356 replies to this topic

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 07 January 2024 - 01:52 PM, said:

They are giving Artemis an insane velocity buff for direct fire AFAIK. I think it might get a shallower arc but I can't remember on that one.

So they CAN buff direct fire and indirect fire separately? Or does it become a different weapon system with different stats?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 07 January 2024 - 01:54 PM, said:

So they CAN buff direct fire and indirect fire separately? Or does it become a different weapon system with different stats?

Artemis is completely different weapon systems with stats, idk about direct fire and indirect fire. IIRC indirect fire has a hard-coded 40% velocity buff and can have a different arc but I don't remember the exact limitations.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 01:54 PM, said:

[Redacted]

Yes, each game is completely original and there are no common threads across FPS at all. Oh how wrong I am.......

Edited by GM Patience, 11 January 2024 - 03:51 PM.

[Moadebe]

Lemme respond to those two posts that I am quoted in. Starting with Tarteso's. (These have potential to be long so want to sorta break em up.)

Tarteso, on 07 January 2024 - 11:39 AM, said:

They made a poll in discord: "what do you prefer?". Obviously, the NO to the spread won.

I am just going to leave this here...

Tarteso, on 07 January 2024 - 11:39 AM, said:

They want more nerfs to LRMs, to protect their snipers in their niche comp play, that's all. They need some new excuses. So what? they are now willing to discuss about another ****** 1% nerf per node to raderp?

Indirect fire mode is already nerfed to the ground. What do they want, lurmers fighting purely LOS as if missiles were point and click like lasers??? Make it happen, but with all consecuences included: same counters and as fast as any other direct-fire weapon. Or a complete rework to make them like in MW4.

What LRMs (and the other guided missiles) really need is a BIG un-nerf:

A complete rework is off the table for ANYTHING in this game. So lets throw that into the trash. THERE IS NO DEV TIME. ZERO HARD CODING GOING ON. So please lets ALL keep that in mind.

Yes there are a LOT of comp players who feel that because Lockon missiles (in any capacity) are capable of tracking their targets its some sorta I win button. Which we ALL know to not be true. They feel that because they can be shot at players from behind cover with no chance of reprisal its some easy mode. That in and of itself is a driving factor behind LRM hate to some people. (There are others which ill get into on the second response.)

LRMs dont need a big unnerf. At all. The thing that killed LRMs was the nerf to the time it takes to get a lock on long ago. Especially for indirect fire. Coupled with insta loss of target due to radar deprivation. Taking 5 seconds just to get a lock only to lose it immediately is what killed it the most.

The MAIN fix that NEEDs to happen to fix that problem is we need to fix Radar Deprivation overpowering Target Decay. With RD being a percentage based stat and Target Decay being a hard number. RD will win every time. Putting RD in direct parity to Target decay would solve ALL of this. Yet for some reason no one wants to acknowledge this fact and instead keep looking to buff the weapon system itself without addressing this issue. The weapon system itself doesn't need any changes currently until Radar deprivation gets fixed. Otherwise we just have lrmageddon all over again and no one wants that.

I have ideas all about this that I have stated many times in many areas that would actually fix this issue. Not least of which is this...

Half a second.

Half a second is ALL that is needed for a baseline of target lock when someone moves behind cover. Change target decay to increase that time by half a second and make radar deprivation decrease that time by half a second. Radar deprivation should shorten the target lock time. Not nullify it completely if someone has target decay. Same with target decay shouldnt give ungodly amounts of time to hold a lock and let it rain.

.5 second baseline
1 second with TD and target with no RD
.5 second with TD and target with RD
instant loss with no TD and target with RD
RD shouldnt cause instant target loss with TD fully specced

(I could see these numbers being bumped by .5 seconds up but that would be IT. After 1.5 seconds of target lock behind cover it would start getting crazy.)

[MechMaster059]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 02:48 PM, said:

...

Half a second.

