69 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Again LRMs require exposure. Just not from the user. But someone has to spot for them, expose themselves to use a NARC, or launch a UAV which can be shot down. In all cases you can punish or prevent the LoS.

The person actually doing the shooting not being the one who requires exposure is kind of a big deal.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Also LRMs dont grant precision. They spread their damage all over. Thats the downside for them not requiring precision.

Splat builds also spread all over but they kill things just fine. When you have a high enough volume of damage output the level of precision starts to not matter as much.

Lurms are more or less like extended-range splat that can hit stuff behind cover.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

]The person actually doing the shooting not being the one who requires exposure is kind of a big deal.

youre right it is a big deal. Just not in the way you claim. Because the player not sharing armor is actually HURTING their team. while the player repeatedly exposing themselves and taking damage for the LRM user's benefit isnt getting rewarded for it.

LRM users that IDF arnt on the frontlines sharing armor. Thats yet another downside... thanks for reminding us.

LRMs were bad without AMS. AMS countering an already bad weapon just makes it a worse weapon.

Lets be honest about why PGI really nerfed LRMs... its not because IDF was too good. its because they were toxic in tier 4-5 and hurt new player retention. Because new players wernt equipped with the knowledge or experience of how to avoid LRMs. Thats why PGI nerfed them. Instead of nerfing LRMs PGI shouldve created a tutorial to prepare new players for them and teach them how to avoid them.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

Splat builds also spread all over but they kill things just fine.

LRMs are not a splat weapon though. They dont do enough damage to be considered a splat weapon.

ATMs are a splat weapon. But LRMs are not. The damage just isnt there. 1 damage per missile is not the same thing as 2-3 damage per missile. A splat weapon has to do enough damage so that it still hurts the target significantly after several volleys despite the damage being spread out. LRMs dont do that, theyre incredibly bad at penetrating armor even with repeated volleys.

If you wanted to argue that ATMs need AMS to counter them id believe it. Because ATMs hurt like !@#$. But youve not convinced me why LRMs need to be countered by AMS.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

Lurms are more or less like extended-range splat that can hit stuff behind cover.

Nope. Theyre neither splat nor long range. They fail at both those things.

Now if you wanted to suggest LRM damage be increased Id be receptive that idea...

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 01:08 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

And again other weapons are bypassing fundamental mechanics. clan gauss for example is a huge offender. It not only bypasses the heat mechanic by not generating heat proportional to its damage. But it also weighs a full 3 tons less than its IS counterpart with zero appreciate downside. Yet youre complaining about LRMs? lol...

So again wheres my reflective and reactive armor? Wheres the defensive tech that protects against the weapons that are ACTUALLY killing people?

Gauss needs to be aimed and has a charge-up mechanic, plus is has a nasty tendency to go boom boom when your armor on that body section is gone (Clan CASE helps a bit but you still lose the body section much quicker than if you had a different weapon there).

Also, reactive armor protects against missiles and artillery, not ballistics. MW4 lied to you.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:55 PM, said:

Gauss needs to be aimed and has a charge-up mechanic, plus is has a nasty tendency to go boom boom when your armor on that body section is gone (Clan CASE helps a bit but you still lose the body section much quicker than if you had a different weapon there).

1) Gauss being aimable is an advantage not a disadvantage. Gauss being able to put 15 damage where you want is better than an LRM15 spreading 15 damage around randomly. You dont make any sense. Theres already an advantage to precision weapons built-in with the fact you can place the damage more precisely. If direct LRMs had 2000m/s velocity and could manually aim at a specific location you dont think LRM users would prefer that over them being guided but having the damage ridiciulously spread out? Of course they would because its way more lethal. !@#$ sign me up for aimable PPFLD direct fire LRMs. Im down for that. Since aiming is apparently such a huge downside/inconvenience according to you it would obviously be balanced.

2) LRMs need to lockon before they can fire. They have a delay just like Gauss. LRMs also have a min range. And honestly Gauss chargeup isnt a big deal once you get used to it. And a lot of people just macro around it anyway. My point is that LRMs also have their fair share of downsides. Although since LRMs arnt that great and CGauss is one of the best weapons I think its fair to say CGauss' downside is not enough of a downside... CGauss as it stands is one of the most broken weapons there is. Comparing it to LRMs is hilariously offbase.

3) LRM ammo can explode too. So thats hardly unique to Gauss. Gauss explosion isnt always going to kill you either. But an LRM ammo explosion pretty much always will.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 01:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Wow, lol Khobai and FupDup.

Just my thoughts about the argument:

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM, said:

1. AMS carrying is heavily restricted by hardpoints. You don't have the choice to mount 20+ tons of AMS. There is no AMS equivalent to an LRM80 Supernova or LRM90 Nova Cat (no, quad AMS Corsairs aren't on the same level and the quad AMS Piranha is a joke variant).

