241 replies to this topic

[Besh]

Bassault, on 24 January 2024 - 11:08 AM, said:

Having to line up your shot for 10 seconds (it's a lot less time than that to lock on btw) doesn't take any skill at all. The circle is huge, and you don't need to keep your aim steady or anything. Even as the target is moving you'd have to be completely unfamiliar to how a mouse works to not be able to hold a lock. Once you get in range and have locks, you can definitely stand still for a very long time in an LRM boat and deal significant damage. So imagine a sniper, but he doesn't have to aim and he doesn't have to get shot back and he doesn't have to worry about sightlines.

Don't forget what quicksilver has said already, and also remember that effectiveness does not mean something is easier to use. LRMs take no effort or mechanical and positioning skill to use, so they are of course overall, a little weaker than using direct fire weapons if you are capable of aiming with direct fire weapons, and that's how it should be because no game should reward players for having little or no skill.

Please elaborate on "LRMs take no effort" . Do you mean its effortless to acquire Lock ? To think they need no mechanical or positional skill to use is flat out wrong .

And again, you are using a biassed definition of skill . Skill as you understand it is btw. not actually skill, but rather talent (or naturally given ability) . What your definition of "skill" does is it favours those people who have been given an advantage in their natural ability to twitch point and click and/or twitch aim and steadily track (depending on which weapon system we're talking about) . And, as has been pointed out to you in another Thread, the overwhelmingly vast majority of all the people will never, with no amount of training, trying to get gut etc. get to a point to be able to compete with a 99%er on MW:O in these abilities. This is not determined by "skill" . Its trainability is limted, varying from person to person . Its just what one may call "naturally given ability (or lack thereof)" .

Edited by Besh, 24 January 2024 - 11:46 AM.

[feeWAIVER]

Locust 1V with 1 snub ppc is the most skillful mech in the game.
Everything else is a crutch.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 11:20 AM, said:

~snip

Funny thing is, that firing window for LRMs were extended to ridiculousness to hard counter LRMs, to a point that you aren't really meant to really acquire locks with any sort of consistency (thus the whole hard counter thing).

That is an interesting admission by you . But also, it seems part of it does not really make sense .

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 11:30 AM, said:

That is an interesting admission by you . But also, it seems part of it does not really make sense .

What admission? To be clear, I have no idea why PGI made ECM and Radar Derp such hard counters of LRMs, I can only infer it was just bad design on their part but also part of the plan to help keep LRMs from being too powerful because when they are powerful the active playerbase has typically taken a hit for obvious reasons. I mean "LRM are OP" threads have been a constant on these forums since closed beta, and there is a reason for it. Now "lights are OP" threads have also plagued the forums but that is actually a harder issue to tackle than LRMs because it goes back to something foundational to the mechlab and customization in this game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 11:37 AM.

[Besh]

The admission that firing window plays a role .

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 11:42 AM, said:

The admission that firing window plays a role .

Now you are arguing in circles. Yes, it does play a role in the difficulty of use (I've never said it doesn't), but has a negligible impact on the skill to use it again because they are artificially long (with the hard counters mind you) to make it not something you really can overcome with just skill/luck because well, there's not a lot you can do skill wise to increase that firing window or decrease the lock time. I'm not saying you can't increase that firing window or decrease that lock time with skill (TAG/NARC/PPCs/range and usage of them kinda play in here), but there are limits to what you can do with skill as those all cut into your overall effectiveness anyway by somewhat behaving as taxes such that they matter little in the grand scheme of things which is why ECM and radar derp have historically been hard counters, because if they are in play, even with minimal investment, your LRM boats feel useless.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 11:52 AM.

[kalashnikity]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 02:50 AM, said:

The entire conversation about "skill vs noskill" as exercised on these Forums for abt. 10 years now is essentially heavily biassed, often perpetrated by flawed arguments, and in essence only serves to favour certain playstyles . Point in case being LRMs vs highAlpha LazorVom, LRMs being portrayed as the ultimate "noskill" weapon 'cos "no aim", while ofc. a 70point LazorVom Alpha with some sustain a much easier way to deliver high amount of dmg . Point and click on sight, *boom* effect (damage) . Repeat [x] seconds later .

