87 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

i dont think lerms is a passive playstyle if you use them effectively. namely on a mobility platform that can rapidly reposition and harvest their own locks. its only a passive playstle for those players who only leach locks from others, only engage idf and generally are not very skilled to begin with. sniping is more passive in that you can just park it and farm.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 September 2023 - 11:04 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 12:56 AM, said:

Sorry no.

Don't get me wrong, PGI has a massive piece of this **** pie, but guess what, PGI listens to comp -- they have, to a degree, have an influence with this. It's you guys that complained about homing weapons to no end, so where did the homing-weapons complaint went? The lock-on cone reduction, the dual-arc system, pretty much every nerf to the homing weapons -- the LRMs under the sun, is by people like you. ****, they're doing it right now, with the new velocity nerf.

And guess what, right now, is it the casuals that influence the balance? No, it is the comp, the gulag cauldron, that is apparently heavily editorialized IIRC. So guess what, I will lay the god ******* damn blame on the comp.

I mean, the only complaining about homing weapons I ever heard about LRMs/ATMs was that they really didn't take skill but also that the way they work was just highly situational (the last part was something even Jman5, the 4J whisperer himself acknowledged, he didn't even recommend more than one LRM mech either). Now the lower tier players were the ones always commenting "LRMs OP!!!" about as much as light mechs, and ironically both have similar issues in that they are a lot stronger in uncoordinated environments and against players who don't understand the game too well.

You mentioned in the other thread that they could just make LoS only reliable way to do damage without NARC or something being involved which might help, but there are still a number of things against LRMs/ATMs that are just foundational in this game and the mechanics of AMS is one of them, ECM is another (though one could argue that ECM is borked anyway, as the value it provides is a little high, stealth should probably be the one that provides that hidden signature). Again though, some pretty surface level stuff that won't really fix some of the glaring issues.

I guess the question really is, what exactly are you expecting with LRM changes? In comp AFAIK they've never really been a thing and comp players were okay with that. Lower tiers though they have been an off/on again plague and IDK how you really fix that. Sure you could nerf indirect fire into oblivion but that doesn't seem new player friendly as the game doesn't really tell you the difference in effectiveness between the two but at least would help people from being demolished by indirect fire. Then you have AMS and ECM which is another problem. ECM could lose the sensor range modifier which would impact comp play but probably should've been done a long time ago which would help with the TAG laser tax at least somewhat (the missile lock time penalty is also rough). Radar Derp is a big question mark because it wouldn't be a problem if missiles were fire and forget, but I don't know if that is even changeable at this point. AMS however idk what you do without code changes because the biggest issue with it is that it is ROF-based and can hit any missile within its bubble regardless of whether it was locked-on or who it was locked-on to.

That's all to say this is a tangled web of coupled non-sense that if I were the Cauldron, I'd probably just nerf it into oblivion and be done with it too because yeah, there is so much in this game that just works against lock-on weapons that are just baked into this game at this point, unwinding them would be....an effort. Which definitely sucks because of all the missile mechs that feel like they are pigeon-holed into SRMs/MRMs for IS and really just SRMs for Clans at this point, but yeah, such is life with how PGI implemented lock ons.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 September 2023 - 11:23 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Now the lower tier players were the ones always commenting "LRMs OP!!!" about as much as light mechs

And they are the low tier -- that grow out of it eventually. You guys are the comp, that still complained when the Lights were being shut down by streaks, but the LRMs that of higher investment with ECM and AMS, were fine.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

there are still a number of things against LRMs/ATMs that are just foundational in this game and the mechanics of AMS is one of them

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

ECM is another (though one could argue that ECM is borked anyway, as the value it provides is a little high, stealth should probably be the one that provides that hidden signature).

Yes, and? So what?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Again though, some pretty surface level stuff that won't really fix some of the glaring issues.

Yes, but guess what? Unless the code is open, that's what we can only do.

