356 replies to this topic

[Besh]

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

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.

You fail to understand that "normalizing all the weapons" is a flawed, doomed to fail endeavour in itself . If it does not matter which weapon to use because they all perform the same under any circumstances ( which is clearly not what is aimed for, but is being suggested arguing to make every weapon perform consistently - NOT LRMS though, they "should not be Top tier weapons for "reasons"...), why even have different weapons ?

Trying to "normalize" the weaponsystems, to have each perform "consistently" compared to each other may be appropriate if you want to create a Game where personal performance is the only thing that matters .

MW:O aimed to be markedly different from that kindof shooter . "Tactical, teambased" are words I'd like to attribute with MW:O . It being able to be markedly unique provided balance decisions support that is one of its strongest points . Take all the "BadPlayer Mechdad t5 scrubs" who are just immune to "getting gud" out of MW:O and see what you are left with . And how much money MW:O earns .

Oh, that touches another point I am actually quite interested in . I am wondering, do people actually have hard Data on where the money comes from in terms of "skilled" vs so called "nonskilled" players ? Are people actually looking into whether MW:O trying to cater to an subset of players activley pushes away players who would bring in more money than those they Game tries to cater to do?

Edited by Besh, 08 January 2024 - 05:53 AM.

[Vonbach]

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

Where are you getting 20 seconds from? Even with every debuff under the sun, the max I can get is around 10 seconds. In most scenarios, it will be somewhere between 2 and 5 seconds. Even if it would take 20 seconds from across the map, I would still chart that down as minimal effort compared to other weapons. If your reticle is within 2 degrees, you can acquire a lock. You won't lose a lock until you get around 4-5 degrees away.

As compared to weapons that require pinpoint aiming and precise shots on targets, I would definitely chart lock on weapons as much easier to use than other weapons. I've played this game for a long time and play at the highest level. Lock on weapons prove to be the easiest weapons to use in the game, and as such should be marginally weaker than direct aiming weapons.



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 feel like a major point of what I said above was missed. We don't want to remove LRMs, we don't want to make them useless, nor do we want to nerf them into the ground. We just don't think they should be as strong as weapons that require more skill to use.

At the end of it all, by nerfing radar deprivation, LRMs are getting a net buff actually.

I hope my posts help explain the choices that we made for this patch. We haven't even posted the patch notes, nor have we revealed what we're doing with LRMs yet exactly and already all this commotion! Looking forward to when patch notes drop.

At this point you basically have removed LRMs from the game. Without indirect fire there is literally no point in using them.
Anyone that thinks LRMs are OP or easy to use should try using them for awhile.
A sniper can waddle out of cover shoot and waddle back into cover in far less time than it takes to get a lock.
And if you try and stand out in the open you'll get HAG'd to death for your troubles.

[ScrapIron Prime]

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

I feel like a major point of what I said above was missed. We don't want to remove LRMs, we don't want to make them useless, nor do we want to nerf them into the ground. We just don't think they should be as strong as weapons that require more skill to use.

At the end of it all, by nerfing radar deprivation, LRMs are getting a net buff actually.

I hope my posts help explain the choices that we made for this patch. We haven't even posted the patch notes, nor have we revealed what we're doing with LRMs yet exactly and already all this commotion! Looking forward to when patch notes drop.

Okay, well consider this use case.

https://mwo.nav-alph...324d13_HGN-733P

I work into 400m range, letting off a few indirect shots as I get there, mostly to make people hug rocks. At 400m, I score laser hits, instantly locking up my target, then I let Artemis LRMs fly.

At 400m, those missiles take over 2 seconds to reach their target. The launcher is cooled down and ready to fire again before the missiles have arrived. At 400m. Direct fire.

And you're proposing nerfing velocity? Seriously?

Can you tell us what changes you're proposing for Artemis then?

[ScrapIron Prime]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 09:38 PM, said:

Thanks for taking the time to drop a line. Not gonna lie the next time I check this tomorrow is probably going to be all....

Yup, you called it.

[Navid A1]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 06:15 AM, said:

Okay, well consider this use case.

https://mwo.nav-alph...324d13_HGN-733P

I work into 400m range, letting off a few indirect shots as I get there, mostly to make people hug rocks. At 400m, I score laser hits, instantly locking up my target, then I let Artemis LRMs fly.

