75 replies to this topic

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 04 October 2020 - 01:02 PM, said:

Site functionality is bleh, I can't reply properly.

Anyways, It's not that I'm selective, but analytical. LRMs seem to be obscure, and if it is only powerful at certain right context, and you nerfed it, what incentive could you possibly have in trying to get the right context again if it's not powerful? I mean it's already pretty obscure right? Compare that to lasers or acs.

It seems to me that it's more of a mechanics problem.

I don't think there's likely to be a solution where I'd support making them any more viable than they are because ai can't think of a solution that requires the same skill as direct fire while retaining the lock-in mechanic.

[The6thMessenger]

So it's a matter of mechanics, but not by potency?

Okay, I do have a solution based on the technical requirements, but you will definitely not like it. What if we applied auto-aim instead? You can focus your weapons at a component, but if your aim is just around 45-degrees in a cone, then the mech will just shoot at the general direction of the target without precision.

TCs would have a point in being equipped by reducing the gap between manual and auto-aim.

It works by reducing the skill requirement of everything else, it solves the technical issue, but I don't think people like you will like it.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Lack of strategic creativity

[Ignatius Audene]

Nope

[The pessimistic optimist]

Ignatius Audene, on 05 October 2020 - 03:26 AM, said:

Nope

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Creativity

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 04 October 2020 - 09:27 PM, said:

So it's a matter of mechanics, but not by potency?

Okay, I do have a solution based on the technical requirements, but you will definitely not like it. What if we applied auto-aim instead? You can focus your weapons at a component, but if your aim is just around 45-degrees in a cone, then the mech will just shoot at the general direction of the target without precision.

TCs would have a point in being equipped by reducing the gap between manual and auto-aim.

It works by reducing the skill requirement of everything else, it solves the technical issue, but I don't think people like you will like it.

So because lock on weapons require minimal skill everything should be brought down to their level in a way that fundamentally alters (and imo breaks) the core mechanics of the game? No. That's a terrible idea. I could see an argument for making lock-ons function more like TOW missiles in Operation Flashpoint for example (the missiles follow your cursor to the target) as this would be essentially like a laser burn with a projectile. But I don't think the lock on crowd would like having to hold their cursor on a target and expose to get a hit.

[The6thMessenger]

Well, it satisfies the problem of skill-gap, and since it works, the "should" logically follows. As for the core-mechanics, it's preserved actually as one can still focus at a component. The auto-aim function only really works when the reticle isn't on the hitbox of the mech but just around 45-degree cone of the aim. It is a solution, albeit an unsatisfying one. If you still don't like it, maybe on MWO2, you think you can accept that?

So far, aside from pissing comp people off by closing the skill-gap which is really a personal conscientious objection than anything, what I see more is that targeting lights is a lot easier. The game could be more of a battle of piloting and positioning than just aiming, that should be an enough environment to distinguish comp from the scrubs.

So manually-steered LRMs, and it took Cunningham's law to get that from you?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 October 2020 - 07:38 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

https://en.wikipedia...outside_the_box

[OmniFail]

Its so strange Squadrons has a large array of lock on weapons and there are zero tears there and somehow the game seems to a ridiculous potential for being highly competitive. Don't take my word for it go check it out for yourself.

[thievingmagpi]

OmniFail, on 05 October 2020 - 08:58 AM, said:

Its so strange Squadrons has a large array of lock on weapons and there are zero tears there and somehow the game seems to a ridiculous potential for being highly competitive. Don't take my word for it go check it out for yourself.

Probably because it's been out for like 3 days?

Oh and look at that, google already turns up people pointing out that lock on weapons are stupid.


Lmao

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 05 October 2020 - 07:25 AM, said:

Well, it satisfies the problem of skill-gap, and since it works, the "should" logically follows. As for the core-mechanics, it's preserved actually as one can still focus at a component. The auto-aim function only really works when the reticle isn't on the hitbox of the mech but just around 45-degree cone of the aim. It is a solution, albeit an unsatisfying one. If you still don't like it, maybe on MWO2, you think you can accept that?

So far, aside from pissing comp people off by closing the skill-gap which is really a personal conscientious objection than anything, what I see more is that targeting lights is a lot easier. The game could be more of a battle of piloting and positioning than just aiming, that should be an enough environment to distinguish comp from the scrubs.

So manually-steered LRMs, and it took Cunningham's law to get that from you?

Having a skill gap within the playerbase isn't a problem imo. Having skill gaps in weapons isn't a big problem either as long as they're balanced accordingly.

You should recognize that my "solution" is just an idea. I don't know that forcing manual aim of lock-ons would be a good solution I just think it'd be a change to explore that MIGHT make it possible to reconsider lrm balance relative to direct fire weapons.

I suspect completely changing the core aiming mechanics of the game would piss off a heck of a lot more than just the comp community. At the very least I think it should be acknowledged that it'd be an extremely risky proposition considering the core game mechanics of MWO have generally been considered one of the most well designed pieces of the game.

