305 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Why would you require same skill-set? Being a Dentist requires different skill, such as being a mechanic. This is the same case, you require different skill to make use homing weapons. It's same idea of "health care", but you aren't doing similar things, therefore different skills.

Another absolute nonsense false equivalent analogy. At this point it seems you are just arguing to argue. In this game people all on the same field playing the same game should have the same degree of difficulty period.


Address having which system? The current system? Well because there's people that didn't liked how auto-aim nukes lights, so here's my attempt to address it.

Circular? It's just as circular as using 2x Gauss + 2x ERPPC, either eat up the ghost-heat, or chain-fire it. (Another option is don't bring it.)

No, your argument is what is going in circles. Chain firing sucks period. Your well than don't use it is nonsense especially framed against guass/ppc due to the weapons having use with lasers or still being viable on their own. Again ghost heat is something that can be managed and worked with, while your convoluted mess of an idea with individual locking cannot.

It's funny you said yes, but here you are with a "basically no". The point of streaks, as said by Navid A1 is that they are good with dealing with lights. Reduce the ease of use and require more skill required, then that defeats the purpose that you might as well use lasers. I'd rather use lasers to leg a light, than to use a streaks with really tight lock-cone, because that deals less effective -- spread -- damage while at the same time is countered by many things such as ECM, Stealth, AMS -- and my personal favorite -- cover.

No I am absolutely not here with a no. I am here saying in clear and plain english that currently the aim system, lock on mechanism is too low on the radius and tracking as far as skill is concerned and the reticule nerf did not go near far enough. We don't need easy mode weapons competing on the same field is the point and what you'd rather use doesn't justify this.

Hmm. You could lock homing missiles right now right? So why is it harder when you just need to stare a little longer, or a little less longer depending on the total of your missiles? It's basically a modification of the current system that people could already use. More More Missiles = Longer Lock Time, that's not a hard concept, people understood that in IDF Farther Targets = Longer Lock Time.

If you (rhetorical you) would call it "convoluted" as in "complex", then maybe it does mean that you didn't understand it as your (rhetorical your) personal shortcoming.

LOL WUT??? Nope that ain't it son, the idea is garbage and I completely understand that staring and waiting 6 seconds is crap. You are right though, it isn't a hard concept. It's a really, really stupid concept. Incredibly so.

Oh as a kicker though, IDF takes longer at....range. Range plays a part of that. It takes much longer with not only IDF but range. For why? Really, why do you think PGI did this? What possibly can be the reasons figured into this?

And what isn't ruining it with what these people want? Basically turn Streaks another, inferior version of lasers. Hell, there are people who don't even want it existing. I honestly forgot who, but I swear there's someone I talked to with that in mind.

What do I care what some dude somewhere may or may not have said to you again? And no, a lock on weapon that hits 100% when locked would still have niche and purpose. The lock on mechanic is currently simply too easy to get and maintain locks.

I'm well aware of the longer lock-time being less than ideal, that is exactly the point. As for the chainfire -- we already chainfire missiles, lest we gobble up the ghost-heat. People could bring 6x ERLL, and guess what they partition it with 3-3 because shooting all-6 is instant overheat. People with 4x Gauss or 4x Light-Gauss partition their shot 2-2 because mechanically you could only charge 2 at a time -- and there are people that are nailing this. Same case, that's the point.

If people could partition their shot with lasers, I don't see why they would be incapable of basically partitioning their shots with streaks the same way, and right now they already do.

I really don't think you do. And no we don't already chain fire missiles. Firing groups and partitioning weapons are not the same as firing one at a time, especially if it involved adding a mess of a system such as you describe. Gauss or PPC are also a whole other animal by nature of their being PPFLD. Streaks treated the same would be complete garbage especially when you account for their spread nature...how do you not get this or think that would even be close to a comparable?

And now you got a weaker more vulnerable form of what is basically laser. You might as well ask for pedal-powered cars, because why let the engine do all of the work?

Um...No. No you don't. Lasers are hitscan right, makes a difference here and the point is again that currently the lock on mechanic is too easy. Regardless of different roles and characteristics, weapons should have a similar degree of difficulty to use....broken record.

Kind of the point of homing weapons. I mean tell me, lets reduce the lock-cone from 25 to 0.01 degrees. Now give me a good reason why shouldn't i use MPL over SSRMs? You got 260m/s on say 330m, so aside from about 1s stare-time, there's additional 1.269s delay before impact, suppose that it's 3x SSRM6 with 6 DPS and 36 alpha damage, guess what the MPL would do 39 damage under 0.9s instantly. So yeah, make SSRMs more precise, you just got a starey weapon that it might as well be an inferior laser.

And if it's quite literally zero-skill, then where the hell is this resistance coming from?

Imagine this, 3x SSRM6s would require 1s of lock time, 6x SSRM6s would require 2s -- the point of longer lock-time is precisely to compensate for the fact that it's "zero skill", to make it a bit more compromising to use -- therefore you need more skill to use it effectively if you want to use it at higher volleys, the pseudo-charge system is like giving gauss charge to compensate for the fact that it's an easy-to-land ballistic weapon that does high damage.

Nope. Still have different characteristics. Take into account that mpls are easy as it and tweaking the cone to a near level wouldn't be that bad considering that people can successfully use mpl's right now. As well the alpha's already account for some of that difference with the streaks getting a bigger punch. The current mechanic doesn't also ruin alpha's completely which your mess of a mechanic does. Did I mention that the idea is terrible?

Well here's the thing. We don't **** on the weapon systems anymore, we **** on the bad players that use the weapon system poorly. Let that sink it.

How about ****ing on both? Let it sink in that the community by large portion for a long time has said the anti-social dbag hiding in the corner while PGI aims for them is an unacceptable way to play a team game. The changes made direct fire infinitely better as far as using the weapon. This means I now have less ammo and actually equipped armor on the lrm mechs I have for CW. Yet has it gone far enough to address the trolls in the back? I am not seeing it.

Now you can take that and interpret is as I am a lurm hater. I am not. I hate the behaviour of what is an unacceptably high number of players. Being a guy who runs mostly lights and mediums in quick play, that lrm dude with the team scrapping armor off is my friend. I am also someone who is getting these guys good clean locks. There is a lot tied into this issue though, such as psr and tiers being absolutely borked. Along with the lower skillset required and ability to hide behind cover all game make for a weapon that is prone to abuse. That said there's a guy who hides off in isolated parts of a map 'sniping' in a quad light guass stealth Fafnir. Different weapon but same bs behaviour, the main difference is there are just not nearly as many people doing this bs as there are with lurms.

I know. I just made that up to point the high-skill guys out. Kind of like when you say "over qualified'. Should be a flattering term for people with egos really.

Actually what that is, is an unnecessary hyperbole. Goes back to the fact that we have high skill guys, in the same game as incredibly low skilled guys and those low skilled guys seem to be continually demanding they be given easy mode to compete instead of actually trying to get better at the game to compete.

Be better if they could either play with or against people closer to similar levels of skill, or at the very least evaluate people properly so that the teams could be balanced out with all skill levels more evanly.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Another absolute nonsense false equivalent analogy. At this point it seems you are just arguing to argue. In this game people all on the same field playing the same game should have the same degree of difficulty period.