Half a second is ALL that is needed for a baseline of target lock when someone moves behind cover. Change target decay to increase that time by half a second and make radar deprivation decrease that time by half a second. Radar deprivation should shorten the target lock time. Not nullify it completely if someone has target decay. Same with target decay shouldnt give ungodly amounts of time to hold a lock and let it rain.

.5 second baseline
1 second with TD and target with no RD
.5 second with TD and target with RD
instant loss with no TD and target with RD
RD shouldnt cause instant target loss with TD fully specced

(I could see these numbers being bumped by .5 seconds up but that would be IT. After 1.5 seconds of target lock behind cover it would start getting crazy.)

I came to the .5 second baseline on my own recently as well. I was thinking of changing Target Decay from 0.7 --> 0.5 thus reducing total potential lock time from 3.5s --> 3.0s. I think your solution is closer to the mark.

0.5s baseline.
Target Decay from +0.7s --> +0.3s
Radar Derp from 19% --> -0.3s
Max Radar lock time = 2.0s

It makes sense Radar Derp would take more skill points to max because 0.5s on its own is little margin of error for the LRMer so making it a de-facto 0.8/1.1s duration due to most players not wanting to spend the points for full Radar Derp seems like a good compromise.

Edited by MechMaster059, 07 January 2024 - 03:12 PM.

[Moadebe]

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

Moadebe, I get the impression that you're the kind of person who cares about the MWO community and likes to be helpful and provide information to the player base. I respect that, so don't take my criticisms that follow too personally, but you've made several dangerous assertions regarding LRMs that I have to respond to.

Hi. Names Moadebe and I am indeed someone who cares about the MWO community as a whole for various reasons. (Some of them very LARGE reasons and personal.) I am also a person who believes that an individual should have the right to make their own minds up about their own opinions so far as the information is truthful and proper without belittling others. I am a firm believer of giving the same type of energy as one gives me. That being said...Not upset at what you said. However you might be a tad ill informed and that is fine. You don't know me and I don't know you so thats totally cool.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

So to say players behind cover should not be hit by LRMs is, in practice, nearly equivalent to saying players should not be hit by LRMs at all.

Getting behind cover to break a target lock and seek shelter from LRM rain is the tactical move. The smart move. Something that requires thought on the player. Not some passive feature one gets by equipping ECM and having Radar Deprivation do the heavy lifting for them. Just because I am saying that cover should be utilized as a defense to LRM spam does not imply making LRMS useless. At all.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

The question becomes what DEGREE of cover should provide protection from LRMs. The trench in Canyon Network is a bad example because it's shaped like a V, not a vertical right angle with the ground, and those trenches are known to be dangerous to traverse due to all the firing positions available along the ridgeline that can shoot down into it.

The degree of cover is the exact thing that comes into question by reducing the "attack arc" of LRMS. The canyon in Canyon network is actually the PERFECT example of this. Yes the mesas provide cover true. Yes those trenches are dangerous. However, in every Canyon network match....people WILL traverse them because they also provide cover from sniper fire, and mid-range fire. Its almost necessary to do so. Its making it out of those canyons is where it can be a problem.

Sure a medium or light mech can traverse the top ridges from one mesa to another to close distance (oh wait that turns into nascar....) Even a heavy can. Assaults. Especially of the slower variety will start to get at a disadvantage at some point in every match if they stay on the higher ridges. Once a slow mech is in those valleys they have to run and keep running to get out of it if they dont have jump jets. You ARE stuck there until you find a spot where you can get out of. This same concept is why Hellbore Springs is such a bad map for slower mechs. One outta position or drop and you are running for days to get up and out. Canyon is better now than it was but it still needs a little work.

LRMs coming over that canyon wall line when you have nowhere to go feels like crap to play against and helps perpetuate this aura that LRMs are op...which they are not. They are just broken in ways that no one wants to address or dont see.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

You badly underestimate how much harder it would be to land LRMs if such a change were implemented. I can't help but get the impression you don't play LRM builds otherwise you would know this. Wow... you couldn't be more wrong. Scary that a veteran tier 2 player would say something like this.

