241 replies to this topic

[martian]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 01:05 AM, said:

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

His screenshots actually do show the game time/date/match id:

Match ID: 298806874086057
UTC Time: 04/01/2024 03:47:30

[kalashnikity]

martian, on 15 January 2024 - 01:16 AM, said:

His screenshots actually do show the game time/date/match id:

Match ID: 298806874086057
UTC Time: 04/01/2024 03:47:30

never mind, my extra chromosome was kicking in. I was look for it at the very top. LOLWTFOMGBBQ

Edited by kalashnikity, 15 January 2024 - 01:36 AM.

[martian]

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

Let's make it close enough.

Congratulations!

You had a good game.

The next time try to limit the friendly damage a bit. Without that friendly fire, your match score would had been 500+ points.

[kalashnikity]

I'll tell you one thing, for sure, if I'm trying to raise my tier in solo QP, I would never pick a LRM boat. That should tell you everything you need to know about where they are balanced right now.

[Curccu]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 04:05 AM, said:

Here is Frost_Byte gaslighting us that it only takes 2-5 seconds to get a lock, and that getting a lock is "totally super easy".

I never met the guy but I can already tell you his eyes are brown. cause he is full of....something smelly.

Spoiler

https://mwomercs.com...rs/page__st__80

I don't like people who gaslight, it's a form of abuse.

With quick reading what you linked Frost_Byte says:
"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."

And it does not say it takes 2-5 seconds to get lock.
It also doesn't say that getting a lock is "totally super easy" either.

Gaslighting goes both ways.

PS. I do like to play LRMs now and then and do play them now and then, so I'm not part of the so called blue flashlight mob or something.

[Navid A1]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

The supposed buff or a few extra milliseconds of lock time is completely useless because they will already be behind hard cover again... which is why the lock was lost in first place, DUH.... They know that, that's just one more part of the gaslighting.

You're getting more than 0.8 second of lock time extra over what it is in the game right now.
More lock time than you would need extra as a result of velocity nerf. Meaning that after the change, by the time you lose the lock, the missiles will actually be closer to target compared to now. Giving you a higher chance of landing your salvo.
Consistent locks is the single most important factor in making LRMs better.
Let me put it this way, I would happily sacrifice even more velocity to get more lock time. That's how important it is.

Also I think you are a bit confused about what you are mad about. This whole thing (nerf to radar deprivation) only has a meaning when target does break line of sight. That's the whole point.

If enemy has a piece of hard cover that they are using against an LRM mech, then you should not be trying to trade with that mech using LRMs, trying to force something that is fundamentally impossible. You will NEVER be able to trade with a direct fire mech that is using a piece of cover to block your LRMs. That's the one thing they are designed to do.

What you should be doing is moving on the flanks, and getting angles towards the side of their cover to fire at them. To force take that safe angle away from them. They will have to expose to the rest of your team to stay safe from you, or they will have to eat your LRMs and die.

Also, yes, getting and holding a lock on mechs is very easy. Some of the smallest mechs on the game will have to move 5 times faster before I would call getting a lock on them hard.

[Curccu]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

They've already admitted to blatant bias, as documented above. And that their intention is to lower the maximum possible score with LRMs to be bellow 901. as documented above.

No more 1300dmg games. And none of those supposed buffs will actually make sure LRMS will reliably get a higher score than their stated arbitrary minimum.

[Redacted]
Those numbers are not real mumbers, they describe damage being more stable with less fluctuation (feast or famine) after they reach their balance goal.

[Samziel]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 04:22 AM, said:

All the posts

Can you stop spamming multiple posts and instead use one to write it all? Especially annoying is writing same thing multiple times.

You claim others are gaslighting and here you are twisting what Frost_byte said.

LRMs should perform more consistently. Instead of mostly being useless and scoring great games every now and then you should be able to have nice games all the time and great games every now and then.

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 05:06 AM, said:

That will do nothing to buff LRMS against snipers, which is obviously who Cauldron is trying to buff/protect.

Didnt want to make another post for this so edited it here.

For the last time. If you dont understand or refuse to understand this then you are wasting your and everyone elses time here. No one will take you seriously:

LRMs have never been and will never be counter to snipers. Its not their role and never will be.

Edited by Samziel, 15 January 2024 - 05:28 AM.

[kalashnikity]

Curccu, on 15 January 2024 - 04:44 AM, said:

[Redacted]
Those numbers are not real mumbers, they describe damage being more stable with less fluctuation (feast or famine) after they reach their balance goal.

you'r splitting hairs, the intent is clear. No other weapon system has that kind of artificially imposed handicap, and the "buffs" (LOL!) are not going to do anything to raise the average minimum. 2 debuffs and a meaningless buff will do nothing but lower the average score, including the average minimum. IF they really want to help raise the minimum they could lower the minimum range so LRMs could be more useful in a brawl situation. That will do nothing to buff LRMS against snipers, which is obviously who Cauldron is trying to buff/protect.

they could even just make LRMS dumbfire until 180 but do full damage at 60

Edited by GM Patience, 17 January 2024 - 12:32 PM.

[Meep Meep]

Ohhh derp nerf incoming? Giggity can't wait! Sad this stuff wasn't done years ago.. But hey better now than never.