You're not getting it, and just chocking it up for "false equivalent analogy". It's roles because especially because they excel at it. You don't Snipe with SPL at the same reason you don't IDF with Large-Lasers, they aren't built to do those stuffs.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

No, your argument is what is going in circles.

Provide syllogistic example?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Chain firing sucks period.

Exactly, that's why it's used to balance certain weapon mixes, be it Heat-Scale, or my current suggestion.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Your well than don't use it is nonsense especially framed against guass/ppc due to the weapons having use with lasers or still being viable on their own. Again ghost heat is something that can be managed and worked with, while your convoluted mess of an idea with individual locking cannot.

Really? They can't simply work the Chain-Firing away by simply eating up the prolonged locking sequence? Just as with heat-scale we can't just eat up the increased heat generation?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

No I am absolutely not here with a no. I am here saying in clear and plain english that currently the aim system, lock on mechanism is too low on the radius and tracking as far as skill is concerned and the reticule nerf did not go near far enough. We don't need easy mode weapons competing on the same field is the point and what you'd rather use doesn't justify this.

It's basically saying that "everybody gets to play, except the guy that I hate".

The point of homing system is that you don't have to allot a lot of aiming skills to do so, else it loses point.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

LOL WUT??? Nope that ain't it son, the idea is garbage and I completely understand that staring and waiting 6 seconds is crap. You are right though, it isn't a hard concept. It's a really, really stupid concept. Incredibly so.

Lol, so you're just like Navid who got wrapped up with the 6-seconds example. You do realize that those are just examples and NOT representative of the concept? Such as it doesn't have to be 6s to lock 6x SSRM6s, it could be just 2s to lock 6x SSRM6s, simmilarly it just takes 1s to lock 3x SSRM6s.

No, it's a workable concept. You just don't understand it, because if you do, you would have understood what an "example" is.

Tell you what, why don't you just forget about the 6-seconds part, and instead consider this: 1s Lock for 3x SSRM6s, 2s Lock for 6x SSRM6s.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Oh as a kicker though, IDF takes longer at....range. Range plays a part of that. It takes much longer with not only IDF but range. For why? Really, why do you think PGI did this? What possibly can be the reasons figured into this?

So what? if range plays a part on that, guess what -- using a lot of missiles will also play a part on that.

PGI has their own reasons, I have my own. What is important is precisely that it's possible.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

And no, a lock on weapon that hits 100% when locked would still have niche and purpose. The lock on mechanic is currently simply too easy to get and maintain locks.

Meanwhile there's AMS, ECM, Stealth-Armor, oh and tight-as-**** lock-cone. No, it defeats the purpose of the homing weapon.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

I really don't think you do.

Well, you're wrong.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

And no we don't already chain fire missiles.

Really? People do not chain-fire or partition: 4x ATM48s? 4x LRM20A? 6x SSRM6s? Well, they don't have to, but they are eventually forced to if they are too hot. Just as well, You don't have to chain-fire with this system.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Firing groups and partitioning weapons are not the same as firing one at a time, especially if it involved adding a mess of a system such as you describe.

So there it is, you really just didn't get the idea don't you, that's not even the system I described.

It goes like this:

1.) You hold your trigger to lock, lock-time depends on how many weapons that are to be locked.
2.) You release your trigger to fire (like gauss), and you will shoot ALL of your missiles, all at once.

With 6x SSRM6s
1.) You hold your trigger to lock, with 6x SSRM6s you need to hold it for two seconds.
2.) You release your trigger to fire (like gauss), and you will launch all SSRMs at the same time, hitting the Light at the same time.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Gauss or PPC are also a whole other animal by nature of their being PPFLD. Streaks treated the same would be complete garbage especially when you account for their spread nature...how do you not get this or think that would even be close to a comparable?

How is it comparable? Because it nukes the hell out of lights, that's what. Then again, I'm actually completely fine with it, there are others who aren't, and I just tried to compromise with them.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Um...No. No you don't. Lasers are hitscan right, makes a difference here and the point is again that currently the lock on mechanic is too easy. Regardless of different roles and characteristics, weapons should have a similar degree of difficulty to use....broken record.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Nope. Still have different characteristics.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Take into account that mpls are easy as it and tweaking the cone to a near level wouldn't be that bad considering that people can successfully use mpl's right now. As well the alpha's already account for some of that difference with the streaks getting a bigger punch.

You're still not getting it. You have to stare with your target to lock right? But now you have to be precise with your aiming, just as you have to stare, and be precise like a laser.

It is exactly that Lasers are hit-scan, which makes it better than SSRMs, don't you get it? While the SSRMs would have more trouble in launching by comparison, now that you launched it there's travel time and AMS that you have to contend-with.

With the Lasers not having to mess around, it's already better than the SSRMs with all of it's hoopla to what is somewhat the same precise staring that the two undergo. At least the lasers deal their damage immediately, at least lasers hit instantly instead of having the travel-time + Lock-time.

If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

The current mechanic doesn't also ruin alpha's completely which your mess of a mechanic does. Did I mention that the idea is terrible?

Lol, just lol.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

How about ****ing on both? Let it sink in that the community by large portion for a long time has said the anti-social dbag hiding in the corner while PGI aims for them is an unacceptable way to play a team game. The changes made direct fire infinitely better as far as using the weapon. This means I now have less ammo and actually equipped armor on the lrm mechs I have for CW. Yet has it gone far enough to address the trolls in the back? I am not seeing it.

Now you can take that and interpret is as I am a lurm hater. I am not. I hate the behaviour of what is an unacceptably high number of players. Being a guy who runs mostly lights and mediums in quick play, that lrm dude with the team scrapping armor off is my friend. I am also someone who is getting these guys good clean locks. There is a lot tied into this issue though, such as psr and tiers being absolutely borked. Along with the lower skillset required and ability to hide behind cover all game make for a weapon that is prone to abuse. That said there's a guy who hides off in isolated parts of a map 'sniping' in a quad light guass stealth Fafnir. Different weapon but same bs behaviour, the main difference is there are just not nearly as many people doing this bs as there are with lurms.

Why is it hard for you to understand what I am saying? I never said that it's about addressing the hiders, I just said it gave LRMs a certain amount of respect. With respect with what you highlighted, this is because the lower-arc use means we don't have to associate LRMs to the hiders anymore.

Could you please tell me that English is neither your first or second language?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 01:47 AM, said:

Actually what that is, is an unnecessary hyperbole. Goes back to the fact that we have high skill guys, in the same game as incredibly low skilled guys and those low skilled guys seem to be continually demanding they be given easy mode to compete instead of actually trying to get better at the game to compete.

The problem is weapon design. You could have it easy-mode with good floor of performance, but not high performance ceiling. It's like noob-tube, sure you get results, but it's not the best -- and if they want to improve, they have to change weapons and tactics.

Unfortunately PGI just wanted them Homing Weapons to participate as good as every other weapons.

dario03, on 13 July 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

How would lowering damage achieve nothing? That makes no sense.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Lowering damage does not address the SSRMs having niche for dealing lights.

dario03, on 13 July 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

And I never said I was trying to make the weapon completely useless vs lights.