Lemme match your energy here. YOU....couldn't be more wrong if you tried. As I said I don't know you and you OBVIOUSLY don't know me.

With my amount of time that I have played being this...




and some of my signature mechs being....





and more importantly this one (which I have been using for YEARS at this point off and on)...



You could not be more wrong if you tried.

As far as Veteran T2 player....I have been trying for well over a year now to tank my PSR to get out and away from T1 as much as I can without hindering my team too much. What I mean by that is I get more joy out of this game by taking "meme" mechs out and see how I do. How well can I play with a mech that isn't a "meta" mech or a "meta" build. Staying in T1 with the amount of salt and comp groups gets frustrating as a solo player with an aversion of groups. (I can elaborate on all this but this isnt the place.)

For example....(multiple 600+ damage matches and multple kills in this one alone)....



Don't try to reduce me to make your case or point.

You saying this...

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

LRMs are primarily an INDIRECT FIRE weapon system. Indirect fire is the primary motivation for using them at all. If you don't want to be able to deal damage via indirect fire then you may as well just go with an MRM build on an IS mech or an ATM build on a Clan mech.

Is the second time you have gone with an "absolute" mindset. The first one being...

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

So to say players behind cover should not be hit by LRMs is, in practice, nearly equivalent to saying players should not be hit by LRMs at all.

An all or nothing thought process. "If you are going to go direct LOS why even bother with LRMs in general?" Thats not the nature of this game first of all. If that was the case lets just remove everything other than ballistics and lasers and call it a WoT clone cause thats what it would be. No variation of playstyle. No information warfare or scouting. Just poke and peek. (which is sadly what is currently happening anyway with the sniper meta.)

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

Getting damage via indirect fire IS team based.

Yes it is isnt it. Going off of other's targets. However that does not imply you can sit back behind cover and do nothing but LRM the whole match. Sharing armor is a thing. Repositioning and staying with the team. Target saturation against the enemy team is another thing. Calling targets. LRMing from a secondary line behind the brawly front line is a thing.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

You need a spotter.

No you dont. You dont NEED a spotter. Do they help the situation? Absolutely. You should be going off of other's targetting and assisting them. Not you being the main show unless you are in a dedicated group with a member kitted out purely for spotting for you. Then it becomes vastly easier to pull off.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

You need to reposition with your team to stay protected from lights/mediums that will inevitably come after you.

I already touched on this, but true. However by doing this you are not in extreme ranges and are more of a mid to short range role.

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

What you express here is a disdain for the LRM style of play which seems to be pervasive amongst elements of the MWO community and only applies to LRMs.

Actually. I have been a proponent for fixing LRMs forever now. This is not a disdain for LRMs style of play. My ideas are to address the inherent problem that they have for both the person using them and the person on the receiving end of them. Using them currently is a nightmare with how their lockon system works. Especially with Radar Deprivation and ECM how they currently are. Everyone keeps trying to buff the weapon system itself without addressing the actual problems with playing them. Which is what my suggestions address.

I do NOT agree with nerfing their velocity. Thats a cauldron thing of "not wanting to make another lrmageddon happen so we gotta nerf it here if we buff it there." Which while understandable of not wanting another lrmageddon....nerfing their velocity overall simply to add velocity to artemis or to nerf Radar Deprivation is not the way to go when its a struggle to perform with them anyway. I know the view they are thinking but its flawed. Not as flawed as dealing in absolutes (this isnt SithWarrior online).

MechMaster059, on 07 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

No other weapon system seems to engender the prejudice that LRMs inspire.

I couldn't agree more. (HAGS are closing in though.)