At 400m, those missiles take over 2 seconds to reach their target. The launcher is cooled down and ready to fire again before the missiles have arrived. At 400m. Direct fire.

And you're proposing nerfing velocity? Seriously?

Can you tell us what changes you're proposing for Artemis then?

Try this:
https://mwo.nav-alph...f5a17b_HGN-733P

[ScrapIron Prime]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 07:19 AM, said:

Try this:
https://mwo.nav-alph...f5a17b_HGN-733P

I've got a different build for that.

https://mwo.nav-alph...=2d4768ea_ON1-K

But the build isn't the point. With Artemis LRMs I shouldn't have to narc my own targets when I'm in direct LOS and have a lock. or even when I'm in direct LOS and firing without a lock... which is exceptionally difficult to do because the missiles are so effing slow.

Oh wait... does that count as a higher usage of skill?

But your suggestion is to remove Artemis. What does that say for proposed Artemis changes?

[Navid A1]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 07:27 AM, said:

I've got a different build for that.

https://mwo.nav-alph...=2d4768ea_ON1-K

But the build isn't the point. With Artemis LRMs I shouldn't have to narc my own targets when I'm in direct LOS and have a lock. or even when I'm in direct LOS and firing without a lock... which is exceptionally difficult to do because the missiles are so effing slow.

Oh wait... does that count as a higher usage of skill?

But your suggestion is to remove Artemis. What does that say for proposed Artemis changes?

This suggestion is based on current state of the game.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 07:36 AM, said:

This suggestion is based on current state of the game.

Understood, NARC is better than Artemis and Artemis does not benefit from NARC. But my question is also to proposed changes to the current state of the game. What are they doing to Artemis, and how much tougher will it become to use my close range LRM use case of play?

You'll note from the Crusader (armored valkyrie) in my sig file that not only have I been doing this a while, but that I prefer LRM's to be an in-your-face option. To me an LRM15 is worth the trade off from an equivalent weight MRM20 because while it does 5 less points of damage, it can also fire indirect to some extent, making it a more versatile build on many maps.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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 ?

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 .

What does it even mean to "derail" from BT's roots. There is so much there to unpack.

Who cares about where BT comes from, if what it came from doesn't even match what it is today? That said, even then it depends on what actually drew you to BT in the first place. Myself, it was the GoT/Expanse-esque geopolitics with stompy robots that didn't fly around like Gundams or use their special laser cannon to obliterate 100s of enemies in one shot. I don't really care about the succession war era of mechs being rare and everyone having trouble just piloting there mech to even bother with actual tactics.

I've asked the very question you just asked me in other threads, and got different answers because what separates Mechwarrior from the rest is multiple things. It isn't in danger of becoming some "generic" mech shooter because the hook was never BT in the first place because it wasn't what got me into MW4 at all. MW4 was my gateway into BT, not the other way around, and that is likely going to be the more common experience just like Baldur's Gate being the intro to DnD for people rather than the other way around.

I'm not saying that BT doesn't enhance Mechwarrior, but it isn't what gets people in the game, it's what can help keep them though.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 08:03 AM.

[Navid A1]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 07:52 AM, said:

Understood, NARC is better than Artemis and Artemis does not benefit from NARC. But my question is also to proposed changes to the current state of the game. What are they doing to Artemis, and how much tougher will it become to use my close range LRM use case of play?

You'll note from the Crusader (armored valkyrie) in my sig file that not only have I been doing this a while, but that I prefer LRM's to be an in-your-face option. To me an LRM15 is worth the trade off from an equivalent weight MRM20 because while it does 5 less points of damage, it can also fire indirect to some extent, making it a more versatile build on many maps.

Will be able to say more in the coming weeks as things are being tested still. Don't want to say something that turns out to be not true.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2024 - 07:58 AM, said:

Will be able to say more in the coming weeks as things are being tested still. Don't want to say something that turns out to be not true.

And I appreciate that answer. Thank you.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Vonbach, on 08 January 2024 - 06:06 AM, said:

Without indirect fire there is literally no point in using them.

Sorry, but this is absolute BS. MW4 didn't have indirect fire for LRMs and they were still used (though mileage varied depending on the mod). For mechs that have missile slots, you have generally been pretty pigeonholed into using short or mid/short with SRMs and MRMs and its all been because of how awful lock-on mechanics have been in this game. Whether it be because locks are acquired through radar rather than LoS, reticle placement not mattering, and of course the best part being LRMs and being able to be used as guided artillery.

