241 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 06:05 PM, said:

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

Asking for variety of styles of play is fine, but they all have to have the correct risk vs reward balance, which is why guided indirect fire has been so problematic. Non-guided/homing indirect fire can be too powerful by itself in most games, but throw in guided and the target sharing that allows others to also achieve locks and you have a recipe for a very broken system.

Again, I don't have a problem with lock-on weapons whether they be homing or TOW, I just have an issue with the lock-on mechanics specifically in MWO because they turned them into oversimplified weapons. Reticle placement is chief among them of something that should be rewarded which both MW4 homing missiles and TOW missiles achieve (ideally having both would be great). However, this game has zero engineering support so we are kinda stuck with the mess that was left.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 24 January 2024 - 06:16 PM.

[kalashnikity]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

Asking for variety of styles of play is fine, but they all have to have the correct risk vs reward balance, which is why guided indirect fire has been so problematic. Non-guided/homing indirect fire can be too powerful by itself in most games, but throw in guided and the target sharing that allows others to also achieve locks and you have a recipe for a very broken system.

Again, I don't have a problem with lock-on weapons whether they be homing or TOW, I just have an issue with the lock-on mechanics specifically in MWO because they turned them into oversimplified weapons. Reticle placement is chief among them of something that should be rewarded which both MW4 homing missiles and TOW missiles achieve (ideally having both would be great). However, this game has zero engineering support so we are kinda stuck with the mess that was left.

Show me one player who can stay above Tier 3 in solo que with a LRM boat.Just one.

Edited by kalashnikity, 24 January 2024 - 07:41 PM.

[Vonbach]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 07:40 PM, said:

Show me one player who can stay above Tier 3 in solo que with a LRM boat.Just one.

The blue flashlight cult has this bizarre delusion you can take a LRM and just no skill rain death on all comers
and get 1000+ damage. Try any long range trade build and a LRM boat and see how much damage you rack up.
Especially if you get one of two thirds of the maps in the game that suck for LRMs.
The blue flashlight cult, PGI and Couldron just hates LRMs and all would remove them if they could.

[ScrapIron Prime]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 07:40 PM, said:

Show me one player who can stay above Tier 3 in solo que with a LRM boat.Just one.

I can. But I run an LRM generalist... credible ERML and LL or LPPC along with two large Artemis LRMs. Get your own locks, fire indirect in between direct fire targets. I can't imagine doing it solo dropping with an LRM-90 assault build.

But hey, what do I know?

[kalashnikity]

ScrapIron Prime, on 24 January 2024 - 08:30 PM, said:

I can. But I run an LRM generalist... credible ERML and LL or LPPC along with two large Artemis LRMs. Get your own locks, fire indirect in between direct fire targets. I can't imagine doing it solo dropping with an LRM-90 assault build.

But hey, what do I know?

Funny you say that, both of my LRM mechs that pull in over 1000dmg (occasionally) have at least 2 of the things that help get locks, BAP, Tag, PPC, NARC.

Archer with Bap, Tag, and NARC, and 5 lasers (SP or ML).

And a Mean Baby with BAP and 3LPPC.

They help get their own locks.

Archer is far more consistent at getting over 1000dmg, even though it has half the LRMs.

Can't rely on someone else in QP.

I appreciate you posting your reasons for not liking LRMS, and I can respect your opinion, even though I disagree with your assessment.

I couldn't stand to hear people talking like it was just point and click to get damage with LRMs, as if it was "easy mode".

[kalashnikity]

Vonbach, on 24 January 2024 - 07:52 PM, said:

The blue flashlight cult has this bizarre delusion you can take a LRM and just no skill rain death on all comers
and get 1000+ damage. Try any long range trade build and a LRM boat and see how much damage you rack up.
Especially if you get one of two thirds of the maps in the game that suck for LRMs.
The blue flashlight cult, PGI and Couldron just hates LRMs and all would remove them if they could.

Well, they openly stated their position was that "LRMS don't belong in 'top tier' play", whatever the heck that means.

I literally just got out of a 3 daytimeout for telling the truth about who was saying that and how they were saying it, and how I feel about that.

And I wasn't even using the language I wanted to use, frankly I thought I was being pretty polite considering the seriousness of this issue and the methods that are being used to force this through.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 24 January 2024 - 02:57 PM, said:

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.