[Curccu]

kalashnikity, on 15 January 2024 - 05:06 AM, said:

you'r splitting hairs, the intent is clear. No other weapon system has that kind of artificially imposed handicap, and the "buffs" (LOL!) are not going to do anything to raise the average minimum. 2 debuffs and a meaningless buff will do nothing but lower the average score, including the average minimum. IF they really want to help raise the minimum they could lower the minimum range so LRMs could be more useful in a brawl situation. That will do nothing to buff LRMS against snipers, which is obviously who Cauldron is trying to buff/protect.

they could even just make LRMS dumbfire until 180 but do full damage at 60

0,8 second extra lock time isn't minor buff.
Yes debuffs are pretty harsh but from my understanding this is 1st round of LRM balancing and more will come.
Minimum range removal/chance has been talked about in cauldron discord also and might happen.

PS. LRMs have been and will be bad against snipers and nothing will change that, except full rewrite of how LRMs work (No coders to do that so will not happen).

[Meep Meep]

How much does that .8 stretch out to with full target delay skills? I'm too lazy to look it up and math.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Arnetheus, on 15 January 2024 - 02:42 AM, said:

Why are you doubling down on making this about yourself? That's not how it works, get an ego check.
You (or anyone else) getting occasional good games with lurms is not even relevant to the topic of them being rebalanced.

The point is not that it can be done, the point is the frequency at which it can be done. I'm going to test it because I think the velocity nerf and angle change will hurt more than the lockon time buff. But I reserve judgement until after 100 drops or so.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Curccu, on 15 January 2024 - 05:55 AM, said:

PS. LRMs have been and will be bad against snipers and nothing will change that, except full rewrite of how LRMs work (No coders to do that so will not happen).

I guess they could improve LRM ranges without coders. There are quite a few weapons outside the ER-[X] spectrum and standard Gauss that "should" have lower range than LRMs but have higher ranges than LRM in MW:O when compared against the source material.

Such a change wouldn't necessarily help with actually hitting (reasonably) well played sniper mechs but it would certainly help with some level of suppressive fire ... and if they dared to go for equal max range to ER-[X] type weaponry the whole "haha, you can't even hit me because I can shoot so much farther so I'll just stand here" would go out of the window entirely ~shrug~

But hey, my opinion isn't worth anything and this suggestion just doesn't apply to "skilled" play anyway, right?

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 15 January 2024 - 01:36 PM.

[torsie]

I have been trying LRMs for a while, not quite there yet .

Does anyone else find it really weird they have only 1000+- range? Its literally called LONGRM and almost every weapon has variant that has more range?

I dont want people sitting at start shooting across whole map without moving but my gauss guns have 1900+- range, I can stand in the open, look that other pilot in the eye and just keep shooting, and he, even if he has intercontinental missiles, just cant do nothing against it .
And if he tries coming closer, the moment I get first missile on me, I know that I can move 100 meters closer and be in optimal range for full damage.

I would expect at least same range as other weapons.

Maybe they could work similar to the CATM missiles, doing different damage for different range?

[Vonbach]

torsie, on 15 January 2024 - 02:56 PM, said:

I have been trying LRMs for a while, not quite there yet .

Does anyone else find it really weird they have only 1000+- range? Its literally called LONGRM and almost every weapon has variant that has more range?

I dont want people sitting at start shooting across whole map without moving but my gauss guns have 1900+- range, I can stand in the open, look that other pilot in the eye and just keep shooting, and he, even if he has intercontinental missiles, just cant do nothing against it .
And if he tries coming closer, the moment I get first missile on me, I know that I can move 100 meters closer and be in optimal range for full damage.

I would expect at least same range as other weapons.

Maybe they could work similar to the CATM missiles, doing different damage for different range?

If LRMs had the range they did in the game they'd actually be able to counter the blue fiashlight cult
and we cant have that can we?

[Meep Meep]

Vonbach, on 15 January 2024 - 04:09 PM, said:

If LRMs had the range they did in the game they'd actually be able to counter the blue fiashlight cult
and we cant have that can we?

You can get map wide range with a cat c4 but good luck trying to counter snipe with it. Most of the blue flashlight cult also have ecm so unless you have someone close and targeting it then no bueno. Even then the smart cult members will be near cover and they will just amble back into it long before your first salvo gets there.

[Vonbach]

Meep Meep, on 15 January 2024 - 04:52 PM, said:

You can get map wide range with a cat c4 but good luck trying to counter snipe with it. Most of the blue flashlight cult also have ecm so unless you have someone close and targeting it then no bueno. Even then the smart cult members will be near cover and they will just amble back into it long before your first salvo gets there.

Well with all the laundry list of LRM counters like too low velocity radar derp whatever yeah.

[Meep Meep]

Vonbach, on 15 January 2024 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well with all the laundry list of LRM counters like too low velocity radar derp whatever yeah.

The c4 gets a velocity quirk and with the skill tree completely negates the nerfs. It's great for dumping salvos over the heads of the front line and with the coming derp nerf all you really need is to hold lock long enough to get it out. The short distance travelled means that even if they start moving most of your lrm are going to hit. Gods help them if someone pops a uav directly overhead.

[Novakaine]

Meep Meep, on 15 January 2024 - 05:30 PM, said:

The c4 gets a velocity quirk and with the skill tree completely negates the nerfs. It's great for dumping salvos over the heads of the front line and with the coming derp nerf all you really need is to hold lock long enough to get it out. The short distance travelled means that even if they start moving most of your lrm are going to hit. Gods help them if someone pops a uav directly overhead.

You do realize c4 has the good old weight penalty right?
Still a nerf period.