356 replies to this topic

[Abisha]

Moadebe, on 08 January 2024 - 11:17 AM, said:

Just remember that the LRM changes I mentioned are just serious discussions right now with no set in stone numbers.

I personally would LOVE to see a reduction in ECM radar reduction ranges (seriously....it NEEDS it.) Needs to be hit via the skill tree more than anything. The velocity reduction doesn't need to happen. If it DOES happen it needs to happen AFTER we fix radar deprivation, and ECM.

it do not matter if the arch is being reduced. LRM ain't a line of sight weapon it never is never will
that's why you have SRM, SSRM, MRM, LRM is designed for out of sight firing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 11:19 AM, said:

So leave the counters in place, nerf NARC, and increase the flat trajectory velocity of LRMs.

I think the counters need to be peeled back because they impact consistency of direct fire too, or at least contribute to the build taxes. Narc does need to be nerfed but like in Navid's example scenario, it still doesn't matter as the issue isn't just narc. Indirect fire was an issue before ECM and NARC even came into the picture. Honestly I just wish "direct fire" missiles could be made fire and forget and then yeah, the counters could kinda be left in place (though they still create a build tax).

[feeWAIVER]

Any thoughts on greatly increasing the hp of UAVs?

[Moadebe]

the check engine light, on 08 January 2024 - 11:21 AM, said:

There's a point at which people feel pretty sure they're getting bull-******* around the block and that tends to raise hackles.

That and the sense as a human being that we dont like to be wrong. Not necessarily that we feel we MUST be right. Rather we hate just being wrong or proven wrong.

I also feel that there are some who cant look past extremes when thinking about a concept. Something that I learned a long time ago is that a situation is NEVER as bad as we work it up to in our minds. It is also NEVER as GOOD as it seems either. There is ALWAYS some form of middle ground in there that is reality.

[Tarteso]

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

Lock on weapons lazors prove to be the easiest weapons to use in the game, ...

Fixed

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

... and as such should be marginally weaker than direct aiming weapons.

First, make them strong and hit targets as consistently as direct aiming weapons, so then you can make them "marginally weaker".

[ScrapIron Prime]

Abisha, on 08 January 2024 - 11:25 AM, said:

it do not matter if the arch is being reduced. LRM ain't a line of sight weapon it never is never will
...

I disagree. It has been line of sight in all battletech based video games as well as the board game this all came from. Indirect fire was not originally possible until much later in the tabletop game, and was then present in many Battletech video games.

What we want here is a robust line of sight weapon that can be used indirect... without returning to the doom-from-the-skies environment that set all this counter-and-mechanic stuff in motion in the first place.

[Abisha]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 11:47 AM, said:

I disagree. It has been line of sight in all battletech based video games as well as the board game this all came from. Indirect fire was not originally possible until much later in the tabletop game, and was then present in many Battletech video games.

What we want here is a robust line of sight weapon that can be used indirect... without returning to the doom-from-the-skies environment that set all this counter-and-mechanic stuff in motion in the first place.

this game is like ain't anything remotely to board game, so comparing it to it is basic red haring
only thing this game have in common is it's name

[ScrapIron Prime]

You missed the part where I said "all video games" too. This is, last I checked, a video game.

[Tarteso]

Frost_Byte, on 07 January 2024 - 10:00 PM, said:

As I stated in my earlier post, they are weapons that aim for you and require very little aim and effort.

I wish that were true. LOL, you know that missiles need to be aimed to lock, and then keep that lock actively, right? Is that "aim for you", or "very little effort"?

Frost_Byte, on 07 January 2024 - 10:00 PM, said:

Therefore they should be worse than weapons that require active aiming and effort.

Lazors?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tarteso, on 08 January 2024 - 11:58 AM, said:

I wish that were true. LOL, you know that missiles need to be aimed to lock, and then keep that lock actively, right? Is that "aim for you", or "very little effort"?

And that effort is still less than lasers because reticle placement matters more on lasers than it does for locks.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:06 PM, said:

And that effort is still less than lasers because reticle placement matters more on lasers than it does for locks.

Wait what ?

[ScrapIron Prime]

Besh, on 08 January 2024 - 12:27 PM, said:

Wait what ?

I think he means that in order to fire a laser you have to hold the center reticle on target for five seconds and THEN fire.

Or maybe that's LRMs.

But seriously... we get that the more you hold that laser onto a certain part of the red box the more damage said laser does to one hit location. BUT... if you sloppily wave that laser around all over the red box, you still do damage. Spread out all over the target, but its still damage. Meanwhile, the LRM will not be able to fire with the same spazz hand movements.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 08 January 2024 - 12:40 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So let's set the stage.

Locks are a boolean value, you are either acquiring the lock or not. I'm not exactly sure on the surface area of the mech that the lock area encompasses but for mid-long let's assume it's roughly a circle around the actual mech. All I have to do is aim the reticle within that area and I'm acquiring the lock. If the target moves out of the lock during the lock time, it has no bearing on the skill it takes to acquire the lock. The skill to acquire has to do with variables YOU can control. If a target moves under cover and you can't make slight movements to re-acquire, then it isn't part of the skill. Travel time of the missiles unless you are going for the indirect arc is again, not something you are in control over.

Lasers however are not a boolean, and the space in which you are actually hitting the mech is less, but more than that, where you place the reticle within that area of the mech that is hittable also matters, for missiles, they just don't.