But, as you know, and I know, and has been happening as long as the conversation exists here, pointing this out will earn someone a good amount of flak, and there is a neverending supply of GishGallops perfectly showcasing Brandolini's law posts waiting to be unleashed at any given moment .

What's funny is I rarely even play LRMs, I simply like the variability of them being a viable weapon that you have to deal with defensively. Yesterday a NARC and a LRM boat were on the same red team, I actualyl got NARCed and had to slowly waddle over to a hill after I heard the "incoming missile alert" they were so slow it was pathetic. I barely got hit with one volley. I'll be frank, I don't like getting LRMed to death, nobody does. But it should still be a thing we have to account for in our tactics. The day T1 is doing LRM boats we will know LRMs need nerfed. Heck, the day a person can reliably get to T2 in a LRM boat, they should have been Nerfed aready. Today is not that day.

Edited by kalashnikity, 24 January 2024 - 12:31 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 12:17 PM, said:

I'll be frank, I don't like getting LRMed to death, nobody does. But it should still be a thing we have to account for in our tactics.

Why does it need to be viable exactly? Especially if it is awful to play against. What does it add to the game that makes it interesting? Then ask yourself, is there better options for that?

I feel like most people will answer in one of three ways:

• Just cuz
  
• Muh lore
  
• We need an indirect fire weapon

The first two are just bad arguments, the third is where that question of what is the point of artillery in a game like this in the first place and is there better ways to achieve that than LRM mechanics currently. To which the answer is yes there is a place for an indirect fire weapon for area denial but LRMs are really bad about it because they target mechs, not areas. Grenades in typical FPS are effectively indirect fire weapons (especially CS:GO and how smokes can block off entire paths), but they are not guided towards targets, you are targeting positions, not players. They can also impact multiple people at once unlike LRMs. Then there is the whole lock sharing ez-mode focused fire force multipler nonsense behavior that is partly why LRMs have been broken throughout this game's history. There are some serious fundamental differences that make LRMs ill-suited for actually being well designed indirect fire weapons.

[kalashnikity]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 12:29 PM, said:

Why does it need to be viable exactly? Especially if it is awful to play against. What does it add to the game that makes it interesting? Then ask yourself, is there better options for that?

I feel like most people will answer in one of three ways:

• Just cuz
  
• Muh lore
  
• We need an indirect fire weapon

The first two are just bad arguments, the third is where that question of what is the point of artillery in a game like this in the first place and is there better ways to achieve that than LRM mechanics currently. To which the answer is yes there is a place for an indirect fire weapon for area denial but LRMs are really bad about it because they target mechs, not areas. Grenades in typical FPS are effectively indirect fire weapons (especially CS:GO and how smokes can block off entire paths), but they are not guided towards targets, you are targeting positions, not players. They can also impact multiple people at once unlike LRMs. Then there is the whole lock sharing ez-mode focused fire force multipler nonsense behavior that is partly why LRMs have been broken throughout this game's history. There are some serious fundamental differences that make LRMs ill-suited for actually being well designed indirect fire weapons.

Thank you for your honesty. That was a real argument, for a change, Why should they be in the game?1. Just cause, I like them in the game, it adds an important element. This is not a FPS, it's more like a flight simulator air combat game. 2. They are in Muh Lore, they were in MW2 when I started playing in 1996, and in the game when I played it on paper in 1993.3. We need and indirect fire weapon, especially one that help encourage teamwork. And your dispraging artilery, shame, shame, shame. I really like artillery. I'd love to add VTOL and tank "followers" also, that can be commanded to attack, defend, etc. maybe ones you can take over after your mech gets destroyed, put a 15 minute mech respawn timer in the game, and if your mech gets destroyed sooner you can jump in one until it either gets destroyed or your 15 minute timer lets you get a new mech.

