171 replies to this topic

[thievingmagpi]

3 damage per missile

velocity

[HammerMaster]

InfinityBall, on 20 April 2019 - 07:08 PM, said:

Still looking for an answer: is there a reason Clan would use LRMs instead of ATMs at this point? Aside from knowing they'll get locks behind hills

Slightly lower heat
More ordnance spread out on field
Lighter launchers

Edited by HammerMaster, 20 April 2019 - 07:14 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

oh I read that backwards LUL

[Pariah Devalis]

HammerMaster, on 20 April 2019 - 07:10 PM, said:

Slightly lower heat
More ordnance spread out on field
Lighter launchers

More ammo per ton, too. Have not messed with ATM much since the changes, so not sure if ATM are still crippled by 2+ AMS on the field. But, yeah. They are very hot for what they are, heavy, and the ammo per ton is unimpressive to say the least. Also, under 120 meters, LRM actually do more damage than ATM. Go figure.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 20 April 2019 - 08:26 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ATMs are too peaky. They are either extraordinarily strong, or extraordinarily terrible.

This is not a good state.

[Pariah Devalis]

Y E O N N E, on 20 April 2019 - 08:25 PM, said:

ATMs are too peaky. They are either extraordinarily strong, or extraordinarily terrible.

This is not a good state.

True that. I think that's my largest gripe against them. One game you can literally delete mechs. Another, and you're throwing eggs at brick walls.

Now, more on point to the thread, I have played with LRM since the changes. They are still weak against people who are playing the poke game, but feel significantly more effective against anyone who you can get a DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT lock onto. Lock on times feel faster, and being able to lock onto ECM mechs in LOS makes it so much easier, too. Indirect fire is OK, with the only thing being that IDF lock on times feel a smidgen slow. However, I see no reason why a passive playstyle should be terribly responsive.

Most games have a "n00b tube." Something with a relatively simple ease of access for players. Usually something guided, and usually something that can be used at relatively low risk for the user. Most games also make a point of having said weapon also have several hard or soft counters that provides ways for more skilled players to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the users of said weapons. The idea being that as players get more experience, and as they encounter more experienced players who know how to counter them, they'd naturally branch out to other tools that might be a little harder or riskier to use but ultimately have fewer counters and are overall far more effective.

I wouldn't say I want LRM to be useless. I'd like them to be viable options for specific circumstance, but I'd also want them to be quite limited and counterable as they require significantly less risk for the reward when employed strictly in IDF mode. You don't *need* to risk your own mech's armor to be effective. You can easily leech off of other teammate's risk - risk they're forced to do regardless. Passivity in a portion or a whole in a team very often leads to a team losing in this team game.

Team.

You're playing on a TEAM. Be it puggies or not. Fun is fun, but balance is balance. A well balanced game can be fun for most, but mechanics that benefit a player who does not act like a team player in said team game have little place in the game and will often detract from the fun of the majority. The fact that the current version of LRMs become so much more potent when you get your own damned locks pleases me immensely, as does their reduced ease of use when fired indirectly so.

It is not a matter of love or hate, for me. The weapon should have its place. However, it shouldn't be a flawless weapon system, and it shouldn't be particularly effective when utilized with the most minimal of risk to the user. That isn't good balance. That isn't fun for the majority. A better balanced game (if done right) would make the overall game experience as a whole more enjoyable and rewarding. Not just to the few.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 20 April 2019 - 08:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Most games don't actually have a n00b tube and the weapon which really made that a common term, the grenade launcher in Call of Duty, was a one-shot weapon that needed a resupply. It was called a n00b tube because it was basically a guaranteed kill if you weren't braindead, but it wasn't something you could spam all game like LRMs.

There are no multiplayer games I can think of where there is an easy-access weapon that performs at the same level as the harder-access weapons all said and done. Because that's broken. Most multiplayer games have a well-rounded starter weapon that performs more or less like everything else but isn't excellent in any one category at the expense of being terrible in others. Note, that doesn't include arena shooters like Quake or UT, where the starter weapon is usually something you want to not be using ASAP.