I guess you missed this Gem, too ?

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

~snip
LRMs take no effort or mechanical and positioning skill to use,
~snip

Bassault, on 24 January 2024 - 02:49 PM, said:

First of all, LRMs only do not require aim but they require less positioning and situational awareness than other builds.
~snip

Thats some top notch pivoting into contradicting oneself, wouldn't you say ? Nvmnd both are wrong also, just showing the bias being preached as gospel again, as if contiuously repeating what is nothing more but opinion would make those opinions the only valid truth . Only, that becomes a bit difficult when one starts contradicing oneself (I am now eagerly awaiting Bassault's edits to his posts btw...) .


As for "trainability", again you are attacking a strawman . I did not claim (snapshot) aim was not trainable . I wrote the trainability was limited . Which is beyond question . You can train as much as you want, there is a limit to what you can reach in terms of skill, and that limit is very much not controlled or controllable by you, nevermind all the training you put in.

What do you think determines the upper limit of one's skill ? Can anyone become a 99%er in MW:O just by continuously training ?

The answer is no . Just as well as not anyone can become Dominik Hasek . Or Rafa (Rafael Nadal). Or Fernando Alonso . There are thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people putting in massive amounts of training to become a #1 NHL Goalie, or becoming the #1 male Tennis player, or a world class Race Driver . But only a tiny percentage of all those people giving it their all ever achieve that Goal . Yet the top people also contiuously need to put in massive amounts of training to stay on top . I did not and do not deny that . Its just, this does not allow the conclusion "You just need to train enough to get to the Top."

What do you think determines the limit of one's skill ? I would claim if it was possible to train oneself to the Top, the Top would not be the tip of a needle, but an open, wide, flat field .

As for your last sentence, you are again attacking a strawman . Nowhere did I state "talent is all aim"...that was you bringing that up . What I wrote was "the trainability is limited" . Which, just to explain it again, means the upper limit of what you can reach by training has limits (which btw. vary from person to person) .

Do you deny that ?

Edited by Besh, 24 January 2024 - 11:03 PM.

[Bassault]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 09:59 PM, said:

Thats some top notch pivoting into contradicting oneself, wouldn't you say ? Nvmnd both are wrong also, just showing the bias being preached as gospel again, as if contiuously repeating what is nothing more but opinion would make those opinions the only valid truth . Only, that becomes a bit difficult when one starts contradicing oneself (I am now eagerly awaiting Bassault's edits to his posts btw...) .

I only edit my posts to fix grammatical errors and I have a bad habit of posting before double checking. If you think I'm changing my posts to retroactively moot someone's point, consider that a good thing, because as far as my intentions here go, I want to express and get my ideas across, not score points in "I GOT YOU YOURE WRONG!"

Anyway, sure, my phrasing could be better. Nothing in MWO takes NO SKILL. But when I say it takes "no skill at all" it is a gross exaggeration, another infamous bad habit of mine. What I really mean is that it takes less skill than any other playstyle in the game.

All I wanted to get across when I mentioned that in MWO you can get very far with poor aim and training is that I believe getting to tier 1 or getting good at the game is not impossible for the vast majority of players. I interpreted your post as if were making excuses as to why most players cannot become good at mwo. A lot of people don't reach the top because they don't play enough due to time constraints or they don't care enough about the game to dedicate more time. Many players also play the game "wrong", in a way where they will never improve (playing default builds, LRMing only). Some players never reach out to other skilled players with know how and improve at a snails pace because of it.

Anyway, what is the point of bringing this up again? I'm sorry for forgetting. What does this have to do with LRMs being a very low skill weapon?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 09:59 PM, said:

I guess you missed this Gem, too ?

I know Bassault has a tendency to be a bit hyperbolic like they mentioned so I always take what they says with a slight grain of salt.

Besh, on 24 January 2024 - 09:59 PM, said:

As for "trainability", again you are attacking a strawman . I did not claim (snapshot) aim was not trainable . I wrote the trainability was limited . Which is beyond question . You can train as much as you want, there is a limit to what you can reach in terms of skill, and that limit is very much not controlled or controllable by you, nevermind all the training you put in.

What do you think determines the upper limit of one's skill ? Can anyone become a 99%er in MW:O just by continuously training ?