Yeah, you just want it to not have the streaks' niche is light-hunting. But guess what, you failed, because it's light-hunting niche comes from it's mechanics.

John McClintock, on 13 July 2019 - 10:13 PM, said:

I was just messing with you, man.

I'm assuming this one meets your approval?

Are you trying to ride the quirks?

If you want to MPL+SRMs, do it right.

TBR-S 2x SRM6A + 6x MPL (TBR-WAR Omni)
TBR-C
TBR-S

Unfortunately they run hot.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 July 2019 - 02:52 AM.

[Feral Clown]

You're not getting it, and just chocking it up for "false equivalent analogy". It's roles because especially because they excel at it. You don't Snipe with SPL at the same reason you don't IDF with Large-Lasers, they aren't built to do those stuffs.

Wrong I am absolutely getting it. Comparing a doctor and mechanic is a false equivalent because they work in completely unrelated fields. That is no where equivalent to roles or classes in people playing the same game. Not even close, so it absolutely and in no way supports your argument. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Provide syllogistic example?

No, because there is no logic to gleaned to you just returning back to the 'why don't you just chainfire' argument when the point is that is bad and on top of that your mechanic proposed is a convoluted mess. Screen clutter, weapons ready-ing in sequence. It's garbage, accept that. It's why there's literally no defending that as a good idea.

Exactly, that's why it's used to balance certain weapon mixes, be it Heat-Scale, or my current suggestion.

Accept ghost heat allows for a set number of alphas, and your idea is utter crap that would garbage pile the weapon.

Really? They can't simply work the Chain-Firing away by simply eating up the prolonged locking sequence? Just as with heat-scale we can't just eat up the increased heat generation?

No because it is not the same, because chain firing is crap and waiting forever to have the privilege of being able to alpha is utter and complete garbage. Eating up time with a convoluted nonsense mechanic is no where near the same as ghost heat and would make the weapon ineffective against anything.

It's basically saying that "everybody gets to play, except the guy that I hate".

The point of homing system is that you don't have to allot a lot of aiming skills to do so, else it loses point.

No that is what you think the point or role is. It's not unreasonable for everybody to be on an equal playing field, especially when playing on that same field against each other. There's good reason we have the Olympics and the Special Olympics. There's no one saying that we should have the two mix and give one set a bunch of boosters so that latter can compete.

Lol, so you're just like Navid who got wrapped up with the 6-seconds example. You do realize that those are just examples and NOT representative of the concept? Such as it doesn't have to be 6s to lock 6x SSRM6s, it could be just 2s to lock 6x SSRM6s, simmilarly it just takes 1s to lock 3x SSRM6s.

No, it's a workable concept. You just don't understand it, because if you do, you would have understood what an "example" is.

Tell you what, why don't you just forget about the 6-seconds part, and instead consider this: 1s Lock for 3x SSRM6s, 2s Lock for 6x SSRM6s.

It absolutely is not a workable concept in any, way shape or form. It's utter garbage as an idea or concept. Adjusting your timing on your example to two seconds for all the weapons to ready up would also either then make it functionally the same as it is now with extra clutter or useless depending on what that time was adjusted to. Which means no point in doing or trying it.

I understand perfectly that this is not a high concept, coming from a renowned thinker. I also understand that you are tied to it and defending while having absolutely nothing of merit backing you or any ability to show why it would in any way shape or form be better than what we have now, or even functional.

So what? if range plays a part on that, guess what -- using a lot of missiles will also play a part on that.

PGI has their own reasons, I have my own. What is important is precisely that it's possible.

Lul...wut? Did you take a hit or drink of something when you wrote the above? Video game dude, lots of things are precisely possible in fantasy land. To be more precise it seems you don't get the correlation in what I said about range in your response and how it's applicable.

Meanwhile there's AMS, ECM, Stealth-Armor, oh and tight-as-**** lock-cone. No, it defeats the purpose of the homing weapon.

A tighter lock on cone would absolutely defeat the purpose of a homing weapon if it's purpose was to in fact have an easy mode weapon. It seems you are of the belief that the weapons purpose is to be easy to aim and I am saying implicitly that, that is what we have now and it's wrong. The purpose of a homing weapon should be to get a higher amount of damage and 100% hit rate. Games I have played in the past, specifically Top Gun, made getting that lock and holding it a challenge. In a player versus player environment, the playing field should be equal. That should be a very easy concept for even you to get a grasp on but so far no luck.

Well, you're wrong.

I don't think I am or that you 'understand' that why don't you just chainfire isn't an answer or why it is different from partitioning groups, or the limits currently imposed on PPFLD. If you did you wouldn't have brought them up as examples or equivalents.

Really? People do not chain-fire or partition: 4x ATM48s? 4x LRM20A? 6x SSRM6s? Well, they don't have to, but they are eventually forced to if they are too hot. Just as well, You don't have to chain-fire with this system.

First, having firing groups under the ghost heat is not the same as chainfiring. Second they do partition which is kinda known and a silly question. Third the difference is that currently they don't have some mess of a system making them ready at a bunch of different times. Forth currently heat allows for those builds to alpha a set number of times depending, and is much less of a mess and almost elegant in comparison.

So there it is, you really just didn't get the idea don't you, that's not even the system I described.

It goes like this:

1.) You hold your trigger to lock, lock-time depends on how many weapons that are to be locked.
2.) You release your trigger to fire (like gauss), and you will shoot ALL of your missiles, all at once.

No I get it. It is just that the idea is utter crap and that your first suggested timing, which you are now seemingly backing away from was punishingly high and would make the weapon unusable. If your reasoning is that this would be a great way to ensure no one would ever use the weapon, then it's perfect.

With 6x SSRM6s
1.) You hold your trigger to lock, with 6x SSRM6s you need to hold it for two seconds.
2.) You release your trigger to fire (like gauss), and you will launch all SSRMs at the same time, hitting the Light at the same time.

So instead of doing that and having weapons ready at different times, just increase lock on time. There'd be literally no point in having that unless you specifically were going for people firing them as they ready in a chainfire done differently than we have now and your original idea included cluttering up the screen to see individual weapons ready state. The answer is no, that's crap. It does nothing to improve what we have. It does nothing to address that it currently is too easy to get and maintain a lock. What you need to do here is back off the premise of having them lock in sequence and having visuals to monitor that.

How is it comparable? Because it nukes the hell out of lights, that's what. Then again, I'm actually completely fine with it, there are others who aren't, and I just tried to compromise with them.

You are not getting this one here. The point you are missing completely is that it is too easy to lock and delete. Hell, streaks are no longer even anywhere close to being as cancerous to lights as ATM's are currently. As well if this is the point, why are you proposing nuking the weapon out of the game with a convoluted garbage mechanic and sequential readying state?

You're still not getting it. You have to stare with your target to lock right? But now you have to be precise with your aiming, just as you have to stare, and be precise like a laser.