[Pariah Devalis]

Y E O N N E, on 20 April 2019 - 08:36 PM, said:

Most games don't actually have a n00b tube and the weapon which really made that a common term, the grenade launcher in Call of Duty, was a one-shot weapon that needed a resupply. It was called a n00b tube because it was basically a guaranteed kill if you weren't braindead, but it wasn't something you could spam all game like LRMs.

There are no multiplayer games I can think of where there is an easy-access weapon that performs at the same level as the harder-access weapons all said and done. Because that's broken. Most multiplayer games have a well-rounded starter weapon that performs more or less like everything else but isn't excellent in any one category at the expense of being terrible in others. Note, that doesn't include arena shooters like Quake or UT, where the starter weapon is usually something you want to not be using ASAP.

Rocket Launcher in Halo was also a N00b Tube, IIRC, though it also didn't lock on. One shot kill, but slow reload, avoidable projectile at anything beyond close range, and limited ammo count. I'd classify FPS starting weapons that are spray and pray types as somewhat n00b tubish, as they rely on filling an area with lead, but not necessarily having tons of damage and certainly not being particularly accurate. Come to think of it, I might have misspoke about the "lock on" portion being common on a newbish weapon. However, there are weapons included that have a rock bottom entry level of skill requirement with very clear limitations on their effectiveness, and more precise or harder to use weapons that are stupidly dangerous and effective in the hands of experienced players (ASMD comes to mind, actually).

[Y E O N N E]

Pariah Devalis, on 20 April 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

Rocket Launcher in Halo was also a N00b Tube, IIRC, though it also didn't lock on. One shot kill, but slow reload, avoidable projectile at anything beyond close range, and limited ammo count. I'd classify FPS starting weapons that are spray and pray types as somewhat n00b tubish, as they rely on filling an area with lead, but not necessarily having tons of damage and certainly not being particularly accurate. Come to think of it, I might have misspoke about the "lock on" portion being common on a newbish weapon. However, there are weapons included that have a rock bottom entry level of skill requirement with very clear limitations on their effectiveness, and more precise or harder to use weapons that are stupidly dangerous and effective in the hands of experienced players (ASMD comes to mind, actually).

I think there is some confusion over what a "n00b tube" is. A "n00b tube" is so-called because it is a tool to get an easy kill and the term is just a pejorative to insult the people who use that weapon, likening them to new players because it takes so little skill to use. It's not a weapon that was put there specifically for new players to use and get easy kills with.

The Rocket in Halo was a "n00b tube" because it was almost a guaranteed kill (if you jump it will only take you down to half-health, giving plenty of time for you to destroy the user). Some considered it cheap, though having personally been extremely involved in Halo's multiplayer I don't recall it being called that with any real frequency. The Fuel Rod Gun (Halo PC) was more of a "n00b tube" since you could fire it indefinitely as long as you had heat capacity and battery charge and was a two-shot kill, but it had a ballistic arc that made it more challenging.

The Assault Rifle type weapons also aren't "n00b tubes", they are just weapons. They are decent at most ranges, excellent at none, and don't take an undue amount of coordination to be effective. But they don't provide easy, "cheap" kills like the high explosives do.

LRMs and ATMs are "n00b tubes" because they spit out insane damage while removing the whole "aim damage onto a component" portion of the core gameplay loop, and they can do it while bypassing cover, too. Any person with half a brain can poptart with ATMs and sh*t out 800+ damage games even in just a handful of minutes, trying to do the same with just lasers (for example) is much more difficult in comparison.

[justcallme A S H]

Chortles, on 20 April 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

For you to finish your argument.

lol.

Good luck.

All you'll get is some LORE / TableTop statement, that once the real purists see it, will totally demolish it with actual LORE/TT fact.

Thus the whole "MWO should be more LORE/TT" is an argument that just falls on its face like a kid learning to walk.

[Alienized]

coming up with lore/tt is still a thing?