What you don't understand with the purpose of such suggestion is that by widening the gap between IDF and LOS effectivity is that you open the weapon system for a buff designed for the LOS without making IDF being too powerful. And as a bonus effect, the IDF with proper spotting -- TAG/NARC, is now basically mandatory for IDF support, that makes the builds extremely lucrative.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

I guess the question really is, what exactly are you expecting with LRM changes?

> Return lock cone to 40-degrees
> Make NARC/TAG (practically) mandatory for effective IDF use.
> Make LOS use of LRMs viable and competitive. Not just in Comp, but also in mid-tier.
> Make LRMs Alpha centric, instead of DPS Centric -- +Damage +Velocity +heat +++CD +Missile Health, make people think more carefully before letting loose a volley.

LRM weapon should be WAAAAAAAY better with LOS use, competitive to other LOS weapons as well, else just revert dual-arc back and keep them in IDF -- people will ultimately gravitate to IDF LRM because LOS LRM isn't powerful enough in comparison to worth the bother; with the comps in the helm of balance, honestly I can't fault the lurmers still trying to parasite-lurm, why peek when you're still painfully outclassed?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

In comp AFAIK they've never really been a thing and comp players were okay with that.

Exactly, because you're comp. You guys get to decide, and you guys decided that they shouldn't be a thing -- and as a result of not having separate balance, you guys made them also not an effective thing in our spaces.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Lower tiers though they have been an off/on again plague and IDK how you really fix that.

I ******* gave it. NARC/TAG being a practically mandatory thing for IDF.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Sure you could nerf indirect fire into oblivion but that doesn't seem new player friendly as the game doesn't really tell you the difference in effectiveness between the two but at least would help people from being demolished by indirect fire.

Meanwhile you guys were fine with the lock-on nerf, and the ECM buffs. Please don't feign new-player concern.

But guess what, I'll answer that. IDF isn't the only thing newbies can do, they can just as well play with LOS LRMs, or other direct fire weapons that would be better.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Then you have AMS and ECM which is another problem.

Which is also a different problem.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

ECM could lose the sensor range modifier.

Sure, I guess, but see ECM affects BEYOND just missile locks, such as say awareness, or at least a counter against it. It should just stop basically being basically a homing-missile hard-cover.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

Radar Derp is a big question mark because it wouldn't be a problem if missiles were fire and forget

Faster missiles would do the trick. Makes them pretty much close to fire-and-forget.

SSRMs might lose some point, but see they have 100/92% tracking, and even hit bone. So there's still a difference.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

AMS however idk what you do without code changes.

Missile Health changes first, and then adjustment of damage between AMS types.

What can be done is that, the B-AMS would be tuned for SRMs, while L-AMS could be tuned to LRMs instead. How does that work?

For example: (not real values)

Well SRMs can have 2 health/missile, and LRMs can have 1 health/missile, but the BAMS would have 2 damage/shot but at say 0.12s interval which lets it down 1 missile with each shot, but it overfires on LRMs; meanwhile the LAMS at 0.5 damage/shot, at 0.04s interval, so it will down LRMs at 0.08s/missile, but 0.16 for SRMs. This way there's a clear difference between missile systems.

Why I will push LRM effectivity to LAMS, because they generate heat. Yeah they can do it unlimited, but LAMS taxing on heat means it limits their outgoing firepower -- with enough heat adjustment. BAMS on the other hand, should be better at tackling SRM volleys instead, as it's typically used in brawl.

Hell, one other thing we can do is make LAMS the long-range AMS say at 400m, while the BAMS as the short-ranged one say at 200m, this is the difference between the BAMS being the personal one that can be left online pretty much the entire match, but the LAMS being the active one that players have to mind turning on or off.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

but yeah, such is life with how PGI implemented lock ons.

