356 replies to this topic

[torsie]

I might be wrong in this, so ignore me if I dont understand how it works correctly.

Do you know, when you target someone and use that "enemy spotted" command wheel thingie, even when you saw them just for a tiiiiiny moment, as long as you enemy spotted-ed them you can see green square on the map and see them moving around?

Its really annoying, because even if you get that flashing light signal that enemies no longer aim at you, you can still be marked on the map, so while you think you are super sneaky everyone knows where you are going.
There should be something that makes you disappear from that map, or if you are no longer spotted that square on map disappears too.
But thats not what I wanted to say.

What if you could use that for targeting missiles? It would give no bonus to any other player, because you cant shoot through walls or earth or something even if you know your target is there, but it would give someone using missiles more time for aiming or moving around into better position.

Also since anyone can use that command wheel, even if its not "your" target you could just mark that one target you want and keep shooting.

PS: I was one of the people voting for spread on gauss guns and only because Moadebe made post about it here, otherwise I dont even know it was there.

Edited by torsie, 08 January 2024 - 03:07 AM.

[MechMaster059]

Bennesto, on 08 January 2024 - 02:55 AM, said:

Navid was playing/testing LRM Timberwolf during Ash's livestream for hours. And his damage results were staggering.

Do you have any video links for this. I'm genuinely curious to see what competitive LRMing is like because people in charge of balance seem convinced LRMs are a super dangerous weapon that could break out of its cage at any second and ruin the game.

I play in tier 3, was briefly in tier 2 and clawing back to it, and I just don't see LRMs being OP. I generally find playing LRMs frustrating if anything.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 07 January 2024 - 04:31 PM, said:

I don't get this. Saying it's a Mech game is such a nebulous thing to say. That could mean 20 different things to 20 different people because even the genre has different takes. Can we as a community please stop saying that like its supposed to mean something?

Right . You think "Mech Game" does not mean anything . Interesting starting point when talking about MechWarrior online .
What kind of Game do you envision MW:O to be, and how do you expect it to fare should it become that Game you envision ?

Don't forget : MW:O only exists because people who wanted a 'Mech(Warrior) Game funded it . And I guess not a small percentage of people play it soleley because it being "Mechwarrior", based on BT .

addendum: interesting also how you use that point as a ramp to derail this Thread into some kind of personal standoff with Moadebe .

So Ill come back to it again : what kind of Game do you think MW:O is/should be ? Do you think it wise to derail it from its BT roots as much as possible, basically making it into a generic "vehicle Arena shooter" ? I am asking this because I want to understand where your points are coming from, and where your points would take MW:O to .

Edited by Besh, 08 January 2024 - 05:19 AM.

[MechMaster059]

Frost_Byte, on 08 January 2024 - 02:57 AM, said:

Yes, being under fire can make things difficult. However, those same circumstances exist when using direct fire weapons. If lockons are harder in that challenge, weapons that don't aim for you are even harder.

I think you're being a little dismissive of the challenges someone using a lock-on weapon faces.

Yes, having your HUD shaken screws up your aim with ballistics and lasers but there's a flip side to that coin. For ballistics your aim only needs to be true for the moment when you fire and it hits, for lasers it's tougher because you have to maintain painting the target but you get damage for whatever portion of time you kept the laser on the target.

With lock-on you have to follow the target around with your mouse and keep the lock FOR THE ENTIRE SECOND. At 600M this isn't too hard but as the range get closer and the target gets smaller and faster this soon becomes a non-trivial task.

[Navid A1]

Besh, on 08 January 2024 - 03:13 AM, said:

Right . You think "Mech Game" does not mean anything . Interesting starting point when talking about MechWarrior online .
What kind of Game do you envision MW:O to be, and how do you expect it to fare should it become that Game you envision ?

Don't forget : MW:O only exists because people who wanted a 'Mech(Warrior) Game funded it . And I guess not a small percentage of people play it soleley because it being "Mechwarrior", based on Bt .

addendum: interesting also how you use that point as a ramp to derail this Thread into some kind of personal standoff with Moadebe .