The answer is no . Just as well as not anyone can become Dominik Hasek . Or Rafa (Rafael Nadal). Or Fernando Alonso . There are thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people putting in massive amounts of training to become a #1 NHL Goalie, or becoming the #1 male Tennis player, or a world class Race Driver . But only a tiny percentage of all those people giving it their all ever achieve that Goal . Yet the top people also contiuously need to put in massive amounts of training to stay on top . I did not and do not deny that . Its just, this does not allow the conclusion "You just need to train enough to get to the Top."

What do you think determines the limit of one's skill ? I would claim if it was possible to train oneself to the Top, the Top would not be the tip of a needle, but an open, wide, flat field .

As for your last sentence, you are again attacking a strawman . Nowhere did I state "talent is all aim"...that was you bringing that up . What I wrote was "the trainability is limited" . Which, just to explain it again, means the upper limit of what you can reach by training has limits (which btw. vary from person to person) .

Do you deny that ?

Maybe I misread that, but regardless, skill and talent both have limitations and arguing around them seems pointless. This is a competitive game by the nature of being PvP and like all competitive things both talent and skill obviously factor into things. Talent only gets you so far. This game has a lot in common with Counterstrike in that learning the maps and positioning is key to actually being a good player, aim being secondary, but both are definitely trainable. I mean projectiles in particular are something you have to train to learn to gauge the lead times for the weapons combined with the weapons convergence. You can't just have superb aim and just stomp through in either game, there is very much a stiffer ceiling than something like CoD where you can pretty much run around with good aim and get pretty far.

Still, it doesn't matter, acquiring and holding locks takes less effort than training lasers or leading projectiles. The time it takes to land missiles whether it be due to long lock time or long travel time is inconsequential with regard to talent OR skill because the player has little agency over either and between that and being able to lob missiles indirectly and thus invalidate cover while also potentially not requiring good positioning themselves are why people consider them "no skill", however hyperbolic they may be. None of that is changeable at this point as much as I think a lot of people would prefer it. A lot of the levers and dials (apparently (k)nobs are disallowed) just can't be adjusted due to lack of engineering so here we are. I've hated missiles mechs feeling like they are pretty much shoehorned into pretty much short range shotgun styles thanks to SRMs/MRMs being the most viable, but it's not the Cauldron's fault PGI made missiles awful in this game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 25 January 2024 - 07:58 AM.

[JediPanther]

Low skill weapon just means easy to use and there is no easier weapons than acs and lasers. Point and click and 100% weapon damage done with no hard or soft counters. You want hard mode you go lrms only with no spotter using only the skill tree,mech quirks, bap and a uav without narcs or a tag.

[Asylum Choir]

Papaspud, on 13 January 2024 - 05:21 AM, said:

I see there are going to be LRM buffs, which they do need. The problem we have is everyone spends the game hiding and running now- it is going to be worse with effective missiles. I hope I am wrong...but it is terrible already, and I don't see it get any better.

It's not down to missiles though. Since day 1 of me playing this game, the playerbase has always been hyper timid.
They are the most timid online players I have ever experienced-in ANY game.

[pbiggz]

Asylum Choir, on 25 January 2024 - 01:34 PM, said:

It's not down to missiles though. Since day 1 of me playing this game, the playerbase has always been hyper timid.
They are the most timid online players I have ever experienced-in ANY game.

Players tend to be timid in this game because (and this is relevant to the thread) there are no respawns. You spend a few minutes building a mech, a few more in queue, and then one or two minutes alive in match, only to be cored out before you can react because the enemy team rotated faster than you realized. Then you spend five or so minutes watching your team get melted, then go back to the menu to join the queue again.

In summary, for every 15 minutes you spend in this game (and this is ball park numbers) you're probably getting at best 5 minutes of actual active play time. This game does not respect your time.

But any time anyone mentions respawns or dropdecks the same people march out the same tired old gO tO fAcTiOnPlAy argument and then start screaming at the top of their lungs until the thread gets closed, so, we don't get to have nice things here.

[SolCrusher]

pbiggz, on 25 January 2024 - 08:16 PM, said:

Players tend to be timid in this game because (and this is relevant to the thread) there are no respawns. You spend a few minutes building a mech, a few more in queue, and then one or two minutes alive in match, only to be cored out before you can react because the enemy team rotated faster than you realized. Then you spend five or so minutes watching your team get melted, then go back to the menu to join the queue again.