Nope, again this is you not being able to even begin to comprehend it seems. Streaks deal damage in a different way. They deal more of it as well. If the degree of difficulty was increased, the tracking would also still be less as once you fired, all of your hits would land. Where with lasers you have to track through the entire time of the burn or pulse. Meaning a dodging and weaving light is still shaking off some of the damage from those lasers, while it does not or would not with streaks. They would still be markedly different. That is as straight forward and simple as I can break it down for you to try and grasp a hold of.

It is exactly that Lasers are hit-scan, which makes it better than SSRMs, don't you get it? While the SSRMs would have more trouble in launching by comparison, now that you launched it there's travel time and AMS that you have to contend-with.

Yes currently lasers are better, especially pulse for people who can aim. However the issue is that a very skilled light pilot can mitigate the damage and has a chance against lasers, while a weapon without any skill can nuke him off the planet because of the extent of the damage it does. I have a lot of seat time in streak boats, mostly in CW. Streakwacker's have pretty much negated Myst Lynx as being viable there at all, and Piranha's have to have a very good and aware pilot to not be completely irrelevant. People have argued that this isn't exactly right, you've come up with an utterly garbage idea to address it, and I am saying it'd just be much, much better to require the weapon need a higher skill ceiling. They'd still at least be effective without being as cheesy.

With the Lasers not having to mess around, it's already better than the SSRMs with all of it's hoopla to what is somewhat the same precise staring that the two undergo. At least the lasers deal their damage immediately, at least lasers hit instantly instead of having the travel-time + Lock-time.

Yes and lasers also have burn/duration which means you have to be really, really good to get all of that damage on the target, while streaks get 100% of its damage while not being hampered by having to aim or track properly. This is all pretty simple stuff and yet you seem to be the one not getting that your mess of a mechanic brings nothing to the table and isn't a good idea. At this point I think you are arguing just to argue since you don't actually have anything to say.

Lol, just lol.

No, really it is an absolute dumpster fire of an idea. Convoluted and messy. Your original timing being overly punative, adjusting to down to similar that we have now would make introducing even more pointless, and your idea fails to address the concern of those over performers that the weapon is too high of a reward for too little skill.

Why is it hard for you to understand what I am saying? I never said that it's about addressing the hiders, I just said it gave LRMs a certain amount of respect. With respect with what you highlighted, this is because the lower-arc use means we don't have to associate LRMs to the hiders anymore.

Partly because you can't comprehend what I am stating, in spite of how plain and simply I spell it out. You did say that it gave lrms a certain amount of respect, to which I responded by noting that the changes did not do that and that the behaviour it was attempting to address is still overly prevalent. I said this due to seeing more people firing their lrms the same old way using the old arc, than I do people using direct fire which is now far, far more effective. Again I will remind you I frequently pilot lights and mediums and I am frequently as in pretty much every game going after a lurm dude off in a corner behind a wall or rock by himself. In tier one games, in almost every one of them, I am still seeing this. Do you get that? Do you get that the changes to the arc have not wiped out or encouraged people entrenched in thinking it's fine to go hide and lurm somewhere? What it certainly has done though, is made them much less effective at doing it and on the bright side of things, it's made using the weapon more fun for those of us with no behaviour issues or anti-social leanings.

Could you please tell me that English is neither your first or second language?

I can't really be insulted by someone who talks in circles and can't come up with a decent idea or can't defend his postion without hyperbole, personal attacks, false equivalents, off the wall assumptions (such as the weapons point is to be easy and shouldn't be on par skill wise with others), or comprehend why a convoluted mess wouldn't be good. You don't have solid ground here to stand on and can't explain why this would be good to implement. You've even backed off you proposed timing suggestion to make your own suggestion pointless. Either you really don't get the game, and don't really understand why chainfiring is actually bad or you just are not man enough to admit when you are wrong. Maybe you are also so deluded about yourself that you can't grasp that not everything you come up with is gold.... It seems to be a real struggle for you to admit how garbage this would be, despite a mountain of evidence against it.

Unfortunately PGI just wanted them Homing Weapons to participate as good as every other weapons.

It's often tough to get what PGI is going for. Despite some really, really hating homing weapons and advocate their complete removal, I assume reasonable people want all weapons to have a place/use/role in the game. The arc change may have even worked much more effectively if it had been implemented four or five years ago.

Edited by Feral Clown, 14 July 2019 - 05:33 AM.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 14 July 2019 - 02:43 AM, said:

Okay, let me rephrase that. Lowering damage does not address the SSRMs having niche for dealing lights.

Yeah, you just want it to not have the streaks' niche is light-hunting. But guess what, you failed, because it's light-hunting niche comes from it's mechanics.

Again, I wasn't trying to make them completely useless vs lights. The tracking by weight/speed suggestion or going back to the jam like suggestion makes it so streaks can still hit lights but with less damage, even just the less alpha same dps suggestion at least helps a little because you don't get slammed by a huge alpha at first and have time to react. The actual amount would depend on how much they were changed, could do just one suggestion, combine some, how much damage exactly, how ct centric against the bigs to balance it out.
But if we go with a fairly big example and say that streak damage vs lights was halved by either literally halving it or in part by lowering it and also making not all streaks fire at fast moving lights, that definitely would have an effect on the niche. And making it so all streaks fire at an assault and hit almost nothing but ct even with lower damage would have an effect on the niche.

So now it wouldn't be anti-light because while it can hit the lights it wouldn't be that great at killing them. You know, just like how current streaks can kill an assault but they're just not that great at it.

[Fae Puka]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

So I started this thread about IS Streaks, and well it came towards a different direction. Originally was supposedly to argue that IS Streaks are just bad at it's supposed niche in the game, as it turns out there were people that actually did not like the niche in the first place, despite being a legitimate role to begin with. But let it not be said that I don't consider them, and thought of a compromise.

I've been thinking for long about how do you nerf Streaks, without making it hell lot harder to use which is PGI's stupid approach, while also giving leeway for lights, and after a while, I got it, Stacking Individual Locks.

It goes like this:

Spoiler

This means that, you could, theoretically, launch 80 LRMs all at once, but that also means you will suffer immense lock-duration as a result. It has been a chore to lock from afar without LOS or against ECM, imagine this mess.

Now how would that nerf the Streaks? Well, the problem with Streakboats in the first place is that it's nuking lights in one-go. Scat which is at 3x SSRM6s doesn't necessarily nuke lights, but it still hits them reasonably, while it's the 6x SSRM6 Mad-Dog and Huntsman that are nuking the lights in one-go, which is very very very frustrating to fight against. The trick is to force chainfiring.

The system would theoretically allow 6x SSRM6s to be launched all at once but, the catch is that, it's going to lock a hell lot longer, like from 3s for the 3x SSRM6s, you could end up 6s of locking, and that is without any modifications yet. As opposed of just the normal 2s and eating the ghost-heat up, this system with about 50% more lock-time at base Ghost-Heat limit, and essentially 3x the lock-time for them skill-boats which would mean that it's harder for them to launch what is basically light-nuking missiles out.

At this system, if you're a light, and within 360m near a streak-boat, exposed for 6s, then maybe it's your fault?