Going purely by raw tonnage means that a quad AMS mech wouldn't even be able to destroy a single LRM10 volley (5 tons not counting ammo).

You're right about AMS not being able to take 20x AMS, that being said the team can bump that up and contribute, in which a 1.5 tonnage isn't a big deal unless you're actually min-maxing.

Granted, YES AMS should be more useful than what it's tonnage should be so people would take it. Problem is when there's too many people take it, it just overwhelms the LRMs.

It also encourages LRM boating because the additive nature is that either LRMs overwhelm the AMS, or AMS overwhelms the LRMs.

This is why I advocate for percent of missiles downed instead, with diminishing-returns.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

Splat builds also spread all over but they kill things just fine. When you have a high enough volume of damage output the level of precision starts to not matter as much.

Lurms are more or less like extended-range splat that can hit stuff behind cover.

Splat is a combination of high alpha damage, and it kills because spread can be minimized by being closed -- or just overwhelmed by sheer count. Something like an SRM-Bomb does this by packing as much as SRMs, or just boats packing much LRMs. The problem is that, there is still the directability that allows SRMs to focus damage at a single component, and unlike ATMs, LRMs doesn't have that much damage in comparison to do so.

Now it's annoying, I'd give you that.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Again IDF LRMs do require exposure. Just not from the user. But someone has to spot for them, expose themselves to use a NARC, or launch a UAV which can be shot down. In all cases you can punish or shut down the LoS.

LRMs do require LOS, even if not from the user. However it does allow LRM boats to be in relative safety while SOMEONE ELSE PAYS for their lock. And if it's not voluntary, unlike what you'd expect from a dedicated spotter, it's just selfish parasitism, which I am happy to get rid of.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

Maybe because those weapons require precision aiming and full exposure.

As for the Precision Argument, the homing system has a lot of catches about it's usage, such as the need of lock for effective landing that there's plenty of counters, the slow velocity that makes them somewhat easy to miss, the spread damage that the ATMs, LRMs, and SSRMs employ.

These alone makes homing weapons worse and complicated than a bonafide direct-fire unlike a simple point-shoot. If you have good aim already, homing weapons just compromises you.

Auto-Aim isn't a good argument to keep homing weapons weak, they already have said disadvantages.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:54 PM, said:

Nope. Theyre neither splat nor long range. They fail at both those things.

He didn't said long range, he said extended-range, because splats were short-ranged.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:54 PM, said:

Now if you wanted to suggest LRM damage be increased Id be receptive that idea...

Here's the thing. LRMs may not be splat, but they are sustained DPS that is supposedly balanced by inconsistency and unreliability, which is solved by having dumb targets or competent teams, which they result into borderline OP on really coordinated teams.

I'd rather they removed the sustained DPS because it shouldn't have such for something that lets you do so from relative safety from cover. What they should have done is have LRMs (and ATMs) have lowest DPS by longer CD, but they have good amount of alpha damage (with ammo/ton adjustment), turned ATMs and LRMs fire-and-forget as well. This means less spamability that translates to being less annoying to deal with, more damage/ton which makes LRMs better in being an accessory than a primary. And with increased damage, it rewards people that land them.

Because of the reliability, the consistency, we can now put a definite floor and ceiling for the weapon system's capability.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 05:19 PM.

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:51 PM, said:

The person actually doing the shooting not being the one who requires exposure is kind of a big deal.

Indirect fire has been a thing -- and a big deal -- for almost as long as humanity invented warfare. What's so special about the 3050's that IDF is no longer a thing?

The6thMessenger, on 24 March 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

LRMs do require LOS, even if not from the user. However it does allow LRM boats to be in relative safety while SOMEONE ELSE PAYS for their lock. And if it's not voluntary, unlike what you'd expect from a dedicated spotter, it's just selfish parasitism, which I am happy to get rid of.

Just because some people hate others "leeching" off their locks does not mean everyone does. Why else would players bring TAG and NARC but no missiles?

Edited by Mystere, 24 March 2019 - 04:52 PM.

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 24 March 2019 - 04:45 PM, said:

Indirect fire has been a thing -- and a big deal -- for almost as long as humanity invented warfare. What's so special about the 3050's that IDF is not longer a thing?

Expenses, really. Pretty sure its lore that they vastly stripped missiles for use as a mainstay weapon in the 'future' as current day missiles with all the electronics and such for long range, indirect combat literally cost millions per missile.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 24 March 2019 - 04:45 PM, said:

Just because some people hate others "leeching" off their locks does not mean everyone does. Why else would players bring TAG and NARC but no missiles?

