Vomit -- basically just little variety, is my concern of it being "stagnant".

As for the current LRMs. PGI already paved the way for differentiating LOS and IDF use, they should have just made IDF use rather weak (though not useless) and made LOS use strong. IDF could have been the noob-tube, but the LOS use as the bridge for direct-fire weapons.

Feral Clown, on 04 March 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

As much as this debate has gone on though, PGI to me looks clearly focused on making the game better and addressing the age old gripe of many players, playing this multiplayer game have, and that is the parasitic playstyle commonly found in game.

So making lrms suck for a guy hiding behind a rock, while making them good for the guy running with his team sounds like the best move regarding lurms I have seen since I started playing.

Yes, that's actually quite nice.

Feral Clown, on 04 March 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

However what I would really like to see PGI do is make lrms a 'class' and limit the number per side. The over saturation of lurms and atm's degrades gameplay. Back to the chess analogy, it is as if everyone wants to play the queen and variety of game play suffers....it is also why bad players think lights are OP and why a lot of the good players I know right now are running around in lights in solo queue.

If you're willing to limit LRMs and ATMs, why not other weapons? What about the common laser-vomit of Clans?

"as if everyone wants to play the queen, and variety of game suffers."

What you are asking is a slippery slope, especially when LRMs and ATMs aren't even the worse offender of poor variety.

[Weeny Machine]

Feral Clown, on 04 March 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

I don't get the general attitude that you balance a game around casual players. For a game to be the best it can be, it should be balanced around the best that play it. You don't change the rules for chess to make it easier for kindergarten students, you get them playing the game and learning it properly from the start.

As much as this debate has gone on though, PGI to me looks clearly focused on making the game better and addressing the age old gripe of many players, playing this multiplayer game have, and that is the parasitic playstyle commonly found in game.

So making lrms suck for a guy hiding behind a rock, while making them good for the guy running with his team sounds like the best move regarding lurms I have seen since I started playing.

However what I would really like to see PGI do is make lrms a 'class' and limit the number per side. The over saturation of lurms and atm's degrades gameplay. Back to the chess analogy, it is as if everyone wants to play the queen and variety of game play suffers....it is also why bad players think lights are OP and why a lot of the good players I know right now are running around in lights in solo queue.

The problem with so much indirect fire crap is also that good positioning isn't rewarded and bad positioning compensated. I have had now several games were I was backstabbing a fatty who gave a rat's aßß about his positioning and had the situational awareness of a rock. Was I able to profit much from it? Nope...as soon as I engaged and he had me on his screen a plethora of missiles flew from everywhere and I had to run off.

No wonder people play Hidewarrior Online. It is much better to sit behind a rock and snipe away or at least run an ECM mech for the thing I described above - which also explains the heavier and heavier drops. This in turn makes me wonder how the situation escalated that quickly to that point...

The direct fire part of missiles should be improved while the indirect part should be re-rolled to pre-buff state

Edited by Bush Hopper, 05 March 2019 - 01:05 AM.

[Lily from animove]

thats exactly how every MW game would end up or ended up, because that is the very nature of how Battletech with true aim just plays like. The Dice Boardgame is pretty much "unrealistic" in it's entire way of trying to be an abstraction form how such Mechs would act. Unless of Course you a standard Mech pilot comes with 2.0 out o alcohol test.

[Asym]

Feral Clown, on 04 March 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

I don't get the general attitude that you balance a game around casual players. For a game to be the best it can be, it should be balanced around the best that play it. You don't change the rules for chess to make it easier for kindergarten students, you get them playing the game and learning it properly from the start.

As much as this debate has gone on though, PGI to me looks clearly focused on making the game better and addressing the age old gripe of many players, playing this multiplayer game have, and that is the parasitic playstyle commonly found in game.

So making lrms suck for a guy hiding behind a rock, while making them good for the guy running with his team sounds like the best move regarding lurms I have seen since I started playing.

However what I would really like to see PGI do is make lrms a 'class' and limit the number per side. The over saturation of lurms and atm's degrades gameplay. Back to the chess analogy, it is as if everyone wants to play the queen and variety of game play suffers....it is also why bad players think lights are OP and why a lot of the good players I know right now are running around in lights in solo queue.

Combat, no matter how you shake it, always plays out the way it does because we are dealing with people (cultures) and technologies (tools)..... They coexist; and, in this game, those cultures went different directions. There wasn't a balance and the whole game was modeled on the Cold War outline. With your line of thinking, then laser, or ballistic weapons meta's should not happen either...... This is a crap in and crap out situation we are faced with ! All of anything just doesn't make sense..........and, the only time it is reasonable, is in teams that rely on a "combined Arms" philosophy.... Where you would have specialized mechs in support roles...........and, those mechs would not be running around alone on a battle field ! Scouts would be the exception. And, they occupy a very unique and tenuous place in the world.......

Chess is a good example of why ELO went the direction he did ! Why waste time.....efficiency in finding the top of the meritocracy through skill vis-a'-vis one off luck....

Why balance the game around causal players? Because in a random distribution, the 66% in the middle are the largest number of players. The Elite and the New combines are out numbered and that fact, is what successful games use as a retention tool !!!! It allows the causal player a place to enjoy this IP.... A place where they fit. Of course, our MM is a joke and, this toxic meritocracy has chased off thousands of average players for good. Many are waiting for MW5 as it is a single player model they enjoyed well before MWO...........