Weapon mechanic variety is the spice of life and its why they keep adding weapons even if lore and/or the engine is a bit limiting in that regard.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 08:22 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 08:17 AM, said:

Sorry, but this is absolute BS. MW4 didn't have indirect fire for LRMs and they were still used (though mileage varied depending on the mod). For mechs that have missile slots, you have generally been pretty pigeonholed into using short or mid/short with SRMs and MRMs and its all been because of how awful lock-on mechanics have been in this game. Whether it be because locks are acquired through radar rather than LoS, reticle placement not mattering, and of course the best part being LRMs and being able to be used as guided artillery.

Weapon mechanic variety is the spice of life and its why they keep adding weapons even if lore and/or the engine is a bit limiting in that regard.

No, but Vonbach does have a point. If you cannot indirect fire LRMs to any real effect, then you're better off using MRMs. They weren't a good option in MW4, but the reverse is true here for direct fire.

Personally, as you've seen with my back-and-forth in this and other threads, I'm looking for viability for LRMs as a direct fire weapon that has usable indirect capability. I think 900m indirect fire builds are boring, but I like the old school idea of direct fire drill-and-fill. I know that nobody wants "lurm doom from the skies" and I'm not proposing we bring that back, but I am being a proponent of not nerfing the weapon system into oblivion.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 08:29 AM, said:

Personally, as you've seen with my back-and-forth in this and other threads, I'm looking for viability for LRMs as a direct fire weapon that has usable indirect capability. I think 900m indirect fire builds are boring, but I like the old school idea of direct fire drill-and-fill. I know that nobody wants "lurm doom from the skies" and I'm not proposing we bring that back, but I am being a proponent of not nerfing the weapon system into oblivion.

You will likely have to make compromises on that indirect capability then because that is part of the problem. The oppressive nature of LRMs (the feast part that everyone mentions) all comes back to indirect fire. Guided weapons that hit around cover are shunned in other FPS because, well they are unfun. To make matters worse though is that it also makes focus fire really easy to do on targets of indirect, so it is a force multiplier in that regard. So the real question you have to ask is, what is the point in LRMs having indirect fire. What goal are they meant to achieve and are they achieving it. IMO, the goal of artillery should be to punish passive play like camping. In that regard indirect fire actually encourages passive play because LRMs target a mech, not a position and that's the major crux of the issue.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 08:42 AM.

[Mechwarrior2342356]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 08:39 AM, said:

You will likely have to make compromises on that indirect capability then because that is part of the problem. The oppressive nature of LRMs (the feast part that everyone mentions) all comes back to indirect fire. Guided weapons that hit around cover are shunned in other FPS because, well they are unfun. To make matters worse though is that it also makes focus fire really easy to do on targets of indirect, so it is a force multiplier in that regard. So the real question you have to ask is, what is the point in LRMs having indirect fire. What goal are they meant to achieve and are they achieving it. IMO, the goal of artillery should be to punish passive play like camping. In that regard indirect fire actually encourages passive play because, LRMs target a mech, not a position and that's the major crux of the issue.

LRMs aren't even the biggest culprit of that right now.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

the check engine light, on 08 January 2024 - 08:41 AM, said:

LRMs aren't even the biggest culprit of that right now.

Yeah, because the game has a bunch of counters that were added to stop them being just a feast weapon in lower tiers (thus why they are feast or famine). As those slowly get peeled back that issue will likely rear it's head again. I mean, we could always try and get old Polar added back to the rotation and use that as a good gauge of where LRMs are at.

[Mechwarrior2342356]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 08:45 AM, said:

Yeah, because the game has a bunch of counters that were added to stop them being just a feast weapon in lower tiers (thus why they are feast or famine). As those slowly get peeled back that issue will likely rear it's head again. I mean, we could always try and get old Polar added back to the rotation and use that as a good gauge of where LRMs are at.