In summary, for every 15 minutes you spend in this game (and this is ball park numbers) you're probably getting at best 5 minutes of actual active play time. This game does not respect your time.

But any time anyone mentions respawns or dropdecks the same people march out the same tired old gO tO fAcTiOnPlAy argument and then start screaming at the top of their lungs until the thread gets closed, so, we don't get to have nice things here.

It would be nice if we got 2 mechs for each of our games. just put a 150 ton limit on it.

[pbiggz]

SolCrusher, on 25 January 2024 - 09:25 PM, said:

It would be nice if we got 2 mechs for each of our games. just put a 150 ton limit on it.

I'd argue for a full 4 mech dropdeck, but there needs to be alot more limitations than just tonnage. Quick play games cannot last too long and they cannot devolve into spawn camps. Its simply not an option.

Edited by pbiggz, 25 January 2024 - 09:38 PM.

[Arnetheus]

kalashnikity, on 24 January 2024 - 07:40 PM, said:

Show me one player who can stay above Tier 3 in solo que with a LRM boat.Just one.

So, basically any T1 player who plays anything they want and stays in T1 anyway?
What kind of a foolish request is that?

JediPanther, on 25 January 2024 - 08:09 AM, said:

Low skill weapon just means easy to use and there is no easier weapons than acs and lasers. Point and click and 100% weapon damage done with no hard or soft counters.

Weak attempt at a troll post?
You seem to have zero understanding of the skill floor and skill ceiling concepts, something so simple.
Why does this magical "point and click" direct fire never seems to work, when i see 4 pugs struggle to kill a single light?

Quote

You want hard mode you go lrms only with no spotter

So, don't play the game, you mean. You realise 11 of your teammates count as "spotters"?
You don't need somebody to be your personal pocket light mech for that.

Quote

...without narcs or a tag.

Because... why exactly?
Any other artificial nonsense rules you want to come up with? Maybe stock armor values?

[Besh]

Bassault, on 24 January 2024 - 10:39 PM, said:

I only edit my posts to fix grammatical errors and I have a bad habit of posting before double checking. If you think I'm changing my posts to retroactively moot someone's point, consider that a good thing, because as far as my intentions here go, I want to express and get my ideas across, not score points in "I GOT YOU YOURE WRONG!"

Anyway, sure, my phrasing could be better. Nothing in MWO takes NO SKILL. But when I say it takes "no skill at all" it is a gross exaggeration, another infamous bad habit of mine. What I really mean is that it takes less skill than any other playstyle in the game.

All I wanted to get across when I mentioned that in MWO you can get very far with poor aim and training is that I believe getting to tier 1 or getting good at the game is not impossible for the vast majority of players. I interpreted your post as if were making excuses as to why most players cannot become good at mwo. A lot of people don't reach the top because they don't play enough due to time constraints or they don't care enough about the game to dedicate more time. Many players also play the game "wrong", in a way where they will never improve (playing default builds, LRMing only). Some players never reach out to other skilled players with know how and improve at a snails pace because of it.

Anyway, what is the point of bringing this up again? I'm sorry for forgetting. What does this have to do with LRMs being a very low skill weapon?

Obviously, your post deserves a response . Upfront, id like to say I appreciate the openness . In addition, Id like to ask for some lenience in it sometimes is not easy for me to put my thoughts in writing, since I think in fireworks a lot, I am not native english, and personally am used to being way more blunt and upfront straight than quite some people in the native english speaking space like anyone to be . I am going to do my best choosing my words carefully, as to not cause any personal offense, since that is the last thing I want to do .

With that out of the way...

One reason for qouting you was to demonstrate how arguments (by the same people) when discussing LRMs are changing/shifting (in the specific case I quoted, "LRMs take no effort or mechanical and positioning skill to use" changed to "LRMs only do not require aim but they require less positioning" within 3 hrs .).

There is the constant argument of "they are noSkill!" - and that has mostly been connected to LRMs not actually needing Aim/being supereasy to acquire lock and keep tracking in terms of being able to keep aim on target as compared to other weapons (which is very much debatable in itself, to say "dont recquire Aim" is just wrong). Then suddenly a person who has perpetrated said argument (LRMs = noSkill 'cos "no Aim needed" ) comes around and goes "Well ACTUALLY, Aim is not even that important, its mostly positioning..." . Hm .