Counterpoint. Just because some people are okay with others "leeching" off their locks does not mean everyone does.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to remove IDF, just the the parasitism, because it doesn't promote growth of players and provide a healthy form of gameplay for a supposedly team game. And when they already brought TAG and NARC with no missiles, they are already spotting, which means the agreed to spotting for the lurmer. It's not parasitic, it's symbiotic.

The real problem is when they don't agree, and they don't spot for the lurmer, and somehow it's the teammate's fault that lurmer couldn't get a reliable lock for IDF and have to get their own locks.

I want IDF to be locked with NARC-TAG-UAV, so that it has a chance of being powerful, to ensure that IDFing is reliable because chances are the NARC-TAG-UAV are dedicated for spotting in the first place.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 05:25 PM.

[Prototelis]

Autoaim IDF SHOULD NOT be powerful. It is counter to the core gameplay loop.

[Mystere]

Prototelis, on 24 March 2019 - 05:36 PM, said:

Autoaim IDF SHOULD NOT be powerful under the right conditions. It is counter to the core gameplay loop.

FTFY.

Edited by Mystere, 24 March 2019 - 06:02 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 24 March 2019 - 05:36 PM, said:

Autoaim IDF SHOULD NOT be powerful. It is counter to the core gameplay loop.

Auto-Aim and IDF is part of BT, and by extent MW. If you want nothing more than point click, this game isn't for you.

Likewise, sure, IDF shouldn't be powerful, on it's own. IDF, employed by a competent and coordinating team, should be powerful to be a legitimate strategy. Auto-Aim should also be competitive against point-click in some way to be a legitimate choice on the contrary, if it's not then there's little reason for it to exist, all it does is clutter the game.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 24 March 2019 - 06:42 PM, said:

Auto-Aim and IDF is part of BT, and by extent MW. If you want nothing more than point click, this game isn't for you.

Likewise, sure, IDF shouldn't be powerful, on it's own. IDF, employed by a competent and coordinating team, should be powerful to be a legitimate strategy. Auto-Aim should also be competitive against point-click in some way to be a legitimate choice on the contrary, if it's not then there's little reason for it to exist, all it does is clutter the game.

lol. LRMS are the a lot more point and click than any other weapon in the game.

I'm not saying the game shouldn't have auto aim, I'm saying it should be weak as **** because its a shooter and autoaim is counter to the core game loop.

[FupDup]

My solution would still be to rework the lock-on mechanic to become aim-based. Something like "wire guiding" where the missiles follow your cursor, or the missiles might try to track the location you aimed at when you fired them, or something else of that sort. Then these kinds of conversions would be obsolete and balance would be restored to the force.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 24 March 2019 - 06:48 PM, said:

lol. LRMS are the a lot more point and click than any other weapon in the game.

Well, not really, somewhat. They used to be look-at-the-general-direction when the lock-cone was larger, but the nerf of lock-cone made them more like the actual point-click weapon in the game, except they're even worse at killing people.

Prototelis, on 24 March 2019 - 06:48 PM, said:

I'm not saying the game shouldn't have auto aim, I'm saying it should be weak as **** because its a shooter and autoaim is counter to the core game loop.

And I'm saying that it shouldn't be weak as ****, it has to be competitive to be a legitimate choice over other weapons, else it's just a waste of implementation. It's like you don't even want to exist at all.

And "core game loop"? I'm pretty sure you're just throwing around words to sound smart. Games are just basically more complicated Skinner's-Box, people get a reward in killing people whether it's by homing missile or laser, it still contributes to the loop.

Mech-Warrior is supposed to be a mech simulator as well. The fun of it is playing a Shooter with a mech, and part of it is diverse weapons, including homing missiles. You have to learn to live with it, else there's COD and Battlefield just waiting around the corner.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

My solution would still be to rework the lock-on mechanic to become aim-based. Something like "wire guiding" where the missiles follow your cursor, or the missiles might try to track the location you aimed at when you fired them, or something else of that sort. Then these kinds of conversions would be obsolete and balance would be restored to the force.

It defeats the point of being homing. And it's far more complicated at the end of player, there's too much interaction in steering the missiles, and would be more detrimental to the player.

I'd rather they approach it with homing weapons as cheap effective weapons due to fire-and-forget and wide lock-cone with poor output due to low damage.

The only real problem to that approach is the elitism there they just want their cake and eat it too.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 07:11 PM.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 24 March 2019 - 07:07 PM, said:

And "core game loop"? I'm pretty sure you're just throwing around words to sound smart.

lul.

Have you ever read a design document?

