356 replies to this topic

[TercieI]

the check engine light, on 08 January 2024 - 08:50 AM, said:

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.

And they shouldn't. Using anything suboptimally should never be part of any balance discussion because then you're left with the impossible question of where to balance. 50% of skill ceiling? 80%? At skill floor? And whatever answer you choose, then actually skilled players will use whatever has the highest reach beyond that. You *must* balance at maximum skill or skill loses its meaning.

[ScrapIron Prime]

TercieI, on 08 January 2024 - 09:18 AM, said:

And they shouldn't. Using anything suboptimally should never be part of any balance discussion because then you're left with the impossible question of where to balance. 50% of skill ceiling? 80%? At skill floor? And whatever answer you choose, then actually skilled players will use whatever has the highest reach beyond that. You *must* balance at maximum skill or skill loses its meaning.

But that’s just it. The changes are forcing some things to be sub optimal, and then they judge them to be sub optimal and beneath consideration. Then they deem them to be “low skill, low reward” and determine how other players should play. Many things that are being changed were not sub optimal before the changes. In that respect, Cauldron is caught in their own feedback loop.

The goal for game balance should not be that one weapon system is the “right” answer, but we do hear that in terms of play style on this very thread.

[feeWAIVER]

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.

This response seems completely insincere to me.
[Redacted]
Let's be honest,
Whether it's a 2 second lock time, or 5 seconds, or 10, or even 20, doesn't matter.
It's a delay that prevents you from shooting back in game where ppc and ballistic velocities are counted in milliseconds.

No, "pinpoint and precise shots" are not harder in this game of slow moving giant robots.
Lock on weapons are the worst, most unreliable weapons in this game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

feeWAIVER, on 08 January 2024 - 10:05 AM, said:

No, "pinpoint and precise shots" are not harder in this game of slow moving giant robots.
Lock on weapons are the worst, most unreliable weapons in this game.

And yet people miss shots all the time, I miss shots. I mean counterstrike AWP is just a point and click adventure yet it isn't something people can just be good with, it's almost like people oversimplify aim. Especially in this game which has significantly slower velocities than the previous entry (no direct fire was slower than 2000m/s) and people still missed in that one too (though no lag compensation through systems like HSR or subtick definitely had a hand in that).

[feeWAIVER]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 10:09 AM, said:

And yet people miss shots all the time, I miss shots. I mean counterstrike AWP is just a point and click adventure yet it isn't something people can just be good with, it's almost like people oversimplify aim. Especially in this game which has significantly slower velocities than the previous entry (no direct fire was slower than 2000m/s) and people still missed in that one too (though no lag compensation through systems like HSR or subtick definitely had a hand in that).

People miss with lurms all the time. People struggle just to get a chance to fire with lurms.
In any given match, I'm more likely to get 20 direct hits with snubs than 20 volleys off with lurms, just by virtue of being able to shoot when the opportunity presents itself.

[foamyesque]

feeWAIVER, on 08 January 2024 - 10:05 AM, said:

This response seems completely insincere to me.
[Redacted]
Let's be honest,
Whether it's a 2 second lock time, or 5 seconds, or 10, or even 20, doesn't matter.
It's a delay that prevents you from shooting back in game where ppc and ballistic velocities are counted in milliseconds.

No, "pinpoint and precise shots" are not harder in this game of slow moving giant robots.
Lock on weapons are the worst, most unreliable weapons in this game.

Yeah. Like the scenario Navid invented earlier, of a light mech getting nailed by LRMs while they try and duel someone, assumes that that light is, to put it bluntly, kind of dumb and engages in zero counterplay.

And the 'lol LRMs are so easy I can play them with my face' stuff? I strongly suspect those videos got skewed by strong team support for LRMing -- in particular I bet they're cheating with NARC support, along with, obviously, a team that keeps a light from eating them.

If LRMs were genuinely as strong and easy to use in as some people claim there'd be way more of them around across all tiers, particularly as people tryhard in the upper ones. Instead, what you see is people gravitating to the actual easy to use weapons as they get better at the game: hitscan lasers, snapshot xPPCs, etc.

The only aspect in which LRMs are easier to use than any other weapon is that you don't need to be as precise in your tracking, but the time in which you need to track an enemy to guide the missiles in is absurdly long, since you need to maintain the lock after you fire as well, and the continued velocity nerfs make that time longer and longer.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 10:09 AM, said:

And yet people miss shots all the time, I miss shots.