Yet:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'd probably just nerf it into oblivion and be done with it too

So god damn right I get to blame the comp.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 September 2023 - 06:18 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

And they are the low tier -- that grow out of it eventually. You guys are the comp, that still complained when the Lights were being shut down by streaks, but the LRMs that of higher investment with ECM and AMS, were fine.

That's because streaks were used even in comp and it had a negative impact on play. Just having a mech that basically could insta-delete one of the weakest classes even easier than Gauss/PPCs. Comparing the two is a bit of a faulty comparison.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

Yes, and? So what?

Yes, but guess what? Unless the code is open, that's what we can only do.

What you don't understand with the purpose of such suggestion is that by widening the gap between IDF and LOS effectivity is that you open the weapon system for a buff designed for the LOS without making IDF being too powerful. And as a bonus effect, the IDF with proper spotting -- TAG/NARC, is now basically mandatory for IDF support, that makes the builds extremely lucrative.

I think the thing you don't understand is that buffing LOS firing and nerfing IDF does nothing to fix what you described in your OP. It fixes one layer, but not the others (the sea of ECM, the TAG tax to try and counter it, the AMS iron-domes, the fact that the weapon system only ever aims for center mass, lack of fire and forget, etc). If you can't fix the rest of the layers, fixing one is pretty pointless no? If not problematic because again, going back to the feast or famine part of LRMs and why they are so detrimental IN lower tiers is because people are less likely to use the other hard counters. If hard counters are the thing keeping a weapon system in check, you have a problem that goes beyond something numbers can fix.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

> Return lock cone to 40-degrees

> Make NARC/TAG (practically) mandatory for effective IDF use.

> Make LOS use of LRMs viable and competitive. Not just in Comp, but also in mid-tier.

> Make LRMs Alpha centric, instead of DPS Centric -- +Damage +Velocity +heat +++CD +Missile Health, make people think more carefully before letting loose a volley.

LRMs are DPS centric not because of the damage per volley, but because of damage saturation (albeit it depends on the mech's hitboxes, for example the Night Gyr takes LRMs all in this chonky legs if it has ANY sort of backwards momentum).

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

LRM weapon should be WAAAAAAAY better with LOS use, competitive to other LOS weapons as well

Here is where we get to the crux of the issue comp players have, they SHOULDNT be competitive to other LOS weapons. Why? Because they don't take near the amount of skill (skill ceilings and skill floors matter because consistency is relational to the power of anything in a game). People can say this game is a point n click adventure all they want but most if not all would be horrendous in a game like CS:GO which has nothing but hitscan PPFLD for weapons. The point I'm trying to make is if people dial back the hyperbole, IF a bunch of changes were to be made to make LRMs easier to use, their power level has to be adjusted to account for that ease of use.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

Meanwhile you guys were fine with the lock-on nerf, and the ECM buffs. Please don't feign new-player concern.

Who honestly said that? I've hated the way ECM has been implemented since day one back when SSRM2 Ravens were the bane of the game. It's overly complex, doesn't play well with lock-on, and has been powerful enough that they added a specific hardpoint for it and haven't removed it (instead they've just added a bunch of ECM variants).

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

Sure, I guess, but see ECM affects BEYOND just missile locks, such as say awareness, or at least a counter against it. It should just stop basically being basically a homing-missile hard-cover.

I mean no disagreement here.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

What can be done is that, the B-AMS would be tuned for SRMs, while L-AMS could be tuned to LRMs instead. How does that work?

So you want to nerf SRMs which are probably one of two only decent missile systems? For what reason? Just cuz? Realism? What point is there to providing an AMS at all that protects against a dumb-fire only weapon that is effectively the closest thing this game has to a shotgun because LBX is garbage? This is one of those things I'm talking about with how PGI has done things, implementing things without regard for how they fit into the game.