Listen. I look at this as a MECH game. Varied weapons loadouts with information warfare. IMO there should be missiles flying overhead with lasers and bullets wizzing past your head. Currently its a severe peek and poke warrior with sniping as the meta (sorry not sorry .... it is still meta and TOO strong imo.)

For the sake of the length of this post imma end it here. I have a TON of ideas and I view things from both the shooter and the targets perspective. How it FEELS to use a weapon is VERY MUCH a thing, but so is how it feels to be on the receiving end of that weapon as well. Is it fun to use? LRMS not most the time cause its like pulling teeth. Is it fun to get shot at? Nope. When it gets frustrating to get shot at and one starts to feel helpless to counter it...thats where the indirect arc nerf comes into play.

Take care and ill probably respond to whatever response is given...depending on energy. I do like a good conversation. Even debate. I am more than willing to talk about my opinions on the matter and points of view.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 04:19 PM, said:

Listen. I look at this as a MECH game.

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?

[Moadebe]

ScrapIron Prime, on 07 January 2024 - 01:54 PM, said:

So they CAN buff direct fire and indirect fire separately? Or does it become a different weapon system with different stats?

If I am not mistaken (and I could be wrong.) They said they recently figured out how to change indirect and direct fire seperately and different systems. So they can give artemis on lrms a velocity buff without that artemis affecting something like SRMs. So That is a thing.

Again. Second hand info and only if Im understanding and remembering correctly. I would go into discord and try to find where it was stated, but I cant remember who said it and how long ago. Which is the BIGGEST problem with discord over forums. The ability to go back to a subject and find what was said. Not saying these forums are perfect, but discord is like a needle in a haystack.

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?

lmao is it NOT a mech game?

Edit: HOLD ON....lets just go full WoT and just call it a day. OH OH or that travesty of a gundam game that was a COD shooter. OH OH how about Hawken....wait its dead and the reborn is a travesty. WAIT! Vox Machinae...thats closer. At least you can change weapon loadouts and they are varied.

Oh wait Armored Core exists (one of my favorite games imo.) Still mixed loadouts with missiles and energy weapons, and jump jets, and ballistics, and large stompy goodness. Just much faster with a MUCH higher skill cap.

OOHHHHHH Galahad thats right....wait....still mixed weapon types and not near as fleshed out.

Stop trying to be contrary to be contrary dude.

Edited by Moadebe, 07 January 2024 - 04:47 PM.

[Tarteso]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 02:48 PM, said:

Lemme respond to those two posts that I am quoted in. Starting with Tarteso's. (These have potential to be long so want to sorta break em up.)



I am just going to leave this here...





A complete rework is off the table for ANYTHING in this game. So lets throw that into the trash. THERE IS NO DEV TIME. ZERO HARD CODING GOING ON. So please lets ALL keep that in mind.

Yes there are a LOT of comp players who feel that because Lockon missiles (in any capacity) are capable of tracking their targets its some sorta I win button. Which we ALL know to not be true. They feel that because they can be shot at players from behind cover with no chance of reprisal its some easy mode. That in and of itself is a driving factor behind LRM hate to some people. (There are others which ill get into on the second response.)

LRMs dont need a big unnerf. At all. The thing that killed LRMs was the nerf to the time it takes to get a lock on long ago. Especially for indirect fire. Coupled with insta loss of target due to radar deprivation. Taking 5 seconds just to get a lock only to lose it immediately is what killed it the most.

The MAIN fix that NEEDs to happen to fix that problem is we need to fix Radar Deprivation overpowering Target Decay. With RD being a percentage based stat and Target Decay being a hard number. RD will win every time. Putting RD in direct parity to Target decay would solve ALL of this. Yet for some reason no one wants to acknowledge this fact and instead keep looking to buff the weapon system itself without addressing this issue. The weapon system itself doesn't need any changes currently until Radar deprivation gets fixed. Otherwise we just have lrmageddon all over again and no one wants that.

I have ideas all about this that I have stated many times in many areas that would actually fix this issue. Not least of which is this...