Finally, nerfing lights and mobility in general by giving people free hits because they put their crosshairs near an enemy is a horrible idea for balance. Lights already are the lowest scoring and least played weight class. Further nerfs to them will just push MWO further towards Turret Warrior Online and reward bad play. If anything but heavies and assaults are to exist in the game there needs to be a reason for them. There wouldn't be much of one if putting your crosshairs anywhere near a light took off a component.

[The pessimistic optimist]

I find it silly how rigid you normies minds can be some times soooooo rigid https://www.nessy.co...ngths-dyslexia/

Edited by SirSmokes, 05 October 2020 - 10:48 AM.

[Brauer]

SirSmokes, on 05 October 2020 - 10:47 AM, said:

I find it silly how rigid you normies minds can be some times soooooo rigid https://www.nessy.co...ngths-dyslexia/

It doesn't look like they me like you've offered any constructive input to this conversation. Your input so far is to post links to wikipedia with little to no context or denigrate other posters. People in glass houses...

[The pessimistic optimist]

Brauer, on 05 October 2020 - 11:15 AM, said:

It doesn't look like they me like you've offered any constructive input to this conversation. Your input so far is to post links to wikipedia with little to no context or denigrate other posters. People in glass houses...

I am sorry just little light trolling but sorry you guys LACK MASSIVE creativity and you never think out side your small little box

[Brauer]

SirSmokes, on 05 October 2020 - 11:20 AM, said:

I am sorry just little light trolling but sorry you guys LACK MASSIVE creativity and you never think out side your small little box

So demonstrate some creativity. It's easy to sit back and say X, Y, and Z are bad/wrong/uncreative, but if you're not going to propose anything it's not productive.

[The pessimistic optimist]

That for you too learn I am not telling you how to do it

[Brain Cancer]

The6thMessenger, on 01 October 2020 - 08:49 PM, said:

Just for the sake of transparency, I haven't watched any Comp matches, but based on what I see on QP with comp guys NOT using LRMs, I don't think they are being used - I could be wrong, take that with a grain of salt.

Are Comp guys using LRMs in any serious capacity? Are they effective in producing good results?

As a comp player, if you can balance the game with every aspect, how are you going to balance LRMs? Are you even going to bat an eye?

Comp teams want focused damage with near zero travel time. Failing that, they want enough raw damage to make up for the relative lack of focus (ATMs, MRMs).

LRMs provide neither unless boated to obscene levels by a team, which in turn is one-dimensional and usually countered by dense AMS or ECM coverage that costs far less to invest in than the LRMs do.

Edit:

LRMs could probably get more play if the clustering tightened by maintaining a lock longer than the base "I got target, firing and what hits, hits". Just have a second and third lock on circle begin (as a circle that gradually draws itself around the locked target).

First circle done, clustering improves by 33%. Second one, it improves by 66%. TAG and Artemis provide their normal bonuses. You'd trade rate of fire for much more effective holes in the target, or spam armor-tickling firepower instead.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 05 October 2020 - 12:39 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

But it's not balanced accordingly. LRMs are generally **** to use to people who know how to play the game, that it's obscure on exactly high levels of play. It's so much so that you admit that it's kind of trolling them.

So is my solution. No really, that's just an idea too, that solves the presented problem.

It's just pilot a walking tank, and point and shoot. The only difference is that you don't have to point harder. You are still doing exactly the same things. Hell, if you have pin-point accuracy to a component, hardly anything changes.

Depends of the implementation really. LRMs for example have somewhat proportional effect to lights because spread. Pin-point damage defeats the light, the COF would still mean that your shots will go everywhere even if it's the general direction of a light.

Now with TC 7-8 though, that will kind of nail them. But that is just like Streaks but worse at this point, because it's 7-8 tons investment on top of direct-fire weapons

[dario03]

East Indy, on 04 October 2020 - 12:03 PM, said:

As with almost all of MWO's balance problems, it's not the weapon itself but multiples with virtually linear scaling. So while I'd agree that a meta solution to reduce damage proportionally to tonnage might be interesting, it would also need to scale with the number of missiles hitting at a time, otherwise players would have even fewer reasons to mount smaller numbers of smaller missile packs.

The only fire some missiles could work for that. Give low weapon counts better chance of shooting.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 05 October 2020 - 04:13 PM, said:

But it's not balanced accordingly. LRMs are generally **** to use to people who know how to play the game, that it's obscure on exactly high levels of play. It's so much so that you admit that it's kind of trolling them.

So is my solution. No really, that's just an idea too, that solves the presented problem.

It's just pilot a walking tank, and point and shoot. The only difference is that you don't have to point harder. You are still doing exactly the same things. Hell, if you have pin-point accuracy to a component, hardly anything changes.

Depends of the implementation really. LRMs for example have somewhat proportional effect to lights because spread. Pin-point damage defeats the light, the COF would still mean that your shots will go everywhere even if it's the general direction of a light.

Now with TC 7-8 though, that will kind of nail them. But that is just like Streaks but worse at this point, because it's 7-8 tons investment on top of direct-fire weapons

Hmmm, it looks like you overlooked my point about how lrms are very strong when used in the correct context and have been used very effectively (without trolling) at some of the highest levels with the highest stakes. They are not trash tier, unlike plenty of other weapons systems in the game