As for LAMS, it's an alright change I suppose as long as RoF is reduced, it's still problematic in that again it results in feast or famine results. Similar to vanilla MW4 where LRMs were launched in groups of 5, the first group was always destroyed pretty much relegating the LRM5 to the dustbin, the way AMS currently functions is a similar problem. It's not that the heat isn't enough of a limiting factor, it is the way it works in the first place. Fudging the numbers is a bandaid, and not a great one.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

So god damn right I get to blame the comp.

I mean I guess, but expecting the playerbase to clean-up PGI's mess a little bass-ackwards don't yeah think? Not to mention unproductive. Like I said, given they are volunteer players, I get them not wanting to do systemic changes, ESPECIALLY if PGI limits what all they can change in a patch. Also to be clear, I'm not really comp anymore, and I have never been part of the cauldron, so politely stop lumping us all together like we are a monolith. Even amongst comp players there used to be disagreement on what they wanted to see from the game. Some only wanted poptarting, some wanted a diverse meta, some just didn't care.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 September 2023 - 06:54 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

Comparing the two is a bit of a faulty comparison.

It isn't. Game is made with play and counter plays, and the idea that a mech class is countered by a weapon system is abiding by that, and the only complaint there simply boils down to "we didn't like it".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

I think the thing you don't understand is that buffing LOS firing and nerfing IDF does nothing to fix what you described in your OP.

Yet you contradict yourself:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

It fixes one layer, but not the others

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

If you can't fix the rest of the layers, fixing one is pretty pointless no?

No. Yes, no.

It is a step, but not entirely the step. It opens up to the changes of the attitude and vector of possible approaches.

You highlight the problem of feast-famine, but that's the idea. It feasts both on IDF and LOS, and with the requirement of NARC-TAG to feast in IDF, it's fair. And with it you open up with changes to avoid hard counters.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

LRMs are DPS centric not because of the damage per volley, but because of damage saturation

Which is what the +++CD is aimed to address. Less missiles in the air.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

Here is where we get to the crux of the issue comp players have, they SHOULDNT be competitive to other LOS weapons. Why? Because they don't take near the amount of skill (skill ceilings and skill floors matter because consistency is relational to the power of anything in a game).

It should be competitive to a degree with LOS weapons, because it's existence must be justified and must have a point.

And you know what, **** your skill bro. You people point out the skill-gap that makes the weapon problematic to balance, yet you guys don't want to address it.

Here's the option to have a reliable floor and ceiling, but here you guys are still prioritizing maintaining the gap and thus maintaining the problematic situation. And you wonder why I put the blame on the comps -- maybe stop being so ******* competitive and let us have this?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

I'm trying to make is if people dial back the hyperbole, IF a bunch of changes were to be made to make LRMs easier to use, their power level has to be adjusted to account for that ease of use.

Then do it. Make it such a way that they are a reliable weapon system, but not too good. Always have been my sentiment.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

ECM has been implemented since day one back when SSRM2 Ravens were the bane of the game.

Then we agree.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

So you want to nerf SRMs which are probably one of two only decent missile systems? For what reason? Just cuz? Realism?

Oh, it's only 1 of 2 decent missile systems, I wonder why is that? Maybe because you guys nerfed the rest into oblivion?

But okay, lets stop pointing finger and explain this further. Those are not exact values, but that's one way to approach it, by changing up which AMS works at different situations.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

What point is there to providing an AMS at all that protects against a dumb-fire only weapon that is effectively the closest thing this game has to a shotgun because LBX is garbage?

Sounds like the problem of LBX, than it is of the AMS or SRMs. AMS are anti missile system, SRMs are missiles -- put two together?

BAMS being more effective to SRMs doesn't mean they should be shut down, that still depends on how effective they are. It simply means there's an option between to AMS types, that is beyond ammo consideration.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

This is one of those things I'm talking about with how PGI has done things, implementing things without regard for how they fit into the game.