Half a second.

Half a second is ALL that is needed for a baseline of target lock when someone moves behind cover. Change target decay to increase that time by half a second and make radar deprivation decrease that time by half a second. Radar deprivation should shorten the target lock time. Not nullify it completely if someone has target decay. Same with target decay shouldnt give ungodly amounts of time to hold a lock and let it rain.

.5 second baseline
1 second with TD and target with no RD
.5 second with TD and target with RD
instant loss with no TD and target with RD
RD shouldnt cause instant target loss with TD fully specced

(I could see these numbers being bumped by .5 seconds up but that would be IT. After 1.5 seconds of target lock behind cover it would start getting crazy.)

Thank you for posting this poll results, and everything else.
Wow, 129 votes out from 19,292 active accounts in december...lol. And, anyway, they are not willing to make them spread....

About missiles, yes, it's time that they get a big unnerf, after years of silly nerfs triggered by crybabies, while telling "git gut" and "adapt".

I hope that I'm wrong, but all we are going to get, very very likely, is another, major, net missile nerf: a cosmetic raderp nerf, granting some extra millisec to target lock, to warrant another velocity nerf, and lesser attack angle to make lurms fail more because all the barriers widespread on every map ...so, even more pathetic. That's the plan.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 04:42 PM, said:

lmao is it NOT a mech game?

Edit: HOLD ON....lets just go full WoT and just call it a day. OH OH or that travesty of a gundam game that was a COD shooter. OH OH how about Hawken....wait its dead and the reborn is a travesty. WAIT! Vox Machinae...thats closer. At least you can change weapon loadouts and they are varied.

Oh wait Armored Core exists (one of my favorite games imo.) Still mixed loadouts with missiles and energy weapons, and jump jets, and ballistics, and large stompy goodness. Just much faster with a MUCH higher skill cap.

OOHHHHHH Galahad thats right....wait....still mixed weapon types and not near as fleshed out.

Stop trying to be contrary to be contrary dude.

Are you and mechmaster intentionally being obtuse? Or is something in the forums these days?

Yes it is a game with mechs.....but you say that like all mech games are the same or even the same genre. Mechassault, AC6, Mech Arena, and Mechwarrior are all mecha games, but they all play a bit different. Different pacing of combat, different emphasis, different health pools even (given that Mechwarrior is the only one with locational based health pools), etc.

All the games you listed in fact play VERY differently, comparing a 1v1/2v2 third person shooter that is much faster paced and has target locks with a game that is....none of those things. Who is shocked they play differently (though not as different as you protest given that even in games like AC6, you SPECIALIZE your builds). Even with builds, there are limitations built into AC6 that prevents you from mount just quad laser rifles because you can't shoulder mount them.

About the only real common thread across the mech genre is being able to use multiple weapons at once. That's about where the commonalities end.

And people wonder why the Cauldron didn't want to be on these forums. It's because people spout some pretty brain-dead crap like this.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 07 January 2024 - 05:00 PM.

[Moadebe]

Tarteso, on 07 January 2024 - 04:51 PM, said:

Thank you for posting this poll results, and everything else.
Wow, 129 votes out from 19,292 active accounts in december...lol. And, anyway, they are not willing to make them spread....

That poll was only up for a weekend too. 3 days. With no announcements aside from what I did. Which was why I did it. To get more people to actually vote on it. I am sure if more players voted on it the "for spread A" would be MUCH higher. Its almost laughable how I watched that poll go from no spread winning...



to the final results after I posted it around and spread the word. We need a larger sample size is what it is. Would love a method to get a poll actually in game but I dont think that is in the realm of possibility given no dev time.

Its reasons like this is why I am doing what I am doing with the leak posts and TRYING to spread the word and get information and transparency going.

Edited by Moadebe, 07 January 2024 - 05:04 PM.