Right, but you're allowed to miss. With lock on weapons, you often aren't even given the chance to fire because of the lock on mechanic. You simply can't equate the two.

Gauss rifle... pop out, fraction of a second to line up the shot, take the shot, duck into cover. Four seconds later do it again. That's SKILL!

Long range missile... spend five seconds trying to get a lock, target disappears, repeat twelve more seconds on multiple targets until you get the tone, fire! Most times lock goes away before missiles land. See? Too easy, no skill, shame this player for trying.

[ScrapIron Prime]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 10:31 AM, said:

Long range missile... spend five seconds trying to get a lock, target disappears, repeat twelve more seconds on multiple targets until you get the tone, fire! Most times lock goes away before missiles land. See? Too easy, no skill, shame this player for trying.

So the question is... what turns this game experience into the "doom from the skies" scenario that the Cauldron is trying so hard to nerf? The obvious answer... coordinated teamwork and NARC beacons. Seems to me they should be nerfing NARCs, not nerfing the weapon system that is only unbalanced when in the presence of NARCs and solid team play.

[foamyesque]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 10:43 AM, said:

So the question is... what turns this game experience into the "doom from the skies" scenario that the Cauldron is trying so hard to nerf? The obvious answer... coordinated teamwork and NARC beacons. Seems to me they should be nerfing NARCs, not nerfing the weapon system that is only unbalanced when in the presence of NARCs and solid team play.

Yes, precisely. NARCs are an unfun mechanic in every regard -- they're not fun for the NARCer, they're not fun for the LRMer, and they're not fun for the target. They should be made more interactive and worse.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScrapIron Prime, on 08 January 2024 - 10:31 AM, said:

Right, but you're allowed to miss. With lock on weapons, you often aren't even given the chance to fire because of the lock on mechanic. You simply can't equate the two.

You can, because of how you acquire the lock (and how much reticle placement matters comparitively). Now what you are talking about with not being given a chance to fire are the layers of counters that have been added that have contributed to the inconsistency of LRMs which is what I think the Cauldron have been trying to address. Two orthogonal issues IMO. Yes these issues compound together to create an overall bad experience, but they can be addressed independently.

However you can't peel back the counters without inevitably addressing the reason they got put there in the first place: indirect fire.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 08 January 2024 - 10:48 AM.

[Abisha]

great again a Nerf to LRM, like it was a good weapon to begin with

90% of the mechs have ECM (check)
85% of the maps have buildings, or hills (check)
Speed of LRM is already slower then crawling (check)

more nerf to LRM (check) why not just remove LRM if you can't leave it alone?

[feeWAIVER]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 10:46 AM, said:

However you can't peel back the counters without inevitably addressing the reason they got put there in the first place: indirect fire.

Most of those counters were put in place when Polar Highlands was a barren tundra, and only a handful of mechs had ECM.
Remember those day, when 1.5 tons was a solid investment for AMS on most mechs?
Now it's just a waste of tonnage in most cases.

[Moadebe]

Besh, on 08 January 2024 - 09:55 AM, said:

I find it remarkably calm so far .

In all fairness. By the time I checked this thread today it had jumped like 3-4 pages with some obviously passionate discussions going on.

Compared to the slow pace of the forums most of the time. These patch posts always feel a little ...



when I post em. Not a bad thing so long as things stay civil. It is the purpose of the post after all. Discussion. Just when things get heated it gets meh.

[Moadebe]

Abisha, on 08 January 2024 - 10:55 AM, said:

great again a Nerf to LRM, like it was a good weapon to begin with

90% of the mechs have ECM (check)
85% of the maps have buildings, or hills (check)
Speed of LRM is already slower then crawling (check)

more nerf to LRM (check) why not just remove LRM if you can't leave it alone?

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.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 08 January 2024 - 10:46 AM, said:

You can, because of how you acquire the lock (and how much reticle placement matters comparitively). Now what you are talking about with not being given a chance to fire are the layers of counters that have been added that have contributed to the inconsistency of LRMs which is what I think the Cauldron have been trying to address. Two orthogonal issues IMO. Yes these issues compound together to create an overall bad experience, but they can be addressed independently.

However you can't peel back the counters without inevitably addressing the reason they got put there in the first place: indirect fire.

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

[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".