But here's my thought. Why can't they? Don't get me wrong, their approach is horrid, but it sounds like as if you guys put yourselves in the pedestal that decrees how the game should be played -- and now you guys force that onto others by a very specific balance, because that is what the current cauldron balance is, comps telling other people how to play, and what to play -- and it's their builds. Yet you guys don't want the blame.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

I mean I guess, but expecting the playerbase to clean-up PGI's mess a little bass-ackwards don't yeah think? Not to mention unproductive. Like I said, given they are volunteer players, I get them not wanting to do systemic changes, ESPECIALLY if PGI limits what all they can change in a patch.

Unfortunately best thing we can do.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

Also to be clear, I'm not really comp anymore, and I have never been part of the cauldron, so politely stop lumping us all together like we are a monolith.

So stop acting like them. Hell, don't jump to their defense when I give them flak, I don't even remember naming you specifically. I just said "comp".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 September 2023 - 07:21 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 07:17 PM, said:

It isn't. Game is made with play and counter plays, and the idea that a mech class is countered by a weapon system is abiding by that, and the only complaint there simply boils down to "we didn't like it".

Good counter play = Soft counters
Bad counter play = Hard counters

There's more nuance there but in general, hard counters make for unfun games. Streaks got nerfed because they were a hard counter to the worst class in the game and it was much easier to fix (limit the alpha). Once that came in, they disappeared from comp and much less common in QP and the game is better for it (now that I think about it, the scouting faction play modes might have had a hand in that). I don't honestly know if PGI took comp into play when that change was made but that change was made before the Cauldron so not sure why you seem to think comp player had that much sway with PGI (cuz they never did). Now before you go "BUT LRMS HAVE HARD COUNTERS", yep, they sure do, and it has NOTHING to do with comp player suggestions or anything. ALL OF THOSE existed YEARS prior to the cauldron existing.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 07:17 PM, said:

And you know what, **** your skill bro. You people point out the skill-gap that makes the weapon problematic to balance, yet you guys don't want to address it.

Here's the option to have a reliable floor and ceiling, but here you guys are still prioritizing maintaining the gap and thus maintaining the problematic situation. And you wonder why I put the blame on the comps -- maybe stop being so ******* competitive and let us have this?

Then do it. Make it such a way that they are a reliable weapon system, but not too good. Always have been my sentiment.

I'm going to say this again, you CANNOT fix LRMs without fixing the fundamental mechanics that have interplay with them. Everything else is just bandaids that only cover up the problem and have gaping holes. You want LRMs to be reliable but not too good? Good, so do I, but it ain't happening without code changes that just aren't going to happen. Gonna say it again as well, might as well become my signature, but Mechwarrior 4 did it better.

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 07:17 PM, said:

But okay, lets stop pointing finger and explain this further. Those are not exact values, but that's one way to approach it, by changing up which AMS works at different situations.

Sounds like the problem of LBX, than it is of the AMS or SRMs. AMS are anti missile system, SRMs are missiles -- put two together?

BAMS being more effective to SRMs doesn't mean they should be shut down, that still depends on how effective they are. It simply means there's an option between to AMS types, that is beyond ammo consideration.

Cool story, so your basically no different than PGI at this point. Just because it is AMS doesn't mean it has to work against them. That's asinine. If you make a fundamental change like that, there should be a gameplay reason. Unless things have magically changed (and I doubt they have) SRMs were always second fiddle to other weapons for brawling. The last time I think we had a good brawling weapon was the old 3 heat 6 damage cSPL. So unless you plan on buffing SRM damage or something for compensation (which sounds kinda goofy given SRMs are the most common weapon to instagib people in the rear where AMS wouldn't do anything), this idea is just bad.

Maybe if SRMs had lock-on that made them function more like missiles than just a slow velocity direct fire projectile weapon like ballistics, sure, maybe you could make AMS impact them (though I'm still dubious of AMS for investment compared to reflective/reactive armor).