[Moadebe]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 07 January 2024 - 04:52 PM, said:

Are you and mechmaster intentionally being obtuse? Or is something in the forums these days?

Yes it is a game with mechs.....but you say that like all mech games are the same or even the same genre. Mechassault, AC6, Mech Arena, and Mechwarrior are all mecha games, but they all play a bit different. Different pacing of combat, different emphasis, different health pools even (given that Mechwarrior is the only one with locational based health pools), etc.

All the games you listed in fact play VERY differently, comparing a 1v1/2v2 third person shooter that is much faster paced and has target locks with a game that is....none of those things. Who is shocked they play differently (though not as different as you protest given that even in games like AC6, you SPECIALIZE your builds). Even with builds, there are limitations built into AC6 that prevents you from mount just quad laser rifles because you can't shoulder mount them.

About the only real common thread across the mech genre is being able to use multiple weapons at once. That's about where the commonalities end.

And people wonder why the Cauldron didn't want to be on these forums. It's because people spout some pretty brain-dead crap like this.

Wisdom has been chasing you your entire life but you have managed to be just a little faster haven't you? Making comments like...

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?

and then saying....

Quicksilver Aberration, on 07 January 2024 - 04:52 PM, said:

About the only real common thread across the mech genre is being able to use multiple weapons at once. That's about where the commonalities end.

Tells me you are just trolling at this point.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Moadebe, on 07 January 2024 - 05:14 PM, said:

Tells me you are just trolling at this point.

The only one trolling is you, not everyone enjoys all mech games just because they are mecha, because they play wildly differently, almost like mecha isn't really a genre because it doesn't define as much about the way the game is played.

Comparing Mechwarrior to AC6 is disingenuous at best.

[Vonbach]

Like I said if they could remove LRMs from the game they would. At this point they basically have.
The cult of the blue flashlight has taken over. At this point I just cant bring myself to care anymore.

[ThreeStooges]

Just make all lrm have ten second cool down regardless of size. Then they will finally be worse than a narc. Or we could make them only have 90m range like flamers do. Maybe only 100/ms speed too. Then you have to use an assult to boat enough to do any damage at all. DO IT! My lrm 20 atlas shall be happy hiding in back with its mere 900m range.

[Novakaine]

Indeed the Blue Flashlight mod have struck again.
Truly sad and pathetic.

[Frost_Byte]

As a member of the cauldron and PGI, I can say that no one is advocating for the removal of LRMs from MWO.

Also there was a comment about DATA in LRM boats somewhere in this thread, just going to point out that DATA hasn't been in the cauldron since... September? Something around that.

Also, in QP, ERLL or "blue flashlights/lasers" are actually quite weak on most chassis. Just a few outliers that are probably fine in the long run especially after the cDHS nerf.

Major word wall coming ahead explaining some choices, you have been warned!


As for lockon weapons, our goal isn't to nerf them but rather to normalize them. The biggest problem with LRMs right now is that they are incredibly feast or famine, with matches that you deal sub 300 damage and matches that you can deal 1500 damage while you put the same amount of effort in both matches. LRMs are a very complex ecosystem, with ECM, radar deprivation, target decay, LRM arc height, LRM velocity, and more all weighing into how effective they are. Some parts of that ecosystem, such as arc height, velocity, deprivation, and ECM are all too powerful at the moment.

I'm sure many others can understand this experience, there are many times where you play LRMs and go "oh my god this is awful we need to have LRMs buffed immediately!" Then a few matches later you have a game with LRMs that make you go "oh my god these are way too strong we can't let it stay this way." Or many frustrating memories of getting LRM'd to death without being able to do anything. Countered by memories of playing LRMs and feeling absolutely useless, with shots being unable to hit, mechs with 90% radar derp going in cover and losing locks instantly, or just prevalent ECM all over the enemy team making locks impossible to get in the first place.
That level of variance is way too high. Feast or famine systems that allow them to be countered to zero effectiveness ranging to OP and incredibly oppressive weapons just aren't really good game design in my opinion and the cauldron majority shares this as well. So with a nerf to radar deprivation, lrm velocity, and a reduction of LRM height you hit all things equally. We already nerfed ECM last patch and we're keeping an eye on it for future nerfs that may be required. A nerf to all things in the LRM ecosystem keeps the relative power level the same while also reducing the extreme levels of variance.