[Khobai]

nope. autoaim is definitely not counter to the "core game loop".

because PGI never once claimed MWO was a game that required skill. nor is there a rule that says shooter games cant having homing weapons. thats simply your own opinion.

and why arnt we talking about how easymode lasers are? in many ways lasers require even less skill than LRMs while also being much stronger weapons in general.

again youre just singling out LRMs because you dont like their ability to IDF. My guess is the LRM boogeyman touched you in your nonozone one too many times. Now youre all grown up and triggered by it. But the reality is IDF should absolutely be part of the game. Although admittedly IDF needs some changes to its reward structure to make it less parasitic and reward spotters more.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

My solution would still be to rework the lock-on mechanic to become aim-based. Something like "wire guiding" where the missiles follow your cursor, or the missiles might try to track the location you aimed at when you fired them, or something else of that sort. Then these kinds of conversions would be obsolete and balance would be restored to the force.

No thats completely stupid. If you have to steer your mech to turn your missiles you cant aim your other weapons in the meantime.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with having homing weapons in the game provided theyre balanced. But balance goes both ways. A weapon is not balanced if its useless like LRMs pretty much are now. LRMs were already weaker than other weapons before the patch so nerfing them even more made absolutely no sense.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 08:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 24 March 2019 - 08:08 PM, said:

lul.

Have you ever read a design document?

Have you ever read the works of B.F. Skinner? Or any Behavioral Psychologists? You do realize that games rely on compulsion loop right?

But tell you what, where is this Design Document for MWO?

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 08:24 PM, said:

nope. autoaim is definitely not counter to the "core game loop".

because PGI never once claimed MWO was a game that required skill. nor is there a rule that says shooter games cant having homing weapons. thats simply your own opinion.

This^

They keep citing the "core game loop", but no reference. But tell you what, lets say it's from here: https://mwomercs.com/game/user-guide

Nope, nothing there that discourages homing-weapons.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 08:24 PM, said:

and why arnt we talking about how easymode lasers are? in many ways lasers require even less skill than LRMs while also being much stronger weapons in general.

Well, you still need good aim to actually make a difference. You could just keep blasting center-mass, but you could do more damage efficiently with aiming properly at the vulnerable spots, and you don't exactly have that with homing weapons. Although granted, lasers are far easier so long you got a decent skill in aiming, which pilots should have.

Homing weapons on the other hand, there's just so many hurdles that complicate their use.

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 08:24 PM, said:

again youre just singling out LRMs because you dont like their ability to IDF. My guess is the LRM boogeyman touched you in your nonozone one too many times. Now youre all grown up and triggered by it. But the reality is IDF should absolutely be part of the game. Although admittedly IDF needs some changes to its reward structure to make it less parasitic and reward spotters more.

Kinda nagging in my mind too. I mean really, it's not like LRMs are meta or anything, yet somehow people like them seem to fear LRMs. Again, if bonafide DF weapons still come out on top, why does it matter?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 09:10 PM.

[Khobai]

not sure what BF skinner has to do with LRMs.

unless were training pigeons to LRM prototelis by giving them drugs when they get a lockon.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 09:01 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 09:00 PM, said:

not sure what BF skinner has to do with LRMs.

unless were training pigeons to LRM prototelis by giving them drugs when they get a lockon.

He's trying some "sentence-enhancers" by throwing in "core-game-loop" to sound smart, which is I'm pretty sure the compulsion-loop that games subject players to. It has it's foundations on Behavioral Psychology, which BF Skinner is one of the proponents, it's the Operant Conditioning, reward and punishment.

Games operate on a compulsion loop. In certain game designs, killing get a rush of dopamine, which people find pleasurable or reward them with something flashy like scores or achievements, so they keep killing.



I think he's mistaking the core-game-loop of the generic Shooter for MWO, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

"its a shooter and autoaim is counter to the core game loop." is the new "Quantum Healing", or "because the bible says so".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 10:12 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Firstly, I think that anyone who does not think of themselves as a "lurmer" and does not pilot dedicated LRM boats, should not contribute to this discussion much.. on account of bias.

Now, to the point at hand:

I think AMS should remove a fixed number of missiles from each launcher type - 1 missile from LRM5, 3, from LRM10, 5 from LRM15 and 7 from LRM20 - so, roughly, 1/3 of the missiles.

So if you fire LRM80 at a 4AMS mech, about 28 missiles will get downed. Or roughly 1/3 of the volley coming at you.

is that fair?

Right now, that single 4AMS mech takes out a LRM60 right out of the sky. My way, it would take out 28 of the 60..

So if following my way, you played a LRM80 mech, you would have to shoot that 4AMS mech with an ALPHA of your LRMs, cose' if you made the mistake of chain firing, your LRM20 would get chewed up, but if you were smart, you could still do your damage with alphas..

This is what the situation was roughly 2-3 AMS buffs ago..

You could not chain-fire-LRM an Irondome to death, but you could splat it cold with LRM alphas.. and that was fine for everyone if you ask me.