Since when are they concerned about what the lower tiers are doing? They've repeatedly stated that things the lower tiers do do not figure into most of their decisions.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 08:39 AM, said:

You will likely have to make compromises on that indirect capability then because that is part of the problem. The oppressive nature of LRMs (the feast part that everyone mentions) all comes back to indirect fire. Guided weapons that hit around cover are shunned in other FPS because, well they are unfun. To make matters worse though is that it also makes focus fire really easy to do on targets of indirect, so it is a force multiplier in that regard. So the real question you have to ask is, what is the point in LRMs having indirect fire. What goal are they meant to achieve and are they achieving it. IMO, the goal of artillery should be to punish passive play like camping. In that regard indirect fire actually encourages passive play because LRMs target a mech, not a position and that's the major crux of the issue.

LRMs firing indirect has always been a part of the genre, implemented in nearly all iterations of the game. So it needs to be possible, but not overwhelming. We've gotten to a point where a missile will lose lock before it gets to the target and the proposal on the table seems to be allowing the lock to linger a bit longer but slowing the missile down even further. This nets the same for indirect fire but nerfs direct fire... and it sounds like we all kind of think direct fire ISN'T the problem.

For my part, I want to make people duck on the way to the brawl and keep plugging the odd shot when I lose line of sight. This in trade for the lower damage and minimum range when compared to MRMs.

Olden days in MWO, our unit would run 4 mech lances each with a single LRM plus direct fire weapons, the lance leader would call target and all four mechs would fire a single LRM 5 or 10 to keep the pressure on, or we'd individually chuck an LRM 5 at someone to make them hug a rock instead of doing what they were about to do. It was good crowd control, the FPS equivalent of one squad member throwing a grenade to control what the opposing squad would do.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 08:45 AM, said:

Yeah, because the game has a bunch of counters that were added to stop them being just a feast weapon in lower tiers (thus why they are feast or famine). As those slowly get peeled back that issue will likely rear it's head again. I mean, we could always try and get old Polar added back to the rotation and use that as a good gauge of where LRMs are at.

I'd like that. Its pretty easy right now to back down a hill and lose locks. Plus, I miss the fact that all the fights on that map were in different places instead of in the same place or two every fight (minus domination mode).

[Totenxcx]

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.

My post assumes quick play is being played.


You have painted a very idealized picture of how games play out. One would think an lrm mech just gets to stand around and farm enemies. That is not the case at all.

You would need one of your teammates to stand exposed, stare at an enemy long enough for you to get a lock and for your slow missiles to hit, while the enemy stands in the open for that whole time. This assumes the trajectory between the lurmer and the target is also free of obstacles. How often does that happen? Do people play like that? Do lrm boats have the buffet of targets your post implies? How likely is it that someone is going to keep a target lock on a light mech, uninterrupted, for 10 seconds, so that you can shoot them with your lurms from 800m away, no line of sight?

Well, in my games people tend to stay behind cover and peek. It is far more common to not get any locks from teammates, either not for long enough or not at all. Which means you need to step out of cover and target enemies yourself. And considering you need to keep your crosshair on the enemy model in order to acquire lock I dont see how it is any less effort, or any different for that matter than shooting them with a laser. One could say: "You might as well!"

And you absolutely do need to move. You need to keep up with the nascar or you will get farmed. Just like any other loadout. The sniper, dakka mech and laser vom mech can at least fight back when caught out of position.



The reason lrms are feast or famine is because lrm mechs do good when their team is already winning, and would be winning even without them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 08:55 AM, said:

LRMs firing indirect has always been a part of the genre, implemented in nearly all iterations of the game.

Do you mean MWO or Mechwarrior in general, because I only played 4 and maybe tiny bits of 3, and it was only possible through NARC in 4. That said, it honestly doesn't matter what previous iterations have done, what matters is what is good for the game, and there is a reason why LRMs have had counter upon counter stacked against them in MWO and it is because of that indirect fire. Honestly if they didn't have indirect fire we would probably still have fire and forget LRMs like we did for a little bit in closed beta.

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 08:55 AM, said:

FPS equivalent of one squad member throwing a grenade to control what the opposing squad would do.

See the difference there is the grenades in other FPS aren't guided which is what I was getting at with the target vs position thing. You use grenades as area denial or punishment/clearing of known rat holes. You can't really use LRMs like that in this game, for one because they don't really have a wide radius of impact like arty strikes or grenades from other FPS, but two is you can't really target positions. The worst part is indirect fire emboldens the people who don't get their own locks and think dedicated spotters should be a thing in this game. IMO that makes sense in TT, not a team based shooter. People shouldn't be wholly dependent on a specific role to do reliable damage.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 09:07 AM.