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.


-----------

As for HAG splash damage. I am a major proponent of not adding spread back on HAGs unless it's a last resort option. I believe that the only weapons that should spread are weapons with spread as a core part of their design process. LRMs, LBx, SRM, MRMs, all of these weapons have sandblast spread as a major part of their archetype. I also don't believe minor spread is a good thing(for this reason I plan on making a case for RAC spread removal to the Cauldron in the near future), either big spread or no spread is what I prefer. So I'm all in favor of adding splash instead of adding actual bullet spread.

That comment earlier in the thread about how HAGs having numbers in their name makes it difficult to balance them was actually a quote from me. If HAGs were named Light HAG, Medium HAG, and Heavy HAG they would have been so much easier to balance. But we need to keep the total damage level of 20, 30, and 40. With the splash we can reduce the level of pinpoint, though they will still be farming weapons. No matter which way you cut it, 40 damage on a single hardpoint with virtually no drawbacks is just absolutely insane and we've never had to balance a weapon that absurd before. Especially when you consider the lore and tabletop connotations of HAG which means many cauldron members want it to have the same range and velocity of Gauss rifles.

So, with the new nature of HAGs and their risk of extreme power creep, it definitely took us quite some time to get its balance in a good place. But I think this splash and interval change will probably put them in a close to solid place. Maybe a few tweaks to their velo and heat afterwards, but definitely nothing as drastic as all the changes we've done to them since their inception. Give the dust time to settle and, hopefully, things will be clear enough before I shake up the game by adding new weapons again.

[Novakaine]

You do not have to remove them.
Simply nerf them into the dirt.
And why should they not be top tier weapons?
Simple question.

[foamyesque]

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

LRMs are a very complex ecosystem, with ECM, radar deprivation, target decay, LRM arc height, LRM velocity, and more all weighing into how effective they are. Some parts of that ecosystem, such as arc height, velocity, deprivation, and ECM are all too powerful at the moment.

How in hell is LRM velocity 'too powerful'? Are people after enough time to grab a beer between 'warning, incoming missiles', and actually being hit? They take four and a half seconds to travel to their max range in IDF mode if they were flying straight, and in IDF mode they have to travel an arc so they take even longer. That's longer than any other weapon, and even if you're trying to use LRMs as SRMs, they're still half the speed.

LRM velocity needs to be drastically higher, but the last time it was changed it was a nerf, for no clear reason.

Quote

As for HAG splash damage. I am a major proponent of not adding spread back on HAGs unless it's a last resort option. I believe that the only weapons that should spread are weapons with spread as a core part of their design process. LRMs, LBx, SRM, MRMs, all of these weapons have sandblast spread as a major part of their archetype.

...

Especially when you consider the lore and tabletop connotations of HAGain.

HAGs are an archetypical spread weapon and deal cluster damage in TT just like missiles and LBXes do. So if you want to point to tabletop's lore and connotations for balance justifications, well then, here's one you apparently missed.

Edited by foamyesque, 07 January 2024 - 09:35 PM.

[Moadebe]

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

As a member of the cauldron and PGI, I can say that no one is advocating for the removal of LRMs from MWO.

Also there was a comment about DATA in LRM boats somewhere in this thread, just going to point out that DATA hasn't been in the cauldron since... September? Something around that.

Also, in QP, ERLL or "blue flashlights/lasers" are actually quite weak on most chassis. Just a few outliers that are probably fine in the long run especially after the cDHS nerf.

Major word wall coming ahead explaining some choices, you have been warned!


