122 replies to this topic

[kalashnikity]

What has happened to lock on mechanics horse hockey.

This game is based on three weapon classes (laser, ballistic, and missiles), and lock on weapons are an integral part of half the missile weapons.

How the heck can anybody think it is ok to just delete an entire weapon class?

Everybody hates getting rained on, but that's just part of the game. Deal with it using tactics, not by nerfing lock on mechanics until they are useless. It's the coward's way out.

In the current state you can't even get a lock most of the game.

ECM needs a slight Nerf, and lock time needs a slight buff.

It's not right to let Certain_Groups control the meta and destroy LRMs and Streaks.

[Richard Hazen]

I've heard ECM is being nerfed. I want to use missiles, I've had some success with ATM Vapor Eagle and a Marauder IIC with ATMs but it is really hit and miss, unguided missiles are better which makes no sense to me, perhaps they should increase the spread because as seen with the Scaleshot they are more like a precision scalpel than unguided shotgun missiles whilst I think guided missiles should be more focused to compensate for the time it takes to lock out as well as to combat ecm and line of sight.

[Moadebe]

This is exactly why the post I made below here in general discussion exists.

Right now we have zero developers who can actually go into code and fix some problems so we have to work with what we have.

The current changes I proposed were the following:

ECM skill nodes reduces by half at least to 10% per node. This will open sensors up and help alleviate some of the interactions with the other problem....

Radar deprivation

Currently Radar deprivation sits at 95% with all skill nodes. I need to do some testing still but I think it overrides Target Decay completely. Meaning as soon as an enemy goes behind cover or moves within the range of ECM the target lock is immediately lost. You would think that Target Decay would directly counteract Radar Deprivation....and this is what I wanna test.

Radar deprivation skill nodes need a nerf to at LEAST 75% with 5 total skill nodes. (It should probably go lower but this can be a starting point.)

Some people wrongly think that there MUST be an instant target loss with lockon weapons. Not the case. Half a second.

Half a second would change everything without making it too overpowered. It would fix the issue of lock loss just from someone moving behind a tree while running past the tree (or hill...or w/e)

If someone was to run behind something for one second....perfectly deserves a lock loss. However in the current state you can get a lock....person runs behind tree and doesnt stop but because that tree broke target for a split second you have to fight and wait for the whole lockon sequence again.

I wouldnt touch the lockon weapons themselves until these changes were done.

There is DEFINITELY a bias against any form of a lockon weapon in this game. People think they are too easy or that because its indirect fire its some form of easy mode. Can it be? Yep. Its a slippery slope with em.

I agree with you. It is a cowards way out to nerf em to oblivion and then not even attempt to balance em in a game where they should be part of a MECH game.

Richard Hazen, on 11 November 2023 - 07:16 PM, said:

I've heard ECM is being nerfed. I want to use missiles, I've had some success with ATM Vapor Eagle and a Marauder IIC with ATMs but it is really hit and miss, unguided missiles are better which makes no sense to me, perhaps they should increase the spread because as seen with the Scaleshot they are more like a precision scalpel than unguided shotgun missiles whilst I think guided missiles should be more focused to compensate for the time it takes to lock out as well as to combat ecm and line of sight.

I have heard something similar but Unsure of the details as to WHAT is being done to ECM.

Edited by Moadebe, 11 November 2023 - 07:22 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Absolutely.

It started before Cauldron took over, with the nerfing of lock time about 2 or 3 years ago. It has only gotten worse.

There is an extreme bias against lock on weapons by "certain people who fancy themselves the end all be all of mechwarriors", occasionally they get "embraced" by a "lowly Tier 3 with lock on weapons" so they have responded by nerfing them to the point LRMS are unusable.

All so they can sit back and snipe at 1200M with their big screen monitor and carefully tuned config files.

I understand the slippery slope, but right now they are basically unusable.

It is a cowardly and lazy was to keep their preferred play style without needing to actually work to find ways of countering it..