So Ill come back to it again : what kind of Game do you think MW:O is/should be ? Do you think it wise to derail it from its BT roots as much as possible, basically making it into a generic "vehicle Arena shooter" ? I am asking this because I want to understand where your points are coming from, and where your points would take MW:O to .

Imagine if you want to make chess into a first person battle simulator.
There is a limit how much you can stay close to the original table top chess game. The rest are dictated by the fact that you are making a first person fighting game, Unless you can explain to players playing pawns why they can't just group up and jump enemy king and end the game in 2 seconds.

Mechwarrior Online has strong ties to BT table top game for a first person shooter, which is fundamentally different from a turn-based, dice roll table top game with players in charge of whole lances, instead of individual mechs.

There are so many things in BT table top that are designed to fit a turn-based tactical game which make zero sense in a shooter game, not only make zero sense, but become anti-logic and just backwards. It's actually amazing how close MWO has managed to be to BT rules.

Edited by Navid A1, 08 January 2024 - 03:33 AM.

[Besh]

Mochyn Pupur, on 08 January 2024 - 01:42 AM, said:

So, a weapon system that can require you to hold an active lock for up to 20s, even with all nodes and targeting computers, before being able to fire requires very little aim or effort (poor/ no los, ecm, movement, radar dep and unrealistic motion, pushes lock times up drastically)? What game are you playing, because it is certainly not MWO!

However, on the plus side, congratulations for 2024's most opinionated and dumb statement, although I'm certain you will have a good go at making a worse one

Point and click for max effect = skill, esp. when you can do it faster than others by ways one only has limited control/trainability over ( reaction time/eye hand coordination ) .
Actually having to do stuff to get any kind of effect is not .

I never understood that kind of reasoning, and in the end came to the conclusion that the myth of skill was invented by people who are really good in fast and precise point and click to model MW:O more towards their liking .

*shrug*

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 02:11 AM, said:

I play MWO and I find hovering the mouse over a gigantic square from the safety of being across the map behind cover the easiest thing in video game history.

Only thing that I find frustrating when playing lock-ons is how strong radar deprivation is, which is being nerf'd.

Really... is it just me or more and more players think hovering the mouse over a gigantic square that doesn't even move around that fast is becoming harder for them? is it age?

Tell me again how point and click for max effect is that much more different ?

[Besh]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 03:31 AM, said:

Imagine if you want to make chess into a first person battle simulator.
There is a limit how much you can stay close to the original table top chess game. The rest are dictated by the fact that you are making a first person fighting game, Unless you can explain to players playing pawns why they can't just group up and jump enemy king and end the game in 2 seconds.

Mechwarrior Online has strong ties to BT table top game for a first person shooter, which is fundamentally different from a turn-based, dice roll table top game with players in charge of whole lances, instead of individual mechs.

There are so many things in BT table top that are designed to fit a turn-based tactical game which make zero sense in a shooter game, not only make zero sense, but become anti-logic and just backwards. It's actually amazing how close MWO has managed to be to BT rules.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote . I was not mentioning TT rules with a single word . I mentioned the roots of MW:O lying in BT. There is a difference . In context, to claim "'Mech Game" would not mean anything - as the poster I replied to did - is outright ridiculous .

At this point, I can only attribute the kind of reactive answers someone earns when mentioning BT roots of MW:O to some kind of tunnel vision .

Edited by Besh, 08 January 2024 - 03:47 AM.

[Navid A1]

Besh, on 08 January 2024 - 03:35 AM, said:

Tell me again how point and click for max effect is that much more different ?

Point and click is the just the mechanical side of it that you do. If you don't point and click you are not playing the game.
It's how you interact with the computer.

Otherwise I'm a professional football player, because I can kick a ball.


In MWO the first layer of the game is the mechlab. The fully open mechlab in a pvp is a double edge sword imo. Since you can actually lose the game in the mechlab before you launch into a game. Making a good mech is a skill in itself. And sadly I see a lot of poorly built mechs (in every build archetype) running around and doing poorly, just because of some bizarre and ineffective builds. This includes skill tree unlocks too.

Next major thing is map knowledge. Granted, map knowledge takes time. You often see players march to their deaths minutes before even the first shot is fired. You can sometimes predict the outcome from the first 30 second of the game. knowing where the common enemy paths and locations are, and where is the best place for you to shoot from and how much time it takes you to get somewhere and how much cover you'll have against what angles are huge factors in being effective.