Edited by kalashnikity, 24 January 2024 - 12:43 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Make massive maps that are randomly generated, and last for hours or until one side gets all the objectives. Make it so new players can come in, on whatever side is missing players, so matches can last for hours or even days.

This arena shooter stuff is a dead end.

MW5 essentially can have randomly generated maps, as I understand it. Put the lego pieces together type maps.

With truly random spawns, etc.

Real life isn't fair, wouldn't it be cool to start a match in a bad location? Maybe it would be a short match, maybe it would be an epic win.

That would certainly stop the feeling of stagnation, where at the beginning of a match most people know exactly how it will play out

[Quicksilver Aberration]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 12:42 PM, said:

This is not a FPS, it's more like a flight simulator air combat game

This is an team arena shooter that is mostly played in first person. Gameplay has always trumped realism in this game which is why I don't honestly consider it a sim, and honestly it hasn't since maybe MW2/3. That's why so many MW2/3 diehards disliked MW4 during its heyday was because it was too "arcade-y" for them, and MWO is more arcade-y than even MW4 with how maps are designed and match times (not that it is a bad thing).

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 12:42 PM, said:

They are in Muh Lore, they were in MW2 when I started playing in 1996,

That functionality was also notably absent in MW4, so again, not really a good argument. Just because its there doesn't make it good to translate. MW2/3 multiplayer was also hilariously broken from what I recall talking with people who played back then.

This game already encourages teamwork, the desire for a weapon that encourages more teamwork is nonsense because what it actually translates to is a weapon that is tightly coupled to specific units/roles. That sort of coupling typically makes that strategy both fragile and potentially unfun for both parties, especially in a game where you can't always coordinate ahead of time in PUGs with what people are taking. This is why in games like Overwatch or RPGs the concept of a dedicated healer has become such a dirty word, it isn't a particularly interesting role to most players (much like the dedicated spotter role) , the core game loop is combat and having a role that avoids most of that is just bad design. That's why you seen a lot more roles designed around being able to do healing and combat at the same time so they can contribute and support the team.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 01:13 PM.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 11:51 AM, said:

Now you are arguing in circles. Yes, it does play a role in the difficulty of use (I've never said it doesn't), but has a negligible impact on the skill to use it again because they are artificially long (with the hard counters mind you) to make it not something you really can overcome with just skill/luck because well, there's not a lot you can do skill wise to increase that firing window or decrease the lock time. I'm not saying you can't increase that firing window or decrease that lock time with skill (TAG/NARC/PPCs/range and usage of them kinda play in here), but there are limits to what you can do with skill as those all cut into your overall effectiveness anyway by somewhat behaving as taxes such that they matter little in the grand scheme of things which is why ECM and radar derp have historically been hard counters, because if they are in play, even with minimal investment, your LRM boats feel useless.

Thats interesting. Pls enlighten me, how is my post you replied to with the above "arguing in circles" ?

Funnily, you seem to think increasing the firing Window would be desireable for LRMs ?

As long as you dont consider the differences between the process of actually delivering dmg to Target between LRMs and snapshot weapons ( I know not all weapons in MW:O are snapshot...) ., you dont do the useage of LRMs justice .

From what I gathered by now, THE main point for "LRMs should not be toptier weapons" is their idf capability . Consider what has to happen for that IDF weapon to actually be ABLE to fire . And thats not even "landing dmg on Target" yet . That can be denied by a number of well known things .

In that context, it would be great if LRMS actually had a SHORTER firing window (meaning could be fired the moment Target got "R"ed for instance). But thats not what happens . Just to get to the point of actually being able to idf LRMs, you already loose time . That delay to being able to fire LRMs gives the Target time to act/react . In the same time, a snapshot weapon has already landed dmg .

To tell a Player who is able use LRMs to good effect - and I am specifically talking about a not teamed up with a NARCER pilot - and routinely being really good at it he is "unskilled" is in insult in my Book . It neglects so much about what it takes to be good at using LRMs against competent opponents, its basically outright ridiculous .