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 07:17 PM, said:

But here's my thought. Why can't they? Don't get me wrong, their approach is horrid, but it sounds like as if you guys put yourselves in the pedestal that decrees how the game should be played -- and now you guys force that onto others by a very specific balance, because that is what the current cauldron balance is, comps telling other people how to play, and what to play -- and it's their builds. Yet you guys don't want the blame.

To be clear, everyone is biased and pushing some way to be played, the difference of balancing by committee vs Paul/Niko/whoever has balanced is that things haven't swung wildly as much other than when Snub Nose PPCs were overbuffed for a minute and the Cauldron has some semblence of what they want to do (or at the very least come to an agreement on what changes to make). PGI has never given us a clear vision of what they want the game to be because tbh they have been trying to please two different crowds who have somewhat mutually exclusive ideas.

TBH though, I feel like a lot of people put things in the cauldron mouths because I highly doubt everyone is privy to their conversations. I mean I could be wrong, maybe they have meeting notes or something somewhere and I'm too lazy to look but..

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 07:17 PM, said:

So stop acting like them. Hell, don't jump to their defense when I give them flak, I don't even remember naming you specifically. I just said "comp".

Then stop being dumb and blaming something you don't even know about. I said I'm comp because I was around for at least part of the peak of comp play in MWO (it is a shell of what is used to be). Competitive play (and players by extension) isn't some boogeyman that want to ruin your game nor do they even agree with each other on what to do about the game (hell I don't agree with most of my teammates in SJR), PGI already did that for you long ago.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 September 2023 - 09:56 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Good counter play = Soft counters
Bad counter play = Hard counters

There's more nuance there but in general, hard counters make for unfun games.

#NerfHardCovers lol

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Streaks got nerfed because they were a hard counter to the worst class in the game

Yes, and? So what though?

Might as well argue long-range is the counter against uPLs. Lights are squishy, that is their point. Almost like they're supposed to be minimizing exposure time, and be stingy with their armor.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

ALL OF THOSE existed YEARS prior to the cauldron existing.

Dude, what if I told you noisy comps existed before the cauldron either?

They didn't have specific suggestions, they have complaints though -- such as yours.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

I'm going to say this again, you CANNOT fix LRMs without fixing the fundamental mechanics that have interplay with them. Everything else is just bandaids that only cover up the problem and have gaping holes.

You want LRMs to be reliable but not too good? Good, so do I, but it ain't happening without code changes that just aren't going to happen.

And I will say this, again. That is what we can only do, you plow with the ox you currently have, not what you wish you have.

It being not a total fix, does not mean it's not a useful endeavor. LRMs are still in the game.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Gonna say it again as well, might as well become my signature, but Mechwarrior 4 did it better.

Then go back to MW4.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Cool story, so your basically no different than PGI at this point.

k

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Just because it is AMS doesn't mean it has to work against them. That's asinine.

That's called a counter, that is why it's an Anti-Missile System, that is what it's said on the tin, that is why the system exists in the first place.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

If you make a fundamental change like that, there should be a gameplay reason.

Yes, and it's reason is the division effectivity between weapon systems. As in you can bring up the AMS to their effectivity against SRMs, but they can be designed to better work with LRMs.

What, are you so incapable of thinking besides binary, that any amount of possible harm to the SRMs means the end of the world?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Unless things have magically changed (and I doubt they have) SRMs were always second fiddle to other weapons for brawling.

This sounds more like your personal problem with SRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

So unless you plan on buffing SRM damage or something for compensation (which sounds kinda goofy given SRMs are the most common weapon to instagib people in the rear where AMS wouldn't do anything), this idea is just bad.

And because I didn't specified it, means I don't have the plan to buff them? That is the hill you want to die on?

We're discussing not on a numbers level, but a concept level, as in what the system should behave, not how effective it does. Is that really a hard thing to extrapolate?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Maybe if SRMs had lock-on.

Might want to talk to Merctech guys about that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

PGI has never given us a clear vision of what they want the game to be because tbh they have been trying to please two different crowds who have somewhat mutually exclusive ideas.

