241 replies to this topic

[Risen Trash]

I think I've made my thoughts on LRM's known.

Thing is, I wouldn't have such a problem with them if this was the mech-warfare-sim it was initially billed as. If there were big enough and varied enough maps to support recon and support roles, and if there was a deep and balanced enough measures/countermeasures minigame, LRM's would be an interesting and valued asset on the battlefield.

But as it stands, PUG is better understood as a team-based arena shooter, in which a premade team with even one LRM-boat assault with a NARC+stealth Raven and minimal skill can absolutely wreck-farm. If you tell me you've tried this and that's not true, that just means you were missing the "minimal skill" component.

As it stands, I feel its a crap way to play (even when you win) that sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else. For as long as the rest of us have to wait for a match anymore, and with other games out there, its smart of PGI to tamp that sh!t down.

[kalashnikity]

I don't see how anyone could think this is an unfair proposal, in real life handicaps are prestigious. And the end rewards will show the equivalent dmg done.

Then we wold not have such a problem when tiers mix in the que.

If someone groups up to gain tier, the will rapidly lose tier rating, so that is self correcting, if they gain raitng quickly while grouped up, it will compensate.

This could also allow opening up more groups in que again..

[Abaddun]

I'm going to be honest, a rather paltry reduction in radar deprivation doesn't really warrant a 16% reduction in velocity and a severe nerf to missile height, I suppose the lower trajectory ceiling would reduce how far the missile travels before it hits its target which may warrant a change to indirect velocity but the behaviour of direct fire won't see a change, so I can only surmise that the reduction in direct fire velocity to to artificially incentivise the use of Artemis IV to compensate.

I think the velocity of LRMs is already rather low, it's difficult to land a swarm on a target if they are anywhere remotely close the line of sight blocking terrain, by the time I have achieved a lock, launched a volley and tracked the target until the missiles have landed, my target more often then not has already broken line of sight, and not before landing a few shots on me. With the amount of tonnage space and c-bills you must invest into Artemis IV, surely it would make more sense to have Artemis IV improve the direct fire velocity above what it's currently at so as to bring the reward of getting a direct fire lock on par with that of landing a hit with a direct fire weapon of comparable tonnage.

[martian]

MegaBopper, on 13 January 2024 - 06:26 PM, said:

I would build it in as an inverse ratio formula in the system that would be driven by PSR. No one needs to sit as "Handicapper General". Such types of appointments in the past have in my opinion been counterproductive.

kalashnikity, on 13 January 2024 - 07:22 PM, said:

I don't see how anyone could think this is an unfair proposal, in real life handicaps are prestigious.

The difference between the linked story and MWO is that skilled people in the linked fiction had to live their lives in their country with their artificial handicaps without any way out, while skilled MWO players saddled with unnecessary burdens would simply leave MWO. The market is full of various - more advanced - FPS games.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I can't think of any shooter worth its salt that has built in handicaps. Typically that's the responsibility of match makers and ELO to prevent noob farming.

However even if for some reason there was a significant clamoring for this bad idea, it isn't possible because it requires engineering to make it even a thing, and there is no engineering support.

[martian]

Bud Crue, on 13 January 2024 - 02:11 PM, said:

In terms of LRM boats I have found that for most builds the cost of losing 1-2 launchers or being forced to drop down to the next increment to gain better spread via Artemis is just not worth it in most circumstances. I.e. I seem to get better results with more/bigger launchers without Artemis than with fewer/smaller launchers with better spread via Artemis. As an aside, for me this is true with quite a few SRM boats as well (e.g., I get consistently better results running 8 SRM6 on a Summoner as compared to the 6 SRM6+A build).

Easy explanation: Artemis IV-equipped launcher loses its benefits in the ECM field. There are games that have a lot of ECM-carrying 'Mechs. Thus, it is often better just to fire 8 SRM6s rather than 6 ASRM6 that have just lost their Artemis IV bonus.

Also, more missiles fired means that at least some of them can make it through the enemy AMS shield.

[Saved By The Bell]

I didnt see noob farming with lrms, but I see farming from HPG walls.

Nevermind, I ll play anyway.

[martian]

Saved By The Bell, on 14 January 2024 - 02:27 AM, said:

I didnt see noob farming with lrms, but I see farming from HPG walls.

Nevermind, I ll play anyway.

After all, MWO is probably the only MechWarrior title with a relatively big online multiplayer presence.

[Tarteso]

Vxheous, on 13 January 2024 - 10:33 AM, said:

95% max radar dep ->80% max radar dep isn't laughable.