As for lockon weapons, our goal isn't to nerf them but rather to normalize them. The biggest problem with LRMs right now is that they are incredibly feast or famine, with matches that you deal sub 300 damage and matches that you can deal 1500 damage while you put the same amount of effort in both matches. LRMs are a very complex ecosystem, with ECM, radar deprivation, target decay, LRM arc height, LRM velocity, and more all weighing into how effective they are. Some parts of that ecosystem, such as arc height, velocity, deprivation, and ECM are all too powerful at the moment.

I'm sure many others can understand this experience, there are many times where you play LRMs and go "oh my god this is awful we need to have LRMs buffed immediately!" Then a few matches later you have a game with LRMs that make you go "oh my god these are way too strong we can't let it stay this way." Or many frustrating memories of getting LRM'd to death without being able to do anything. Countered by memories of playing LRMs and feeling absolutely useless, with shots being unable to hit, mechs with 90% radar derp going in cover and losing locks instantly, or just prevalent ECM all over the enemy team making locks impossible to get in the first place.
That level of variance is way too high. Feast or famine systems that allow them to be countered to zero effectiveness ranging to OP and incredibly oppressive weapons just aren't really good game design in my opinion and the cauldron majority shares this as well. So with a nerf to radar deprivation, lrm velocity, and a reduction of LRM height you hit all things equally. We already nerfed ECM last patch and we're keeping an eye on it for future nerfs that may be required. A nerf to all things in the LRM ecosystem keeps the relative power level the same while also reducing the extreme levels of variance.

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.


-----------

As for HAG splash damage. I am a major proponent of not adding spread back on HAGs unless it's a last resort option. I believe that the only weapons that should spread are weapons with spread as a core part of their design process. LRMs, LBx, SRM, MRMs, all of these weapons have sandblast spread as a major part of their archetype. I also don't believe minor spread is a good thing(for this reason I plan on making a case for RAC spread removal to the Cauldron in the near future), either big spread or no spread is what I prefer. So I'm all in favor of adding splash instead of adding actual bullet spread.

That comment earlier in the thread about how HAGs having numbers in their name makes it difficult to balance them was actually a quote from me. If HAGs were named Light HAG, Medium HAG, and Heavy HAG they would have been so much easier to balance. But we need to keep the total damage level of 20, 30, and 40. With the splash we can reduce the level of pinpoint, though they will still be farming weapons. No matter which way you cut it, 40 damage on a single hardpoint with virtually no drawbacks is just absolutely insane and we've never had to balance a weapon that absurd before. Especially when you consider the lore and tabletop connotations of HAG which means many cauldron members want it to have the same range and velocity of Gauss rifles.

So, with the new nature of HAGs and their risk of extreme power creep, it definitely took us quite some time to get its balance in a good place. But I think this splash and interval change will probably put them in a close to solid place. Maybe a few tweaks to their velo and heat afterwards, but definitely nothing as drastic as all the changes we've done to them since their inception. Give the dust time to settle and, hopefully, things will be clear enough before I shake up the game by adding new weapons again.

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....

[Samziel]

Novakaine, on 07 January 2024 - 09:31 PM, said:

And why should they not be top tier weapons?
Simple question.

You have reading comprehension issues

foamyesque, on 07 January 2024 - 09:33 PM, said:

HAGs are an archetypical spread weapon and deal cluster damage in TT just like missiles and LBXes do. So if you want to point to tabletop's lore and connotations for balance justifications, well then, here's one you apparently missed.

They already are a spread weapon because of pellet count. If you dont twist no amount of changes will balance the game for you. But it doesnt have a similar spread built in like LBX (shotgun) or missiles (multiple tubes side by side).

I've always said **** TT if it gets in the way of game balance. I dont care if they'd change HAGs to something like light HAG etc. But theres always people whining about muh TT.

Edited by Samziel, 07 January 2024 - 09:46 PM.