Yes, and the comps just chose to please themselves, even if they have a coherent idea. So guess why they must bear some responsibility?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

TBH though, I feel like a lot of people put things in the cauldron mouths because I highly doubt everyone is privy to their conversations. I mean I could be wrong, maybe they have meeting notes or something somewhere and I'm too lazy to look but.

Nevermind mouths. Action speaks louder than words, and when what we have is a powercreeping nightmare that hates homing weapons, that speaks volumes.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

Then stop being dumb and blaming something you don't even know about.

Yes, I don't remember you == Dumb. Yet here you are about to contradict yourself, again.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

I said I'm comp because I was around for at least part of the peak of comp play in MWO (it is a shell of what is used to be). Competitive play (and players by extension) isn't some boogeyman that want to ruin your game nor do they even agree with each other on what to do about the game (hell I don't agree with most of my teammates in SJR),

Yet you identify with them, yet you defend them. Funnily enough, you distance yourself from them right now.

I'll say this again. So stop acting like them, don't jump to their defense when I give them flak.

If you don't want the blame, don't associate with them, that is simple.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 September 2023 - 09:46 PM, said:

PGI already did that for you long ago.

But that's not an excuse to make it worse.

[martian]

Curccu, on 17 September 2023 - 10:52 PM, said:

Remove ECM and Radar Depr from the game... Eez.

Let us test it on the PTS server, as PGI usually does before making some big game-wide change.

[Meep Meep]

martian, on 19 September 2023 - 08:23 AM, said:

Let us test it on the PTS server, as PGI usually does before making some big game-wide change.

Test server has long been kaput due to cost of operation. All changes are mass tested live then tweaked in subsequent patches. Unsure about the internal process after cauldron sends in their changes to pgi. Afaik they simply review it then add it in if it passes their own testing whatever that testing might be.

[martian]

Meep Meep, on 19 September 2023 - 08:31 AM, said:

Test server has long been kaput due to cost of operation. All changes are mass tested live then tweaked in subsequent patches. Unsure about the internal process after cauldron sends in their changes to pgi. Afaik they simply review it then add it in if it passes their own testing whatever that testing might be.

Wait! Are you telling me that MWO players serve PGI as some guinea pigs or something? I am shocked!

[Der Geisterbaer]

Ah, the delightful moments when sarcasm and / or irony don't translate well in written language despite certain smileys

[LordNothing]

Meep Meep, on 19 September 2023 - 08:31 AM, said:

Test server has long been kaput due to cost of operation. All changes are mass tested live then tweaked in subsequent patches. Unsure about the internal process after cauldron sends in their changes to pgi. Afaik they simply review it then add it in if it passes their own testing whatever that testing might be.

test server, live server, same thing, since the game never made it out of beta imho.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 19 September 2023 - 02:10 AM, said:

wah wah wah Comps

Everyone takes blame for the situation for LRMs if we really get down to it. Were comps the ones creating regular "LRMS OP! NERF NOW" threads? No. Were they the ones hitting up Russ on twitter trying to get changes or responding to his old twitter polls? If any did, it was very few. If you wanna continue to act like Comp/Cauldron is some boogeyman keeping this game from living up to its full potential then keep your delusion, its clear from the beginning of this thread you didn't come with any sort of open mind about things. Whether you like it or not, the plight of LRMs and ATMs/Streaks by extension is the game was built a certain way that made them broken (not as in overpowered but overly situational and swingy), any changes will suffer similar issues, sure you can close the gap but it requires more sweeping changes that while the Cauldron might be up for, PGI might not and there in lies the trouble.

This game is in maintenance mode, legends and nostalgia packs have made it clear they don't see a long term for this game, they are only interested in milking it until is no longer worth keeping the servers up. So if you wanna be realistic, then honestly this discussion is sort of doomed before it gets started. If you wanna talk hypothetical then as let's talk as though everything was on the table.