[kalashnikity]

Richard Hazen, on 11 November 2023 - 07:16 PM, said:

I've heard ECM is being nerfed. I want to use missiles, I've had some success with ATM Vapor Eagle and a Marauder IIC with ATMs but it is really hit and miss, unguided missiles are better which makes no sense to me, perhaps they should increase the spread because as seen with the Scaleshot they are more like a precision scalpel than unguided shotgun missiles whilst I think guided missiles should be more focused to compensate for the time it takes to lock out as well as to combat ecm and line of sight.

Use a PPC to stop ECM, that's not a problem.

NARC really should override ECM though. And NARC beacons should not be killed by a single AMS either, they really should raise the HP of NARC beacons.

But lock time and instant loss of targeting is a real problem, you can spend 15 seconds (or more) trying to get a lock. And then instantly lose it before you can even fire a shot. I've spent minutes at a time trying to get one dang lock, it's ridiculous. LRMS interfere with snipers walking in and out behind cover, that's the real reason they nerfed them to oblivion. It interfered with the sniper meta.

[JediPanther]

It's almost as if the game was built to have lock on weapons from the start. How strange.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

JediPanther, on 11 November 2023 - 08:09 PM, said:

It's almost as if the game was built to have lock on weapons from the start. How strange.

It's too bad they bungled lock-on weapons from the start by allowing locks without LoS and making acquiring locks stupidly easy. It's the sin they tried to rectify repeatedly by just adding bandaids to the problem.

Ironically LRMs were fire and forget back in beta for at least some portion, I don't remember when they rolled that back though.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 November 2023 - 08:23 PM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Nothing will address the balance issues of longrange LRM support until we have a proper C3 network.

Firesupport should be by assist only, unless direct Line of Sight or a UAV is spotting, which means..
Scouts need to be scouts, not direct assault counters.

TAG should be I.R. and invisible unless using heat vision.

NARC should not be a death sentence.

Lock-on should not have a range mechanic as long as a scout or front line mech has a Line of Sight and is in range of
a networked mech.

AMS needs to be viable.

There is a long standing hate towards LRM's I get that.
It still does not justify them being obsolete compared to other Missile Options in almost every aspect.

Unfortunately, a worthwhile change to LRM balance will require major changes, and engineering time by PGI.

Two things that might help, is removing minimum range for all LRM's (Hot Fire optional).
And crosshair tracking (Wireguided T.O.W. style missile guidance) in absences or an actual lock on should be explored.

[Baba Yogi]

Problem with Lrms is inherent. Has nothing to do with ECM. Every other weapon in the game, time to deal damage usually is as long as = time to aim + weapon burn duration/projectile speed. With missiles, you also have to add target lock time, and lrms are also bogged down by horrible projectile speed which doesnt make sense on long range weapon. Only reason Lrms can get away with it is that it has automatic targeting. Nobody would touch ppcs if it had 190 speed.

Forget ecm, it is very easy to duel against missile carriers. When every other weapon system gives you instant damage, and you arguably have to wait 5 seconds+ just to deliver the damage, weapon system inherently becomes inferior. All it does is force target to break lock after few seconds. So, lrms will never be good so long as projectile speed is not buffed to something like 1000. But then again, you have to remove indirect targeting function because it has caused Lrms to be nerfed repeatedly over the years to balance it. There's a reason why its called a noob weapon, and rightly so. Current lrm gameplay completely removes skill out of the equation. Thats why noobs do better with Lrms while good players do worse with them compared to other weapon systems.

Edited by Baba Yogi, 11 November 2023 - 09:03 PM.

[martian]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 November 2023 - 08:22 PM, said:

It's too bad they bungled lock-on weapons from the start by allowing locks without LoS and making acquiring locks stupidly easy. It's the sin they tried to rectify repeatedly by just adding bandaids to the problem.

And since Russ Bullock has announced quite clearly that no big changes are going to happen in MWO, these bandaids are all what we can use.

Edited by martian, 11 November 2023 - 09:43 PM.