Next is the mechanical skill, how to roll damage using tools that you have, how to bait enemy shots to put them on cooldown for your trade, how to shield your damaged parts,

And then yes, finally how fast and how accurate you can put your mouse on target to inflict the most focused and accurate damage. a.k.a the "point and click" phase.


Skill is used to represent all of that, and it does not matter if you use lasers or LRMs

Edited by Navid A1, 08 January 2024 - 03:50 AM.

[Besh]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 03:47 AM, said:

Point and click is the just the mechanical side of it that you do. If you don't point and click you are not playing the game.
It's how you interact with the computer.

Otherwise I'm a professional football player, because I can kick a ball.


In MWO the first layer of the game is the mechlab. The fully open mechlab in a pvp is a double edge sword imo. Since you can actually lose the game in the mechlab before you launch into a game. Making a good mech is a skill in itself. And sadly I see a lot of poorly built mechs (in every build archetype) running around and doing poorly, just because of some bizarre and ineffective builds. This includes skill tree unlocks too.

Next major thing is map knowledge. Granted, map knowledge takes time. You often see players march to their deaths minutes before even the first shot is fired. You can sometimes predict the outcome from the first 30 second of the game. knowing where the common enemy paths and locations are, and where is the best place for you to shoot from and how much time it takes you to get somewhere and how much cover you'll have against what angles are huge factors in being effective.

Next is the mechanical skill, how to roll damage using tools that you have, how to bait enemy shots to put them on cooldown for your trade, how to shield your damaged parts,

And then yes, finally how fast and how accurate you can put your mouse on target to inflict the most focused and accurate damage. a.k.a the "point and click" phase.


Skill is used to represent all of that, and it does not matter if you use lasers or LRMs

Interesting .

Now, in light of what you just wrote above, tell me how LRMs fit in with all of it ? Meaning, how someone can come to the conclusion LRMs would be low effort/low skills vs lets say sniping ?

Edited by Besh, 08 January 2024 - 04:20 AM.

[Navid A1]

Besh, on 08 January 2024 - 04:04 AM, said:

Interesting .

Now, in light of what you just wrote above, tell me how LRMs fit in with all of it ? Meaning, how someone can come to the conclusion LRMs would be low effort vs lets say sniping ?

I'll give you an example.

Imagine you are playing a light mech carefully flanking the enemy and trying to isolate a say sniper and kill it.
An enemy light notices you and moves towards you for a fight. You can see the enemy build and you are confident that you can take the fight and easily kill it. A fair 1 on 1 fight.
You scan the surrounding and see that the mech has no support and you are well covered against snipers.

The moment the fight starts, hell starts raining down from enemy LRM mechs 800 meters away, and turn everything you've done upside down. With ZERO effort. By just existing and putting their mouse on a square, you don't even need to move. Something no sniper, no dakka mech, and no laser vom mech can possibly do if they don't have lines on you and without you being able to scout them before engaging.
And when you manage to get away and back into cover, the LRM mech can switch to targets potentially 180 degrees in the other direct and lay down fire with no problem.
And to do all this, they didn't need to anything special, no specific map knowledge, no specific position, nothing fancy.

This is not something I'm making up. This is what I do to helpless people using LRMs. It actually feels dirty and cheap to be perfectly honest.

A sniper can cover one or two angles, they are often stationary, meaning that they can get flanked and die quickly, and often (depending on the map design) they have a lot of blind spots that you can use to approach.

Edited by Navid A1, 08 January 2024 - 04:32 AM.

[Navid A1]

I remember one of my friends even recorded a game session playing LRM mechs using his FOOT to aim to prove that you don't need to do much to get results.
I can post the video if you want.

But I fear some might take it as me belittling LRM users.

Edited by Navid A1, 08 January 2024 - 04:28 AM.

[Vxheous]

I remember Writhen streamed using his forehead to hit his keyboard to launch lrms a few times back when lrms were even more garbage than now (2018) just to show how absurdly easy it was to do non focused damage with them.