Note that this is just concept, there's not yet any good numerical values yet. So what do you think? Does it adequately nerf SSRMs and other missile-weapons in general?

Nope - unless you want to make ballistics and lasers do exactly the same. sounds to me that you are a light mech player who gets wasted every now and then when trying to run behind everyone at the start to take out a dc or afk pilot, but get caught by a streak boat . . .

[Prototelis]

You can be a career backstabber and still think streaks are ********. Because they kind of are.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Prototelis, on 14 July 2019 - 09:20 AM, said:

You can be a career backstabber and still think streaks are ********. Because they kind of are.

So lights can't take AMS or ECM or stealth armor huh that's news to me when were those patched so lights can't use them?

Edited by SirSmokes, 14 July 2019 - 01:11 PM.

[Prototelis]

Hahahaha lol. What does AMS do against streaks again?

Even good ECM lights are kind of strapped for combat when they take ECM.

[Dee Eight]

Prototelis, on 13 July 2019 - 09:22 PM, said:

No, it requires tracking. The weapon aims for you.

It isn't difficult and requires considerably less skill than any other type of weapon in the game.

Well you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

[Prototelis]

Dee Eight, on 14 July 2019 - 02:29 PM, said:

Well you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

lol keep telling yourself running a streak-cat is hard work and a firm demonstration of skill if thats what helps you feel good about yourself.

[John Bronco]

Throw all this BS out.

Increase lock-on times.

Fixed. YW.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Wrong I am absolutely getting it. Comparing a doctor and mechanic is a false equivalent because they work in completely unrelated fields. That is no where equivalent to roles or classes in people playing the same game. Not even close, so it absolutely and in no way supports your argument. Glad I could clear that up for you.

You do realize that it is exactly the point? that having different roles means you have different jobs/field. Youa re supposed to have different job depending on your load-out.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

No, because there is no logic to gleaned to you just returning back to the 'why don't you just chainfire' argument when the point is that is bad and on top of that your mechanic proposed is a convoluted mess. Screen clutter, weapons ready-ing in sequence. It's garbage, accept that. It's why there's literally no defending that as a good idea.

Translated: "I really don't have proof to back it upon."

Its only as "circular" as you having to either partition your shot, or eat up the ghost heat. Period.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Accept ghost heat allows for a set number of alphas, and your idea is utter crap that would garbage pile the weapon.

No because it is not the same, because chain firing is crap and waiting forever to have the privilege of being able to alpha is utter and complete garbage. Eating up time with a convoluted nonsense mechanic is no where near the same as ghost heat and would make the weapon ineffective against anything.

Seriously? People can partition laser shots that amount to about 2s of burn-time, but people can't stare for 2 seconds within a 30-degree lock-cone just so it could launch 6 SSRM6s?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

No that is what you think the point or role is. It's not unreasonable for everybody to be on an equal playing field, especially when playing on that same field against each other. There's good reason we have the Olympics and the Special Olympics. There's no one saying that we should have the two mix and give one set a bunch of boosters so that latter can compete.

There's proficiency, and then there is role. And that is exactly it, playing as an SSRM light-light hunter is supposed to be a different field, it's a different role. Why can't you get that?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

It absolutely is not a workable concept in any, way shape or form. It's utter garbage as an idea or concept. Adjusting your timing on your example to two seconds for all the weapons to ready up would also either then make it functionally the same as it is now with extra clutter or useless depending on what that time was adjusted to. Which means no point in doing or trying it.

Seriously, now it's functionally the same, which means that there's no point, or functionally useless depending on ? So if it's 2.00s it's functionally the same, but 2.01s it's functionally useless.

You already concluded that it's utter garbage, with utter-garbage argument -- you didn't explained anything, you just said that it is.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

I understand perfectly that this is not a high concept, coming from a renowned thinker. I also understand that you are tied to it and defending while having absolutely nothing of merit backing you or any ability to show why it would in any way shape or form be better than what we have now, or even functional.

Well, I understand that you didn't really processed it, you just said no, and basically kept saying no, without actual thought. That previous statement says it all -- it's either the same, or it's useless -- as if we can't find a middle ground.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Lul...wut? Did you take a hit or drink of something when you wrote the above? Video game dude, lots of things are precisely possible in fantasy land. To be more precise it seems you don't get the correlation in what I said about range in your response and how it's applicable.

No, it's what you don't get, such as you don't get that range is just a factor, a different factor, but it's just a factor. And guess what, it's not really even supposed to be that applicable, long-range locking is precisely supposedly a deterrent, just as prolonged locking duration is a deterrent.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

A tighter lock on cone would absolutely defeat the purpose of a homing weapon if it's purpose was to in fact have an easy mode weapon. It seems you are of the belief that the weapons purpose is to be easy to aim and I am saying implicitly that, that is what we have now and it's wrong. The purpose of a homing weapon should be to get a higher amount of damage and 100% hit rate. Games I have played in the past, specifically Top Gun, made getting that lock and holding it a challenge. In a player versus player environment, the playing field should be equal. That should be a very easy concept for even you to get a grasp on but so far no luck.

So what? the games I have played -- like Heavy Gear II, Homing Mortar has large, lock cone, it's supposed to be easy.

So we're talking about perscriptive instead of descriptive then? Well, it should be easy mode because there's already a LOT of counters against it.I mean did Top Gun had AMS or ECM? Even better question, is this Top Gun?

You want it equal? Remove AMS, ECM, and Stealth Armor. Because as far as I'm concerned, if iron-domes could shoot down the entire volley, if ECM makes my locking even harder despite the aiming, or if Stealth Armor shuts me down, that ain't 100% hit-rate, nor it is equal with extremely precise locking sequence.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

I don't think I am or that you 'understand' that why don't you just chainfire isn't an answer or why it is different from partitioning groups, or the limits currently imposed on PPFLD. If you did you wouldn't have brought them up as examples or equivalents.

First, having firing groups under the ghost heat is not the same as chainfiring. Second they do partition which is kinda known and a silly question. Third the difference is that currently they don't have some mess of a system making them ready at a bunch of different times. Forth currently heat allows for those builds to alpha a set number of times depending, and is much less of a mess and almost elegant in comparison.

Okay, so why don't you just partition your shots? Likewise it's not really messy, it's just too much for you.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

No I get it. It is just that the idea is utter crap and that your first suggested timing, which you are now seemingly backing away from was punishingly high and would make the weapon unusable. If your reasoning is that this would be a great way to ensure no one would ever use the weapon, then it's perfect.

So you get it, yet don't, I don't even know how you do that.

We can find a timing of it being both a deterrent, but still usable. It just need testing.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

So instead of doing that and having weapons ready at different times, just increase lock on time. There'd be literally no point in having that unless you specifically were going for people firing them as they ready in a chainfire done differently than we have now and your original idea included cluttering up the screen to see individual weapons ready state.

They can chain-fire, but the sequential locking is there so that you have to "charge" your missiles at launch, this means you could release it and fire even if just at half-missiles ready, and so you get just that, half of your missiles shot. You don't stream-fire them automatically, but you can manually. This also means different exposure time for locking mean varying amount of damage because you have to launch what you built up, else you lose it all. And thereby there could be varying amount of missiles in the air, depending on the class.