Yes, it is, because it still leaves a ridiculous short time, well below the time needed to lock+missiles reach&hit, yielding imposible having a chance to hit the target by yourself without spotting for waaaay longer than any direct fire weapon.
They are nerfing nothing, in practise.
Combined with the velocity nerf, it is also a net max range hard nerf. Still, you need a lock and keep it.
Now add the flatten trajectory nerf and we have a new version of ATMs but with no bonus. Brilliant.

I can't figure how any of this is going to "normalize" LRMs. How badly the change is going to nerf LRMs is, on the contrary, pretty evident.

Edited by Tarteso, 14 January 2024 - 10:36 AM.

[kalashnikity]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 13 January 2024 - 11:32 PM, said:

I can't think of any shooter worth its salt that has built in handicaps. Typically that's the responsibility of match makers and ELO to prevent noob farming.
However even if for some reason there was a significant clamoring for this bad idea, it isn't possible because it requires engineering to make it even a thing, and there is no engineering support.

So make it a horizontal "S" curve, and cut the deviation from baseline in half. We already have various multipliers in game in the form of quirks.

Most shooters don't have a paltry and diminishing player base.

[kalashnikity]

Arnetheus, on 14 January 2024 - 05:28 AM, said:

[redacted]

Now we are even importing from the old thread too. Good.

Let the gaslighting continue...

Tarteso, on 14 January 2024 - 10:35 AM, said:

Yes, it is, because it still leaves a ridiculous short time, well below the time needed to lock+missiles reach&hit, yielding imposible having a chance to hit the target by yourself without spotting for waaaay longer than any direct fire weapon.
They are nerfing nothing, in practise.
Combined with the velocity nerf, it is also a net max range hard nerf. Still, you need a lock and keep it.
Now add the flatten trajectory nerf and we have a new version of ATMs but with no bonus. Brilliant.

I can't figure how any of this is going to "normalize" LRMs. How badly the change is going to nerf LRMs is, on the contrary, pretty evident.

"herp derp" generally losing lock also means they are behind hard cover, and LRMS won't be able to hit them anyways.

That "buff" is meaningless compared to velocity loss, which gives them even more time to get behind even more cover.

I'm going to make it my goal to pull off a 1000+ dmg LRM game even after the nerf, just to prove they need to nerf them again.

[Novakaine]

I hadn't been lurming a lot lately since I got my Crusaders.
But to prove a point just like Kalashnikity said.
I'm gonna drag out my boats.

[Vxheous]

kalashnikity, on 14 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

Most shooters don't have a paltry and diminishing player base.

Most shooters that are 14 years old don't have a playerbase, period.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Though some that are still around don't bother with handicaps. Counterstrike Global Offensive was a year older than MWO and is still one of the top shooters in the world. Is there even a shooter that even bothers with that sort of thing? Pretty sure the answer is no given it sort of defeats the purpose of getting better at a game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 14 January 2024 - 11:52 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Novakaine, on 14 January 2024 - 11:46 AM, said:

I'm gonna drag out my boats.

We should start a thread in the Battlemechs sub forum with 1000 damage LRM game screenshots. Only thing I wonder is how long it will take to populate.

But yeah, I'm busting out the artemis/laservomit generalists, the ones I got called ignorant for using. I can get 1000 damage a couple times a month normally. Will be a fair test of the new LRM reality.

[Novakaine]

ScrapIron Prime, on 14 January 2024 - 01:33 PM, said:

We should start a thread in the Battlemechs sub forum with 1000 damage LRM game screenshots. Only thing I wonder is how long it will take to populate.

But yeah, I'm busting out the artemis/laservomit generalists, the ones I got called ignorant for using. I can get 1000 damage a couple times a month normally. Will be a fair test of the new LRM reality.

Good idea man.

[ThreeStooges]

ScrapIron Prime, on 14 January 2024 - 01:33 PM, said:

We should start a thread in the Battlemechs sub forum with 1000 damage LRM game screenshots. Only thing I wonder is how long it will take to populate.

But yeah, I'm busting out the artemis/laservomit generalists, the ones I got called ignorant for using. I can get 1000 damage a couple times a month normally. Will be a fair test of the new LRM reality.

Let's make it close enough.

[martian]

kalashnikity, on 14 January 2024 - 10:40 AM, said:

So make it a horizontal "S" curve, and cut the deviation from baseline in half. We already have various multipliers in game in the form of quirks.

Most shooters don't have a paltry and diminishing player base.

I am afraid that your ideas would cause it to diminish even further.

[kalashnikity]

ThreeStooges, on 14 January 2024 - 05:32 PM, said:

Let's make it close enough.

why did you cut off the top, so we can't see the game time/date/match id?

[kalashnikity]

Arnetheus, on 14 January 2024 - 12:56 PM, said:

[Redacted]

I got some 1000+ dmg LRM games, THEN they say (specifically) they don't want those types of scores with LRM users.

I'm not a smart man, Jennay, but I can do simple logic.