[ambosen]

If you really want to fix the game, I hate to say it, but a good start would be to completely ignore the most vocal complainers in the community. LRM's and AMS despite the fact they've both been nerfed to hell, both directly and indirectly, are some of the favorite things for them to complain about, and because of this they've directly undone one of the fundamental but often ignored aspects of the battletech setting as a whole: It being a universe based on combined arms warfare.

The solution to perceived "balance issues" isn't to just throw one party buffs and nerfs they want. It's to treat every weapons system, support system mech, and other aspects of the game within the context of a team based game where players have unique roles, and must act in concert with each other. Until the devs start doing that again, this game is just going to continue to hemmorage players as more and more we inevitably find that not only are "the people" not really representatitive of the playerbase as a whole, but can be rather shortsighted, at best how all the blanket "balance corrections" they constantly demand for their personal benefit is one of the very reasons why so many people who once actively played it have given up this game.

[Wraith 1]

Lock-ons may be an integral part of Battletech, but Mechwarrior is a derivative work of Battletech, and lock-ons hardly function the same way in both games; which has left us with constant bickering ever since over what kind of fundamental role they should fill.

Nobody can argue against the existence of lock-ons in Mechwarrior, but it's irrational not to evaluate them on a mechanical level and whether they actually add any uniqueness or value to gameplay, or whether they simply provide a trivial solution to the lowest common denominator.

I am not sorry.

[martian]

ambosen, on 11 November 2023 - 11:37 PM, said:

one of the fundamental but often ignored aspects of the battletech setting as a whole: It being a universe based on combined arms warfare.

Do you know what "combined arms warfare" actually means in BattleTech?

[ambosen]

martian, on 11 November 2023 - 11:52 PM, said:

Do you know what "combined arms warfare" actually means in BattleTech?

Better then most. I was playing the tabletop game long before the various videogame adaptations. Most mechwarrior games don't exactly emphasize that part of the tabletop, but many of the more important elements are there, such the use of battlemechs alongside other assets like aerospace fighters, artillery, ect.

In the case of mechwarrior online though, I'm talking specifically about the differing roles and capabilities of weapons systems, equipment, and mechs, and how they overlap in terms of the team based multiplayer mode, with specific strengths and weaknesses and counters. Early on in this game's history there was more differentiation between capabilities in all of those categories, and putting together a team of players with mechs with a good mix of capabilities that could play well together was quite important to achieving victories in game modes, where now it seems games often devolve into a tonnage and burst damage contest.

Some aspects of these unique strengths and weaknesses and how they could be used as the right screwdriver, not the hammer and anvil approach many want the game to have for everything in it still persist in the game to this day despite the most vocal complainer's best efforts to pressure the devs to end that entirely.

Edited by ambosen, 12 November 2023 - 12:10 AM.

[martian]

ambosen, on 12 November 2023 - 12:10 AM, said:

Better then most. I was playing the tabletop game long before the various videogame adaptations. Most mechwarrior games don't exactly emphasize that part of the tabletop, but many of the more important elements are there, such the use of battlemechs alongside other assets like aerospace fighters, artillery, ect.

Combined arms means units composed of 'Mechs, infantry, battle armor, vehicles (such as tanks, hovertanks, VTOLs), artillery and ASFs.

MWO lacks infantry, battle armor, tanks, and there are no combat or transport helicopters. You can not shoot down ASF as you could in BattleTech.

[Besh]

martian, on 11 November 2023 - 09:41 PM, said:

And since Russ Bullock has announced quite clearly that no big changes are going to happen in MWO, these bandaids are all what we can use.

I started thinking about what it would take to put dev time back into MW:O . First thoughts go to funding obviously, and I am wondering whether PGI is open to an outside source/group providing funding to get dev work done on MW:O .

I have not been paying ettention for about 3 years, has something like what I describe above been a somewhat open conversation, dou you know ?

[martian]

Besh, on 12 November 2023 - 01:08 AM, said:

I started thinking about what it would take to put dev time back into MW:O . First thoughts go to funding obviously, and I am wondering whether PGI is open to an outside source/group providing funding to get dev work done on MW:O .

I have not been paying ettention for about 3 years, has something like what I describe above been a somewhat open conversation, dou you know ?