What you all are trying to tell me is that somehow the MWO missiles require MORE skill than missiles did in MW4 (where your reticle had to be ON the mech itself to acquire lock and where your reticle was on the mech when you fired was what they homed on, roughly) and that's just flat out false. The amount of time doesn't matter when the objective you have to do during that period is significantly easier. The time you have available doesn't have anything to do with aim and more about positioning but even that is questionable.



This is also why ECM and radar derp feel bad because they are effectively hard counters, there is very little you can do skill wise to counter them.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 12:48 PM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:45 PM, said:

The amount of time doesn't matter when the objective you have to do during that period is significantly easier.

No, no the time IS the point. With any other weapon (gauss charge delay excepted), you see the target, you wave the crosshair, you fire. With LRMs and Streaks, you see the target, you wave the crosshair, you wait, you wait, you adjust your aim, you wait a little more... and THEN you fire. By that time the laser guy has fired twice and has had more control over where he does damage, because remember the missiles are nothing but splash damage even with a good lock.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 12:51 PM, said:

No, no the time IS the point. With any other weapon (gauss charge delay excepted), you see the target, you wave the crosshair, you fire. With LRMs and Streaks, you see the target, you wave the crosshair, you wait, you wait, you adjust your aim, you wait a little more... and THEN you fire.

Except you already glossed over the "wave the crosshair" is different between the two, again because reticle placement matters more to something that is subject to multiple hitboxes versus one. Those two things are not equivalent. Yes you have time, and arguably that time should be shorter for non-streaks (especially since I think ECM quadruples it for reasons lol), but let's not pretend that the time it takes increases the skill necessary to aim the thing. Exposure time of the enemy isn't something you can directly control like that, and holding the reticle inside a target like that especially before the lock angle adjustments, just isn't that hard.


Edit: To be clear, I've also wondered if the lock time should be instant because well, acquiring the lock isn't the hard part in this game. The issue is the missiles just landing and to that effect, being able to launch immediately would help and the missiles aren't fire and forget so you still have to have time on the target whether through face time or from radar decay. Though IIRC lock times are global which really hampers that because the last thing I think we need is instant lock streaks as they stand now.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 01:03 PM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:57 PM, said:

but let's not pretend that the time it takes increases the skill necessary to aim the thing.

That part's fair. But I do think you're overestimating how tricky it is to acquire a lock when you're solo dropping. Horizon bombing from 900 meters is one thing (a thing I do NOT want buffed) as that reticle barely moves at that range, but a close range LRM support build is entirely another. Run a mixed armament mech with LRMs for a week and see if your opinion changes.

[Moadebe]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:45 PM, said:

This is also why ECM and radar derp feel bad because they are effectively hard counters, there is very little you can do skill wise to counter them.

Would also like to point out with all the skill talk that these take no skill to utilize...yet nothing but skill to counter. Yet we are talking about LRMs being a no skill weapon. Yet it arguably takes more "facetime" to get effective damage from them. (The only thing being more facetime are RACs, MGs, and XPulse lasers)




But that is just my two cents

Edited by Moadebe, 08 January 2024 - 01:23 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Moadebe, on 08 January 2024 - 01:20 PM, said:

Would also like to point out with all the skill talk that these take no skill to utilize...yet nothing but skill to counter. Yet we are talking about LRMs being a no skill weapon.

I mean, I've been against ECM countering missiles for literally years, but then again I also think tying missiles to radar while I know was based in realism was just a bad idea. It's the one problem I have with MW4 missiles is that you couldn't lock on with passive radar making ECM pretty close to a requirement for a good missile mech.

Though to be fair, I've been against basically all versions of "Info Warfare" PGI has introduced because they have been trying to hamfist it into the game instead of trying to figure out how it could enhance the game. Ironically the best one they gave us was probably the one they put the least design thought into and that is seismic.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 01:55 PM.

[feeWAIVER]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:57 PM, said:

Except you already glossed over the "wave the crosshair" is different between the two, again because reticle placement matters more to something that is subject to multiple hitboxes versus one.

Being able to target and shoot right torso when you need to is easier than waiting for a lock and hoping slow moving RNG missiles take the right torso out.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 12:45 PM, said:

So let's set the stage.

Locks are a boolean value, you are either acquiring the lock or not. I'm not exactly sure on the surface area of the mech that the lock area encompasses but for mid-long let's assume it's roughly a circle around the actual mech. All I have to do is aim the reticle within that area and I'm acquiring the lock. If the target moves out of the lock during the lock time, it has no bearing on the skill it takes to acquire the lock. The skill to acquire has to do with variables YOU can control. If a target moves under cover and you can't make slight movements to re-acquire, then it isn't part of the skill. Travel time of the missiles unless you are going for the indirect arc is again, not something you are in control over.

Lasers however are not a boolean, and the space in which you are actually hitting the mech is less, but more than that, where you place the reticle within that area of the mech that is hittable also matters, for missiles, they just don't.

What you all are trying to tell me is that somehow the MWO missiles require MORE skill than missiles did in MW4 (where your reticle had to be ON the mech itself to acquire lock and where your reticle was on the mech when you fired was what they homed on, roughly) and that's just flat out false. The amount of time doesn't matter when the objective you have to do during that period is significantly easier. The time you have available doesn't have anything to do with aim and more about positioning but even that is questionable.



This is also why ECM and radar derp feel bad because they are effectively hard counters, there is very little you can do skill wise to counter them.

Did you just, very elaborately, explain to us that you don't really understand what you are talking about ?