[justcallme A S H]

Alienized, on 21 April 2019 - 05:40 AM, said:

coming up with lore/tt is still a thing?

Well apparently it is.

I mean after what 6-7 years of MWO, a FPS, the dice-rollers are still carrying on about it even as the population dwindles.

MW5 isn't far away though. They can PvE to their hearts content with their HOTAS in their mothers basement.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 21 April 2019 - 06:28 AM.

[Ghost Paladin117]

justcallme A S H, on 21 April 2019 - 06:27 AM, said:

Well apparently it is.

I mean after what 6-7 years of MWO, a FPS, the dice-rollers are still carrying on about it even as the population dwindles.

MW5 isn't far away though. They can PvE to their hearts content with their HOTAS in their mothers basement.

My inner lore tard takes offense to this. Can't wait for 5 but still will play the crap out of MWO. Some lore stuff just doesn't translate to a competitive shooter. Unfortunately. Sooner people hear this from PGI, again, the sooner we can move on.

[Ilfi]

Lore for PvP balance? Perfect formula my dudes. Recipe for success.

[B0oN]

LOL @ this thread .

We all fell for Vellron and his scheming again .

IDF lock needs absolutely no strengthening anymore, the improvements are needed on player side, but tell me, mechmaniacs, how do we go about this ?
^^

Oh, by the way : happy easter you metallic egg heads

[Ilfi]

If it were up to me I'd remove IDF from the game outside of IDF provided from your own NARCs. The intent of IDF is unbelievably toxic, the anti-thesis of skill in "the thinking man's shooter". Toss it and make LRMs a long-range alternative to streaks.

Not that that's going to change seven years down the line. Oh well.

[Captain Caveman DE]

pls don't drag Lore into -this here-

Lore is perfectly fine with how Lurms handle, except that the IDF comes WAY too easy in mwo;
oh, and if you wanna argue with tabletop-rules, then pls consider:
perfect range to fire (and hit with) LRMs is 7 hexes, which translates to 210meters.

so.....
pls go back to IDF and how it's not rewarding enough to shoot them out of "Camp Lurmsalot", 900mtrs behind your team etc.
ffs leave lore&tt out of it

[Kaeb Odellas]

I would be fine with buffing IDF lock time if we also nerf IDF spread.

[Khobai]

IDF issues aside its still a huge problem that long range missiles actually arnt long range...

The max effective range of LRMs is a pitiful 500m-600m. Beyond that your chances of hitting dropoff considerably because of how easy they are to dodge at longer ranges than that. 500m-600m is NOT long range. Thats medium range.

Even if LRMs could reliably hit at 900m, the 900m max range is also completely wrong. Because actual long range weapons like IS-ERLL do damage out to 1500m+. And LRMs are actually supposed to outrange IS-ERLLs. Theres something very wrong about that.

Either the x2 max range BS on lasers/ballistics needs to be nerfed or LRMs need considerably better max range/velocity so they can actually hit things at long range. One or the other needs to happen to fix LRMs so theyre actually long range missiles.

As for IDF, I still think the best fix is to make IDF require TAG/NARC. And then simply give all light mechs their choice of a free utility equipment (among the options would be free TAG). That way you arnt forcing anyone to take TAG, it just comes as a free option on their light mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 21 April 2019 - 04:36 PM.

[Prototelis]

I don't think they can nerf spread to the point of parts of the volley missing.

One thing that's annoying about the spread nerfs is that it seems like most IDF missiles hit your legs and arms.

I really wish IDF would work like a small cone of fire on the intended target so its more like an AOE effect.

Khobai, on 21 April 2019 - 04:19 PM, said:

IDF issues aside its still a huge problem that long range missiles actually arnt long range...

Patently false. I can get hits out to 800 meters pretty easily, especially with DF. The travel time with velocity nodes is P. sick right now.

Maybe you should play the game and try them so you can make an objective observation instead of talking out of your ***.

Edited by Prototelis, 21 April 2019 - 04:22 PM.