Ofcofc, there is a healthy amount of "good, toptier" players who will not hesitate to go "yeah lol no, LRMs are the easiest, no skill..." . But : they have specific definitions of skill . And what does not fit in there is simply defined as "noSkill" . And "noskill" weapons are not deemed to be worthy to be viable .

Which in effect comes down to nerfing some weaponsystem and its playstyle and the skillset involved, in comparison to others . In context of MW:O, it means giving people who are really good at fast and precise snapshotaiming ( for instance) an inbuilt advantage over others .

Edited by Besh, 24 January 2024 - 01:55 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 01:18 PM, said:

Thats interesting. Pls enlighten me, how is my post you replied to with the above "arguing in circles" ?

Unlike you, I will give an actual reason for why I said this, because we keep coming back to the long lock time like it means something. Every time I argue WHY that lock time doesn't actually translate to LRMs being more "skillfull" I get one of two answers:

• You just don't understand
  
• Nuh unh

And then that's it. Even just talking about direct fire only, face time is not unique to LRMs either because guess what dakka and X-Pulse require, lots of face time even to do equivalent damage to alpha mechs. The difference is the delay in gratification due to the travel time, which is the trade off for running a homing weapon and the fact that you can acquire and keep locks from behind cover which is where the problems really are. Now that doesn't mean I like how the lock times are, don't get me wrong. Given LRMs aren't fire and forget, I would prefer lock times be 1s or less regardless of ECM or whatever but unfortunately there's a lot that can't be changed regarding lock times now so :shrug:

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 01:53 PM.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 01:52 PM, said:

Unlike you, I will give an actual reason for why I said this, because we keep coming back to the long lock time like it means something. Every time I argue WHY that lock time doesn't actually translate to LRMs being more "skillfull" I get one of two answers:

• You just don't understand
  
• Nuh unh

And then that's it. Even just talking about direct fire only, face time is not unique to LRMs either because guess what dakka and X-Pulse require, lots of face time even to do equivalent damage to alpha mechs. The difference is the delay in gratification due to the travel time, which is the trade off for running a homing weapon and the fact that you can acquire and keep locks from behind cover which is where the problems really are. Now that doesn't mean I like how the lock times are, don't get me wrong. Given LRMs aren't fire and forget, I would prefer lock times be 1s or less regardless of ECM or whatever but unfortunately there's a lot that can't be changed regarding lock times now so :shrug:

I dont see how that is a reason for me "arguing in circles" .

I didnt argue for "lockon time translating into LRMs to be skillfull"...thats attacking a strawman . I actually thought I was very clear in stating the entire process of actually being able to land dmg. with LRMs when idf'ing against competent opponents when not supported by NARC can not be called "noSkill" in my book .

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 02:06 PM, said:

I actually thought I was very clear in stating the entire process of actually being able to land dmg.

Alright, how much out of that process do you actually have control over? The only thing you have control over from firing after acquisition to the shot landing is the angle of launch, and maintaining your reticle on the radar blip for as long as you have it. The latter is not hard, it's as hard as acquiring the lock because the mechanics are the same: hover your reticle over the singular hitbox. The recent changes actually made that story better against hard counters because you can hold the lock longer out of LoS meaning if you can acquire the lock the chances of you landing at least one salvo hit the target (cover still being your major issue).

Flicking your torso to angle your launch around cover better is probably the most skillful part of LRMs, but even then, it is situational, it's not something you consistently need to do.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 02:21 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 01:18 PM, said:

In that context, it would be great if LRMS actually had a SHORTER firing window (meaning could be fired the moment Target got "R"ed for instance).

On this I can somewhat agree only because LRMs are not fire and forget. That said, lock times are global and not subject to change due to engineering effort and the fact that streaks are in fact fire and forget. Decay would also likely have to go back to being full countered by radar derp if this were true.