[pbiggz]

I don't think we'll get a fix for lock-on weapons that doesn't involve a different lock-on mechanic. I'd love to see one that maybe rewards positioning and skill a little more, but I can't say I know what that would look like.

Edited by pbiggz, 19 September 2023 - 09:54 AM.

[Armsracer]

The6thMessenger, on 18 September 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

> Return lock cone to 40-degrees
> Make NARC/TAG (practically) mandatory for effective IDF use.
> Make LOS use of LRMs viable and competitive. Not just in Comp, but also in mid-tier.
> Make LRMs Alpha centric, instead of DPS Centric -- +Damage +Velocity +heat +++CD +Missile Health, make people think more carefully before letting loose a volley.

This is just a nightmare to me. You want the only indirect fire weapon to only be sometimes an indirect fire weapon and be on par with direct fire weapons in direct fire. Even though it splashes all over the mech. Even though it takes time to lock on. You want to take away the only thing that makes it unique and make it jump through hoops of having a spotter with narc or tag. No, just use mrms or atms.

You want to make the user be able to be 40 degrees off target and still be able to hit it. No. If I have to be pin point with my shots so do you! Maybe make the progress of the lock decrease slightly instead of breaking when off target to add a buffer when the target jukes?
"> Make LRMs Alpha centric, instead of DPS Centric -- +Damage +Velocity +heat +++CD +Missile Health, make people think more carefully before letting loose a volley."
High alpha's are LRM 20s. Dps are the LRM 5s. The one with the best tonnage is the LRM 15. Maybe they can allow for firing more LRM 20s without HSL?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Armsracer, on 19 September 2023 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is just a nightmare to me. You want the only indirect fire weapon to only be sometimes an indirect fire weapon and be on par with direct fire weapons in direct fire. Even though it splashes all over the mech. Even though it takes time to lock on. You want to take away the only thing that makes it unique and make it jump through hoops of having a spotter with narc or tag. No, just use mrms or atms.

You want to make the user be able to be 40 degrees off target and still be able to hit it. No. If I have to be pin point with my shots so do you! Maybe make the progress of the lock decrease slightly instead of breaking when off target to add a buffer when the target jukes?
"> Make LRMs Alpha centric, instead of DPS Centric -- +Damage +Velocity +heat +++CD +Missile Health, make people think more carefully before letting loose a volley."
High alpha's are LRM 20s. Dps are the LRM 5s. The one with the best tonnage is the LRM 15. Maybe they can allow for firing more LRM 20s without HSL?

Indirect fire that requires target locks in a world where target locks are shared is broken, sorry. Indirect fire shouldn't be easy and it should be limited. As much as I hate strikes, that's probably along the lines of where indirect fire should be (albeit it should cost tonnage like all consumables).

[Curccu]

martian, on 19 September 2023 - 08:36 AM, said:

Wait! Are you telling me that MWO players serve PGI as some guinea pigs or something? I am shocked!

Yep few patches back it was revealed that all the **** that is released is questimated not tested at all because no test servers, which is mindblowing..

[martian]

Curccu, on 19 September 2023 - 11:32 AM, said:

Yep few patches back it was revealed that all the **** that is released is questimated not tested at all because no test servers, which is mindblowing..

I can not say that I am surpised.

[ScrapIron Prime]

pbiggz, on 19 September 2023 - 09:54 AM, said:

I don't think we'll get a fix for lock-on weapons that doesn't involve a different lock-on mechanic. I'd love to see one that maybe rewards positioning and skill a little more, but I can't say I know what that would look like.

No indirect fire lock ons without TAG or NARC painting the target (and change the lock rectangle so this is obvious), faster missiles so direct fire LRMs are competitive.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 September 2023 - 09:42 AM, said:

*Still associates with comps, despite not liking the blame.

k

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 September 2023 - 02:11 PM.