The visual clutter could be reduced, either by smaller font, or simply doing it differently, like just turning the cooldown-bar green like Gauss if it's ready to fire.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

The answer is no, that's crap. It does nothing to improve what we have. It does nothing to address that it currently is too easy to get and maintain a lock. What you need to do here is back off the premise of having them lock in sequence and having visuals to monitor that.

Also no. The idea of having sequential lock is to make low-tube-count application of missiles bearable, while punishes a lot of missiles. Also part of it is that, the long lock-duration accrued is supposed to compensate for the ease of locking in the first place.

The visual monitor, sure could go. I mean it could be just a green bar filling the cooldown-bar like Gauss-Charging.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

You are not getting this one here. The point you are missing completely is that it is too easy to lock and delete. Hell, streaks are no longer even anywhere close to being as cancerous to lights as ATM's are currently. As well if this is the point, why are you proposing nuking the weapon out of the game with a convoluted garbage mechanic and sequential readying state?

It will not nuke the weapon out of the game, depending on the implementation. Having to endure 6s of locking time, just so you could launch 4 ATM12 without ghost-heat, that is nuking the weapon out of the game. But if it's like at 2.4s of lock-time to do so, it's probably hard, but not impossible.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Nope, again this is you not being able to even begin to comprehend it seems. Streaks deal damage in a different way. They deal more of it as well.

No, it's you, you don't get it. How they deal damage is rather irrelevant, the comment was done with respect of how it is mechanically. It's not about being different, in fact it's the fact that it's inferior mechanic to laser that makes it worse.

For 4.5 tons, I could put 4 MLs that deal 20 damage, versus 12 of the SSRM without even ammo. More damage my butt. Do you mean having to allot 3? As in 3 SSRM6s? Well 6 MPLs for 12 tons does 36 damage. So yeah you just got a worse way of dealing damage, for functionally the same input.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Yes currently lasers are better, especially pulse for people who can aim. However the issue is that a very skilled light pilot can mitigate the damage and has a chance against lasers, while a weapon without any skill can nuke him off the planet because of the extent of the damage it does. I have a lot of seat time in streak boats, mostly in CW. Streakwacker's have pretty much negated Myst Lynx as being viable there at all, and Piranha's have to have a very good and aware pilot to not be completely irrelevant. People have argued that this isn't exactly right, you've come up with an utterly garbage idea to address it, and I am saying it'd just be much, much better to require the weapon need a higher skill ceiling. They'd still at least be effective without being as cheesy.

Okay, sure. But they could also be effective, witihout being cheesy, by doing this idea. Think about it, this is about reducing the possible missiles in air by having exposure-time related damage. Which means, less damage -- with that damage inevitably spread, result into moar light survivability.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Yes and lasers also have burn/duration which means you have to be really, really good to get all of that damage on the target, while streaks get 100% of its damage while not being hampered by having to aim or track properly. This is all pretty simple stuff and yet you seem to be the one not getting that your mess of a mechanic brings nothing to the table and isn't a good idea. At this point I think you are arguing just to argue since you don't actually have anything to say.

Do you know why gauss have charge? Because it does immense damage with fast projectile speed. This is the same case, you compensate with time, to account for the increase of hit rate. It's simple, yet you seem not to get it.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

No, really it is an absolute dumpster fire of an idea. Convoluted and messy. Your original timing being overly punative, adjusting to down to similar that we have now would make introducing even more pointless, and your idea fails to address the concern of those over performers that the weapon is too high of a reward for too little skill.

Again, lol, just lol.

More missiles = longer lock time, longer lock-time = less missiles in the air, Less missiles in the air = more lights surviving.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Partly because you can't comprehend what I am stating, in spite of how plain and simply I spell it out. You did say that it gave lrms a certain amount of respect, to which I responded by noting that the changes did not do that and that the behaviour it was attempting to address is still overly prevalent.

No, you don't comprehend what i am saying. And what I am saying is that, it's not supposed to address it. You can't change hiders, they pick the weapon precisely because it can IDF by default. Now it has a bit of respect, because you also can DF it, and the guys that get their own locks are rewarded.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

I said this due to seeing more people firing their lrms the same old way using the old arc, than I do people using direct fire which is now far, far more effective.

Well, guess what, you now see people using direct fire and far more effective, and that was the point. You get to blame the player, not the weapon.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Again I will remind you I frequently pilot lights and mediums and I am frequently as in pretty much every game going after a lurm dude off in a corner behind a wall or rock by himself.

No wonder you hate streaks.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

In tier one games, in almost every one of them, I am still seeing this. Do you get that? Do you get that the changes to the arc have not wiped out or encouraged people entrenched in thinking it's fine to go hide and lurm somewhere?

Never mind the anecdote, which I could simply counter with my own anecdote, do you get that it's not supposed to address the hiders? It's supposed to give us, the people who actually get out there, not to scoff LRMs anymore.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

What it certainly has done though, is made them much less effective at doing it and on the bright side of things, it's made using the weapon more fun for those of us with no behaviour issues or anti-social leanings.

And it is doing exactly what it intends to do.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

I can't really be insulted by someone who talks in circles and can't come up with a decent idea or can't defend his postion without hyperbole, personal attacks, false equivalents, off the wall assumptions (such as the weapons point is to be easy and shouldn't be on par skill wise with others), or comprehend why a convoluted mess wouldn't be good. You don't have solid ground here to stand on and can't explain why this would be good to implement.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

Maybe you are also so deluded about yourself that you can't grasp that not everything you come up with is gold.... It seems to be a real struggle for you to admit how garbage this would be, despite a mountain of evidence against it.

What evidence? Did you even see it work? Did you demonstrate it? No, you certainly did not.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

You've even backed off you proposed timing suggestion to make your own suggestion pointless. Either you really don't get the game, and don't really understand why chainfiring is actually bad or you just are not man enough to admit when you are wrong.

I can admit when I was wrong, hell I already "backed up the proposed timing suggestion", which is just an example to elaborate the concept really. Unfortunately you just haven't proven anything.

I understand that chainfiring is bad -- that is exactly the god damn point, it is bad. Ghost heat forces chain-firing when you're already too hot to shoot your weapons all at once lest punished by a shutdown. This is a comparable avenue.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

It's often tough to get what PGI is going for. Despite some really, really hating homing weapons and advocate their complete removal, I assume reasonable people want all weapons to have a place/use/role in the game. The arc change may have even worked much more effectively if it had been implemented four or five years ago.

PGI ****** up a lot of things, that we can agree on.

You know what, I agree that homing weapons have too much good result for their ease of use. What I don't agree is that, simply making them harder.

Other games be damned, it's about the place here in MWO. People talk about them being easy weapon, the problem is that they are both aren't easy-weapon -- but just in fact easier -- but at the same time has still too good of a result.

Streaks should have been stream-fired like LRMs in the beginning. Hell, all homing weapons should have had low DPS due to very high cooldown with high velocity translating to high amount of hit-rate, maybe even increased damage. If you need low-skill people contributing but not best, or a stable floor of performance, the Homing-weapon is for them.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 July 2019 - 04:21 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 14 July 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

...