[MechMaster059]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

...
The moment the fight starts, hell starts raining down from enemy LRM mechs 800 meters away, and turn everything you've done upside down. With ZERO effort. By just existing and putting their mouse on a square, you don't even need to move. Something no sniper, no dakka mech, and no laser vom mech can possibly do if they don't have lines on you and without you being able to scout them before engaging.

It's important to keep in mind all weapon types have their own circumstances where they shine. All weapon types do things other weapons can't do.

I thought it was disgusting watching Sneaky Snek kill 3 players in a row on Hellbore Outpost by backstabbing them with a Scaleshot before the recent missile spread quirk nerfs.
https://youtu.be/JSm...7G2FmCJlDN&t=15

I thought it was disgusting watching Sneaky Snek slowly waddle his Gausszilla into a firing position on Polar Highlands and rack up 2,100+ damage spamming HAG30s. Standing in one spot and blasting stuff at range with HAGs doesn't take much skill either.
https://youtu.be/5oD...3GmvbiN_M&t=563

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

And when you manage to get away and back into cover, the LRM mech can switch to targets potentially 180 degrees in the other direct and lay down fire with no problem.
And to do all this, they didn't need to anything special, no specific map knowledge, no specific position, nothing fancy.
...

Where is this fight taking place? In an open plain? Because I can tell you it would be very difficult on Tourmaline Desert to turn 180 degrees without facing into huge spires that block anything from getting past them. Free Worlds Colosseum had gigantic mushrooms installed that block LRMs from nearly every angle, and on and on...

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

And to do all this, they didn't need to anything special, no specific map knowledge, no specific position, nothing fancy.

The circumstance you describe seems to be a best case scenario type situation.

Edited by MechMaster059, 08 January 2024 - 05:08 AM.

[MechMaster059]

Vxheous, on 08 January 2024 - 04:32 AM, said:

I remember Writhen streamed using his forehead to hit his keyboard to launch lrms a few times back when lrms were even more garbage than now (2018) just to show how absurdly easy it was to do non focused damage with them.

Are the cool kids coming out to dump on LRMs now? Is that what this thread is? You only need your feet and forehead to use LRMs?

This attitude is what people are concerned about.

As if sitting your butt down on a hill or wall in some sniper assault and being able to look across the entire map for targets takes great skill...

Flank the sniper? What if the sniper is D A T A and he's ordered his entire team to guard him? Pretty difficult to get close to him now isn't it. (I saw a video of him do this on HPG Manifold)

[Vxheous]

MechMaster059, on 08 January 2024 - 04:58 AM, said:

Are the cool kids coming out to dump on LRMs now? Is that what this thread is? You only need your feet and forehead to use LRMs?

This attitude is what people are concerned about.

As if sitting your butt down on a hill or wall in some sniper assault and being able to look across the entire map for targets takes great skill...

Flank the sniper? What if the sniper is D A T A and he's ordered his entire team to guard him? Pretty difficult to get close to him now isn't it. (I saw a video of him do this on HPG Manifold)

Please stop. Tiyos has already explained the reasoning on the lrm changes. They are attempting to make the weapon system not feast or famine. Cauldron is not going to make it so you can hit at 900m and lob missiles the entire game with 0.5 second locks with zero counterplay.

[Besh]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

I'll give you an example.

Imagine you are playing a light mech carefully flanking the enemy and trying to isolate a say sniper and kill it.
An enemy light notices you and moves towards you for a fight. You can see the enemy build and you are confident that you can take the fight and easily kill it. A fair 1 on 1 fight.
You scan the surrounding and see that the mech has no support and you are well covered against snipers.

The moment the fight starts, hell starts raining down from enemy LRM mechs 800 meters away, and turn everything you've done upside down. With ZERO effort. By just existing and putting their mouse on a square, you don't even need to move. Something no sniper, no dakka mech, and no laser vom mech can possibly do if they don't have lines on you and without you being able to scout them before engaging.
And when you manage to get away and back into cover, the LRM mech can switch to targets potentially 180 degrees in the other direct and lay down fire with no problem.
And to do all this, they didn't need to anything special, no specific map knowledge, no specific position, nothing fancy.