However I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the act of waiting for either a lock or for missiles to land is something that magically increases the skill of these weapons beyond even lasers because the player has little impact on increasing/decreasing these through some mechanic (for example if your lock acquisition speed was dependent on how close to the center of the lock "hitbox") which is the fundamental part of this argument. Skill implies that the player has agency to somehow overcome those obstacles. However they have minimal agency that can influence that, thus why ECM and Radar Derp have been considered HARD counters for pretty much since both existed. Hard counters for weapons DOES NOT make a weapon more skillful, otherwise that would mean they are SOFT counters.

The range variation in lock time was a good idea to help make longer lock times less egregious where tracking mechs is harder (ie as you close) no different than why shorter range lasers greatly benefit from having shorter durations, the min/max values were just goofy.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 02:41 PM.

[Bassault]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 11:26 AM, said:

Please elaborate on "LRMs take no effort" . Do you mean its effortless to acquire Lock ? To think they need no mechanical or positional skill to use is flat out wrong .



And again, you are using a biassed definition of skill . Skill as you understand it is btw. not actually skill, but rather talent (or naturally given ability) . What your definition of "skill" does is it favours those people who have been given an advantage in their natural ability to twitch point and click and/or twitch aim and steadily track (depending on which weapon system we're talking about).

First of all, LRMs only do not require aim but they require less positioning and situational awareness than other builds. You don't have to worry about where the enemy is too much because your LRMs often fire over cover and hills, and when they dont you arent particularly in danger if your lrms hit a wall a few times, but a direct fire mech will lose his trades or have to act differently depending if he misses of his opponent has more alpha, and many other variables that an LRM boat can simply ignore. Playing LRMs takes away all the nuance of the game and turns you into a zombie clicking red circles mindlessly. And it isn't a skill issue when you can't get a lock because your enemy has ECM, it's just the limitations of LRMs. They're easy to pick up but have less effectiveness compared to direct fire options.

You can get very far in MWO with bad or sub par aim. Practicing can get you further as well. In Mwo you often have time to react to people shooting at you, you trade hits most of the time. You don't need "twitch shooter" reaction times for the vast majority of encounters in this game. All you need to do is play decent builds and have situational awareness and move to the right place at the right time and I firmly believe anyone can get to tier 1 by doing that. No one proved anything, all I was shown on that thread was a standard deviation graph, but that graph doesn't explain why the players are doing worse. Many players who play this game are adamant about not learning how to build mechs correctly and many even play stock mechs. You can't expect them to do well if they don't even have the potential to win when the match starts because they lost at the mechlab.


Finally, if a player is more talented than you are (they usually also practice a lot too and that's also paying off), why does that matter? You shouldn't be able to go even with him with some crutch weapon, that's unfair and it rewads people for being bad and not even trying to learn and it robs victory from those who deserve it the most.

Edited by Bassault, 24 January 2024 - 02:49 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 11:26 AM, said:

And again, you are using a biassed definition of skill . Skill as you understand it is btw. not actually skill, but rather talent (or naturally given ability) . What your definition of "skill" does is it favours those people who have been given an advantage in their natural ability to twitch point and click and/or twitch aim and steadily track (depending on which weapon system we're talking about) . And, as has been pointed out to you in another Thread, the overwhelmingly vast majority of all the people will never, with no amount of training, trying to get gut etc. get to a point to be able to compete with a 99%er on MW:O in these abilities. This is not determined by "skill" . Its trainability is limted, varying from person to person . Its just what one may call "naturally given ability (or lack thereof)" .

Man I missed this gem, what Bassault said, this game is more about positioning than it is about aim. Maybe at the 99% level it does matter (especially in trading), but hey, I'm there and my aim is rough sometimes.

Regardless though, that is something that can most definitely be trained and worked on. You honestly think that professional FPS players don't practice aiming because sorry, but they definitely do, and some of those games still use hitscan for bullets (counterstrike). Everyone jokes about the AWP being a "point and click adventure" but very few have the skill OR talent to use it well. I'm not saying talent doesn't play into it somewhat, but to say that raw talent alone is all aim is is ridiculous.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 02:59 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 01:18 PM, said:

Thats interesting. Pls enlighten me, how is my post you replied to with the above "arguing in circles" ?