So now it wouldn't be anti-light because while it can hit the lights it wouldn't be that great at killing them. You know, just like how current streaks can kill an assault but they're just not that great at it.

Did I forgot to tell you that it is precisely an anti-light because it stems from a mechanic? Even if you reduce the damage, it would still mean that assaults would also would be less affected, even if you could focus more damage in the right spots. All you just need dealing with lights is a reliable way to deal damage, and that is what Streaks is there for, which you have not addressed. You still got the weapon that is the best with molesting lights in a dark alley.

Well you could make streaks do 0 damage, but I just imagine that would kill the weapon system.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 July 2019 - 04:26 PM.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 14 July 2019 - 04:25 PM, said:

Did I forgot to tell you that it is precisely an anti-light because it stems from a mechanic? Even if you reduce the damage, it would still mean that assaults would also would be less affected, even if you could focus more damage in the right spots. All you just need dealing with lights is a reliable way to deal damage, and that is what Streaks is there for, which you have not addressed. You still got the weapon that is the best with molesting lights in a dark alley.

Well you could make streaks do 0 damage, but I just imagine that would kill the weapon system.

Reliably dealing damage only does so much if the damage is greatly reduced. If you nerfed erll damage to 2 you could still snipe with it, but it wouldn't be that good at it. Like I said I wasn't trying to make the weapon useless vs lights, just trying to make it not as much of a counter. So the suggestions do address the issue, how well they address it just depends on the exact amount of changes done.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 14 July 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

Reliably dealing damage only does so much if the damage is greatly reduced.

Of course it'll going to not do so much, but I don't see how you have other choices.

dario03, on 14 July 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

If you nerfed erll damage to 2 you could still snipe with it, but it wouldn't be that good at it.

It's not a question of good, but if it's the best at it. Such as how good are your AC20s if you miss every single shot, versus SSRM6s that deal a third of the damage of said AC20, but you land it every single time?

dario03, on 14 July 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

Like I said I wasn't trying to make the weapon useless vs lights, just trying to make it not as much of a counter. So the suggestions do address the issue, how well they address it just depends on the exact amount of changes done.

Sure, you didn't say it, but guess what you won't achieve what you want either. You probably address the issue of Light-Nuking -- as much as 6s more cooperation than humans (It's a Portal 2 Reference), but if you want to remove the niche by what you propose, i'm sorry but it won't work.

Spoiler

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 July 2019 - 07:48 PM.

[Tiy0s]

The6thMessenger I don't even know who you are I'm just going to say this.

Stop trying to find problems where there aren't any. This is a game where very real choices have to be made on where to allocate resources and your incessant need to find problems where they aren't needed and use of exorbitant word choice to "outmaneuver" people is both unneeded and detrimental to this forum.

So please take this back to MWO Facebook where people believe computer mechanics can read minds and judge our intent to act out ingame mechanics.

Edited by Tiy0s, 14 July 2019 - 08:08 PM.

[Feral Clown]

The6thMessenger, on 14 July 2019 - 04:16 PM, said:

You do realize that it is exactly the point? that having different roles means you have different jobs/field. Youa re supposed to have different job depending on your load-out.

Translated: "I really don't have proof to back it upon."

Its only as "circular" as you having to either partition your shot, or eat up the ghost heat. Period.

Seriously? People can partition laser shots that amount to about 2s of burn-time, but people can't stare for 2 seconds within a 30-degree lock-cone just so it could launch 6 SSRM6s?

So we're talking about perscriptive instead of descriptive then? Well, it should be easy mode because there's already a LOT of counters against it.I mean did Top Gun had AMS or ECM? Even better question, is this Top Gun?

You want it equal? Remove AMS, ECM, and Stealth Armor. Because as far as I'm concerned, if iron-domes could shoot down the entire volley, if ECM makes my locking even harder despite the aiming, or if Stealth Armor shuts me down, that ain't 100% hit-rate, nor it is equal with extremely precise locking sequence.

Okay, so why don't you just partition your shots? Likewise it's not really messy, it's just too much for you.

So you get it, yet don't, I don't even know how you do that.

We can find a timing of it being both a deterrent, but still usable. It just need testing.

They can chain-fire, but the sequential locking is there so that you have to "charge" your missiles at launch, this means you could release it and fire even if just at half-missiles ready, and so you get just that, half of your missiles shot. You don't stream-fire them automatically, but you can manually. This also means different exposure time for locking mean varying amount of damage because you have to launch what you built up, else you lose it all. And thereby there could be varying amount of missiles in the air, depending on the class.

The visual clutter could be reduced, either by smaller font, or simply doing it differently, like just turning the cooldown-bar green like Gauss if it's ready to fire.

Also no. The idea of having sequential lock is to make low-tube-count application of missiles bearable, while punishes a lot of missiles. Also part of it is that, the long lock-duration accrued is supposed to compensate for the ease of locking in the first place.

The visual monitor, sure could go. I mean it could be just a green bar filling the cooldown-bar like Gauss-Charging.

It will not nuke the weapon out of the game, depending on the implementation. Having to endure 6s of locking time, just so you could launch 4 ATM12 without ghost-heat, that is nuking the weapon out of the game. But if it's like at 2.4s of lock-time to do so, it's probably hard, but not impossible.

No, it's you, you don't get it. How they deal damage is rather irrelevant, the comment was done with respect of how it is mechanically. It's not about being different, in fact it's the fact that it's inferior mechanic to laser that makes it worse.

For 4.5 tons, I could put 4 MLs that deal 20 damage, versus 12 of the SSRM without even ammo. More damage my butt. Do you mean having to allot 3? As in 3 SSRM6s? Well 6 MPLs for 12 tons does 36 damage. So yeah you just got a worse way of dealing damage, for functionally the same input.

Okay, sure. But they could also be effective, witihout being cheesy, by doing this idea. Think about it, this is about reducing the possible missiles in air by having exposure-time related damage. Which means, less damage -- with that damage inevitably spread, result into moar light survivability.

Do you know why gauss have charge? Because it does immense damage with fast projectile speed. This is the same case, you compensate with time, to account for the increase of hit rate. It's simple, yet you seem not to get it.

Again, lol, just lol.

More missiles = longer lock time, longer lock-time = less missiles in the air, Less missiles in the air = more lights surviving.

No, you don't comprehend what i am saying. And what I am saying is that, it's not supposed to address it. You can't change hiders, they pick the weapon precisely because it can IDF by default. Now it has a bit of respect, because you also can DF it, and the guys that get their own locks are rewarded.

Well, guess what, you now see people using direct fire and far more effective, and that was the point. You get to blame the player, not the weapon.

No wonder you hate streaks.

And it is doing exactly what it intends to do.

You go on and on without addressing and wondering in circles. No your analogy of different jobs and doctors and mechanics will never apply because they are completely different fields, where in this game we are all on the same playing field.

As far as having evidence we'll break it down simply.

Does your idea have any merit?