Nothing I would especially remember. The PGI's business model is still the same as it always has been: "Do you wanna buy a Mechpack?"

[Runecarver]

kalashnikity, on 11 November 2023 - 07:53 PM, said:

Absolutely.

It started before Cauldron took over, with the nerfing of lock time about 2 or 3 years ago. It has only gotten worse.

There is an extreme bias against lock on weapons by "certain people who fancy themselves the end all be all of mechwarriors", occasionally they get "embraced" by a "lowly Tier 3 with lock on weapons" so they have responded by nerfing them to the point LRMS are unusable.

All so they can sit back and snipe at 1200M with their big screen monitor and carefully tuned config files.

I understand the slippery slope, but right now they are basically unusable.

It is a cowardly and lazy was to keep their preferred play style without needing to actually work to find ways of countering it..

The Lock On system rework was required, and was actually a net positive. Lock times were a flat 1-2 seconds no matter whether or not you had sight on your target or if you were extremely far away. The rework changed this so that you have a 1 second locking time for any targets you have sight to, but penalizes indirect locks without the aid of a friendly TAG/ NARC. In exchange, LRMs got more dps and more velocity to compensate for these new lock times to have a consistent flight time. ECM and radar deprivation needed some toning down which they never got, but otherwise it was a fair system. It encouraged engaging your enemy, and finding better positioning rather than sitting back and pressing 2 buttons.

After Cauldron took over, everything has gotten faster, excessively quirked, and most weapons have gotten considerably stronger. But LRMs have actually gotten slower, ATMs and clan streaks have lost damage. ATMs did lose some of that absurd minimum range recently, but its frankly redundant now that they aren't able to "one shot side torsos" anymore with 3-4 ATM12 alpha strikes.

[Tarteso]

Besides all the above, don't forget that map design and redesigns were conceived to play mechs like men as in any regular shooter with no missiles in, just pew-pew: cities or terrain plenty of buildings, cannons, slopes, and walls.
This is the way they """fixed""" Polar, in spite of, as in any other QP map in which you can't choose your mech before knowing where you will fight, the number of lurmers never was particularly higher than in elsewhere. So, what? They removed a valid map thinking in their precious, and long dead, FP and competitive modes?
Or the ultimate, quintessential nonsense: shitloads of giant metal umbrellas covering the main fighting areas on a map. Not enough nerfs and non-destructible terrain already in that map to happy sniping?

But, besides all the direct nerfs done to lock-on missiles, the main offenders here are ECM, stealth and... radar deprivation. How the hell a SKILL is still allowed to trash up to dozens of TONS in equipment?

It is pretty evident that "they" want sniping as the only long-range viable option because, let's be clear: in the current scenario ATMs and LRMs only work semi-consistently at the mid-short range, the same spot for SRMs and MRMs, but ********. Otherwise, there is a 90% chance that locks (if you get a lock at all) get lost, or missiles hit the ground or some wall. So, mostly no long-range chances, unless you have some friendly spotter/narced working for you.

Short range lock-on weapons aren't currently better choices either.

[LordNothing]

to this day mwll still has superior missile mechanics, superior role warfare, and superior ew all while choosing mechanics which are fun and reward teamwork. pgi made the decision early on to dumb down missiles for the masses. this has let to some serious stagnation in the long run.

now it seems like the cauldron want to bring back the teamwork aspect, and i mostly agree with this sentiment. i only disagree about what typical teamwork looks like. the very common t3 4-man in qp that most players see all the time vs the rare t1 12-man in fp that may only be seen by the small subset of players that play fp. if a coordinated 12 man can employ a strategy, its going to win every time, unless they encounter a better 12 man with a superior strategy. even if that strategy is lerm them to death, camp or brawl them to death would be just as effective for a 12 man.

but the mechanics cannot be funned up because you need a coder for that. its the rich ew and rw ecosystems in mwll that made that possible. everything is a force multiplier, where in mwo everything is either a marginal buff or a direct hard counter.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 November 2023 - 05:00 AM.