This is not something I'm making up. This is what I do to helpless people using LRMs. It actually feels dirty and cheap to be perfectly honest.

A sniper can cover one or two angles, they are often stationary, meaning that they can get flanked and die quickly, and often (depending on the map design) they have a lot of blind spots that you can use to approach.

So, you chose to not answer the question . In the example you bring up, you leave out all the "MechLab" part you posted above , as if it would not apply to people playing LRMs. You also claim no Map Knowledge would be needed to play LRMs - which I simply label as "incorrect" . Or, lets be generous - maybe correct, in specific situations on specific Maps . LRMs/Snipers - you downplay snipers capabilities in comparison to LRMs . And you dont mention the vulnerabilities of LRM 'Mechs being played the way you describe .

Btw., I am that Light 'Mech you describe . I almost exclusively piloting a 6ERSL LCT-1E when going Light . Most of those Matches are Solo QP. The scenario you describe above suffers from a few things...

• In that LCT, I am NEVER looking for a "fair 1v1" fight . This isn't duelling pistols at dawn...
  
• When you engage in a "fair 1v1" in a Light just to learn you are being rained on...you may have done something wrong with your assesment, positioning...in any case, if you are not able to disengage and outrun the LRMs, jokes on you I'd say .
  
• Incidentally, I'd say locating the LRMBoats, trying to isolate them if they aren't ( in your example, they likely would be ) and take them out would take priority for me in a Light vs "fair 1v1"ing another Light . Simply because experience says failure to do so may prove to be a mistake . Which then nicely ties into you conveniently ignoring the weaknesses of the LRM 'Mechs played as you describe above - if they bank to being able to simply stand around and make it rain, with no concern for what their team does and no intention to actively engage, and they get pushed hard and decisive, many of them are fodder .

Edited by Besh, 11 January 2024 - 04:00 AM.

[MechMaster059]

Vxheous, on 08 January 2024 - 05:07 AM, said:

...
Cauldron is not going to make it so you can hit at 900m and lob missiles the entire game with 0.5 second locks with zero counterplay.

Strawman argument. No one is arguing to make LRMs that easy to use.

[Vxheous]

MechMaster059, on 08 January 2024 - 05:12 AM, said:

Strawman argument. No one is arguing to make LRMs that easy to use.

Why don't you go to the caudron discord and propose some LRM number changes as to what YOU think they should be instead of bitching about it here. You'll get more traction for your ideas if they're sound

https://discord.com/invite/Zt8c77ae

[Mechwarrior2342356]

Frost_Byte, on 07 January 2024 - 09:12 PM, said:

Our goal was not to make LRMs weaker, despite what a few minority beliefs in the cauldron say. The current problem is that LRM matches typically go 200 damage, 900, 300, 1200, 350, 230, 800, etc. Way too much range. So what we want is LRM matches to go like 400 damage, 600, 400, 900, 700, 500, etc. The average output is the same, but you don't have that wild variance that you see with current LRMs.

One final note though. While we do want to fix up LRMs, I don't think they should ever be top tier weapons. Same goes for streak SRMs. Any weapon that aims for you should inherently be weaker, as the game should reward you for the amount of effort and skill a weapon takes. Higher skill, higher reward. Which is why I think dakka should be the strongest playstyle in MWO as it requires constant exposure and the ability to hit and lead shot after shot after shot.

And this is why CAC20 and LB5X are such great weapons systems right now. I'm already noticing a lot of negative talk about the new RACs as well.

[MechMaster059]

Vxheous, on 08 January 2024 - 05:16 AM, said:

Why don't you go to the caudron discord and propose some LRM number changes as to what YOU think they should be instead of bitching about it here. You'll get more traction for your ideas if they're sound

https://discord.com/invite/Zt8c77ae

I appreciate the invite. I already have an account there under a different name that I have literally never used. I've never even monitored any conversation there.

"You'll get more traction for your ideas if they're sound"
I hope you're right, but I must say, I'm very skeptical of these community type forums compared to official forums. Community forum tend to be run by a clique of friends with the majority of input by others ignored. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt it.

Perhaps I'll post some numbers for LRMs using my unknown alias and test to see how receptive people are to suggestions from a total stranger...