Answer is no, it does not.
1. It introduces an entirely new mechanic that at this point in the game is not something anyone can hope for PGI to consider putting any development time into.
2. The mechanic is convoluted. There is no reason to have individual weapons become ready sequentially.
3. The idea with proposed timings suggested so far do nothing to bring about balance. It would make them useless if timing too high, and with timing comparable to current game state, would only ensure that every other option was far superior.
4. There are other ways to adjust them without introducing an entirely new mechanic.

What are the problems with the weapon that have so far been brought up.
1. The lock on mechanic is currently too easy when compared with others.
2. Currently the weapon is too strong against lights.

Does your suggestion address these concerns?
No it simply makes the weapon useless.

What are the core concepts The6thMessenger is struggling with?
1. That there should be a weapon easier to use than others.
2. That homing weapons are should to be easier to use than other weapons.
3. That his idea is convoluted and brings nothing interesting or useful to the game.
4. That the arc change was implemented to entice players to use line of sight, and deter players from only firing behind cover.
5. That people playing the same game should expect to have all weapons and their usage be as close as possible to equal or balanced in terms of degree of difficulty using.
6. That his idea, comes from a great mind and that talking a bunch of nonsense will win a theoretical argument because others couldn't possibly grasp it's brilliance.

There is simply nothing you have put forward to address the many, many reasons we don't need a new mechanic or why this system would be good at doing anything other than making the weapon garbage. You have failed to describe why we'd want sequential locking or what possible role the weapon would have if it were introduced.

It's especially gratifying since you have gone on and on and on, without making a single valid point, that it would not ever be anything PGI would waste their time on.

[Tiy0s]

FeralClown I appreciate your many ways of saying he is dumb. However I would like to recommend a simpler solution. Just say he's dumb since he's obviously so far gone.

[MisterSomaru]

You want a weapon good at killing lights? try hgauss, lbx20, ac20, pulse lasers, lbx10s, ac10s... Those kill lights fast, because you don't need to log on

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

You go on and on without addressing and wondering in circles. No your analogy of different jobs and doctors and mechanics will never apply because they are completely different fields, where in this game we are all on the same playing field.

And that is where you are wrong. You imply that the game is competing with aiming skills, but there's a whole lot of other different factors that may come into play, that may completely compensate for it.

Aiming is just one of the factors in game, and that's why you're wrong is that you act as if it is.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

As far as having evidence we'll break it down simply.

Does your idea have any merit?

You say you have proof, but all you presented is your thesis.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

1. It introduces an entirely new mechanic that at this point in the game is not something anyone can hope for PGI to consider putting any development time into.

By that reasoning, any major development is just bad, regardless of what good it does.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

2. The mechanic is convoluted. There is no reason to have individual weapons become ready sequentially.

That's not "convoluted", that is "unnecessary", learn the difference. You know what else was unnecessary? LRM dual-arc -- but hey that was nice at least.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

3. The idea with proposed timings suggested so far do nothing to bring about balance. It would make them useless if timing too high, and with timing comparable to current game state, would only ensure that every other option was far superior.

So what happens to the "timing just right"? Ever think of that? Somehow that eludes your grasp.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

4. There are other ways to adjust them without introducing an entirely new mechanic.

You mean like tightening the lock cone so much it's pretty much the same input as lasers, but with less better result?

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

What are the problems with the weapon that have so far been brought up.
1. The lock on mechanic is currently too easy when compared with others.
2. Currently the weapon is too strong against lights.

Does your suggestion address these concerns?
No it simply makes the weapon useless.

1 Isn't a problem, and with 2, there's literally going to be less chance to launch a lot of missiles. And no it doesn't make the weapon useless, that depends on the implementation.

Nope, no evidence. Just assertions.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

What are the core concepts The6thMessenger is struggling with?
1. That there should be a weapon easier to use than others.
2. That homing weapons are should to be easier to use than other weapons.
3. That his idea is convoluted and brings nothing interesting or useful to the game.
4. That the arc change was implemented to entice players to use line of sight, and deter players from only firing behind cover.
5. That people playing the same game should expect to have all weapons and their usage be as close as possible to equal or balanced in terms of degree of difficulty using.
6. That his idea, comes from a great mind and that talking a bunch of nonsense will win a theoretical argument because others couldn't possibly grasp it's brilliance.

1 and 2, lol, just lol. Not haha lol, just sad lol. You're just incapable of seeing other's point of view are you? I'm aware that I am harsh, a "bit" argumentative. But seriously? Not everyone has to be hyper-competitive with aiming. Here's one of the things Feral Clown is struggling with; the Idea that aiming is just a part of the game.

3 If you could understand how it works, how could it be convoluted? You know what "convoluted" means don't you?

4 And there's the problem, that entire line right there highlights your inability to actually understand what I am saying. It's not enticing people to use LRMs with LOS, it's enticing FOR people who use LOS. If you still don't understand that, I can't help you.

6 lol, just lol. We'd actually have a proper conversation if you're just properly addressing the concept, or just admitting you don't understand it and would have it explained to you. But hey, just keep acting like you do, seems to work for you.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

There is simply nothing you have put forward to address the many, many reasons we don't need a new mechanic or why this system would be good at doing anything other than making the weapon garbage. You have failed to describe why we'd want sequential locking or what possible role the weapon would have if it were introduced.

I see there's a fundamental misunderstanding with the point of the concept. I see that you're not actively looking for ways how it could work, but just stubbornly seeing it shut down.

Why do we need new mechanic? Because the old one allows lights to be nuked by a lot of SSRMs, likewise players could just eat up the ghost heat of other missile systems. Because if we could assign individual locking system, we could balance the SSRMs apart from LRMs and ATMs and vise-versa -- we don't have to go to the ******** of having Lock-Cone nerfs that affects the rest of the homing-weapons when the SSRMs is just the offender (IIRC this was the introduction of Arctic Wolves). We don't have to remove Artemis Lock-Speed bonus removal when it was never meant work with Artemis, thereby affecting LRMs and ATMs in the process.

The sequential locking benefits low tube-count homing weapons by making them easier to launch if you don't bring that much -- that being said, yes chain-firing is still pretty bad. This also comes at a benefit of indirectly reducing the amount of missiles that could home on the light, thereby gives a progression of effectiveness based on class which is a lot farther than the current system we have.

The introduction of Lock Reacquisition reduces the missiles in the air due to like gauss-charge that reduces rate-of-fire, which means LRMs and ATMs could be less annoying, they could also be made into Alpha-Centric weapons than DPS ones which increases the need of more thoughtful volleys because you can't just spam like before, and as a result poor LRM players would be shafted while proper LRM players would be rewarded.

There's plenty of approaches, this is nothing but a concept. You're too hung up on the specifics, it's not going to fit in the game very well just by slapping it in, it needs adjustments. Such as if you're adding what is basically gauss-charge on homing-weapons, this means you reduce their rate-of-fire, and may need either bonus damage or reduction of cooldown. But if you want to just reduce their DPS anyways, this works just fine.

Feral Clown, on 14 July 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

It's especially gratifying since you have gone on and on and on, without making a single valid point, that it would not ever be anything PGI would waste their time on.

Lol, just lol. All hail the almighty point-validator.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 July 2019 - 09:09 PM.