Funnily, you seem to think increasing the firing Window would be desireable for LRMs ?

As long as you dont consider the differences between the process of actually delivering dmg to Target between LRMs and snapshot weapons ( I know not all weapons in MW:O are snapshot...) ., you dont do the useage of LRMs justice .

From what I gathered by now, THE main point for "LRMs should not be toptier weapons" is their idf capability . Consider what has to happen for that IDF weapon to actually be ABLE to fire . And thats not even "landing dmg on Target" yet . That can be denied by a number of well known things .

In that context, it would be great if LRMS actually had a SHORTER firing window (meaning could be fired the moment Target got "R"ed for instance). But thats not what happens . Just to get to the point of actually being able to idf LRMs, you already loose time . That delay to being able to fire LRMs gives the Target time to act/react . In the same time, a snapshot weapon has already landed dmg .

To tell a Player who is able use LRMs to good effect - and I am specifically talking about a not teamed up with a NARCER pilot - and routinely being really good at it he is "unskilled" is in insult in my Book . It neglects so much about what it takes to be good at using LRMs against competent opponents, its basically outright ridiculous .

Ofcofc, there is a healthy amount of "good, toptier" players who will not hesitate to go "yeah lol no, LRMs are the easiest, no skill..." . But : they have specific definitions of skill . And what does not fit in there is simply defined as "noSkill" . And "noskill" weapons are not deemed to be worthy to be viable .

Which in effect comes down to nerfing some weaponsystem and its playstyle and the skillset involved, in comparison to others . In context of MW:O, it means giving people who are really good at fast and precise snapshotaiming ( for instance) an inbuilt advantage over others .

Allowing LRMS in the game give a disadvantage to people who are good at snap shooting, but bad at strategic thinking, thus offsetting the "balance" that they desire, which is obviously poking in and out from hard cover at 1000 meters, trading blue lasers and pop tarting PPCs (boring and repetitive) .

You can prove this by looking a the direction they have been pushing the weapon systems, needing to think about how to deal with a few occasional missile seems to totally disrupt them, therefor missiles must go.

The "OMG high alpha bad" is another aspect of the sniper meta paradigm.

Sorry, but high alpha brawler builds have always been in the game.

The Kodiak 4x AC10 with one or two ERPPC is not a new build, it's been available (and highly effective) for years now. I wish I had discovered it sooner.

All these play styles belong in the game..

Variety is the spice of life.

Currently I am enjoying the heck out of using SNPPCs, and/or brawling.

I've been almost exclusively using IS mechs for months now, which is why I thought it was so ridiculous to nerf Clan Double heat sinks, since IS is so OP IMHO,, in both brawling and LRM boats (vs Clan LRM boating, LRMS are difficult to do well with in both types).

Disclaimer: I'm happy with MOST of the things Cauldron is doing, overall their input has been good. But allowing one comp team to control all weapon balance is a mistake.

Furthermore, most of what Cauldron is doing that is considered "good" is what everybody knew needed to happen anyways but PGI was not doing it (for whatever reason, I won't comment).

Edited by kalashnikity, 24 January 2024 - 05:52 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Apparently, asking for a variety of play styles to be allowed to continue in the game is bad now?

Why?

Because some people want to turn this into a dedicated 500m to 1000M arena snap shooter?

Why?

Because that is the play style they are good at and prefer and they are either unwilling or unable to learn or adapt to different styles?

Am I the bad guy for advocating for a variety of play styles to be viable, so people who are good at different styles can have fun too?

The problem is one group with a certain play style preference has been handed control, Why did that happen?

Was the CEO of the game is not willing to invest money and effort in doing basic level management and maintenance? (rhetorical).

If anything, all weapon balance changes should be based on the majority opinion, here , on this forum. Not buried in some discord channel. And it should be centered on making Tiers 4, 3, and 2 happy. Not the outliers of 5 and 1. and the tiers should be on a bell curve.

This is basic level economics, statistics, and science.