Then there is the argument of LRMs not needing any movement, or Map awareness to be used successfull . Both of which are flat out wrong, considering the mantra of "Balance needs to be done from the Top" . Noone can seriously claim any LRMer can expect to be somewhat successfull against competent opposition wihtout moving, or not knowing Maps .

I guess what I am getting at it is : the arguments against LRMs and claiming they are "noSkill" brought forward by a few people ( I am not naming specific people on purpose ) are not coherent, not rarely contradict each other, or are put in contexts which are not applicable by arguments of the same people in different contexts . So in essence, most of the arguments brought forward by some against LRMs/LRMs being noSkill are literally not valid when talking about changes to LRMs for the sake of balance .

How do you expect a reasonable, well informed discussion about LRMs in the context of balance when your arguments constantly shift, are wrong, are only working in specific contexts or contexts you yourself deny to be valid at all when it comes to balance?

Does all of that make some sense ?

Edited by Besh, 26 January 2024 - 05:47 AM.

[MrMadguy]

LRMs don't require positioning and map awareness? How about maintaining optimal ~300m distance to target and LOS? Simply because LRMs are ineffective at longer ranges. At >400m ranges they're mostly psychological weapon. And they often hit ground and obstacles at closer distances. I don't even talk about 180 minimum range, that is hard minimum for IS. That's, what happens, when players, who have some specific playstyle and don't understand other players' playstyles, are allowed to balance game. They balance game around their preferred playstyle.

And what do they try to achieve? LRMs are so OP, that even when I use them - I float between bottom of Tier 3 and top of Tier 4. Do they want me to drop to Tier 5? Yeah? That's, what is called "balancing around top"? What they want at the end? To remove all weapons except ER-LLs, ER-PPCs and Gausses? Because nothing else would be effective in this game?

Yeah. I have to admit it. My aiming skill is low. Mostly because I have old computer and cheap mouse. But my computer isn't even the worst one. For some players 90 seconds aren't enough to load into match. It wouldn't be problem, if matchmaking would work properly in this game, so I would always play against players with comparable aiming skill. But it doesn't. I have to play against guys, who can two-shot my ST from 1k meters. So LRMs are about being able to pad dmg a little bit not to waste my time in this game. And I just don't think, that it's right to use aiming skill as ultimate skill measure. We don't play Counter Strike. MWO isn't about "Who clicks first - wins" AWP duels.

So what? As always. What you want - is all unskilled players to quit this game, because only skilled ones "deserve" to play it? Typical elitist thing? Do you really think, that it would be more healthy for game to have even lesser amount of players, than it already has? M?

LRMs are tactical weapon. They require teamwork to be effective and they require teamwork to be countered. They're suppression weapons. They're about preventing unpunished attacks, like pew-pewing from 1k meters while sitting on a top of building. They disturb enemies. They show, that teammates are supported. They force enemies to take cover and change position. And sniping weapons are Rambo-style selfish weapons. They're about player relying on their personal skill only. I don't even talk about snipe duels being super boring.

I just don't want to discuss it. LRMs are part of my anti-sniper playstyle. Match usually has two phases - closed and open. Closed phase - is when enemies are hiding, sniping, poptarting. Open phase - is when they play more openly, come to closer range, where they're easier to hit via mid-range and brawling weapons. And it's very important to survive first closed phase. But I'm a little bit impatient. Because I don't want to hide behind others, as smart players do. I want to contribute towards victory. I try to get to closer range early and as result - often die early while dealing ~100dmg. Yeah, It's pointless to play this game with such low performance. So, I've found smart solution. LRMs. I rely on them during closed phase and then switch to backup weapons.

So, if they're nerfed - my playstyle is nerfed. And therefore there is no reason for me to play this game.

Edited by MrMadguy, 26 January 2024 - 08:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Besh, on 26 January 2024 - 05:37 AM, said:

There is the constant argument of "they are noSkill!" - and that has mostly been connected to LRMs not actually needing Aim/being supereasy to acquire lock and keep tracking in terms of being able to keep aim on target as compared to other weapons (which is very much debatable in itself, to say "dont recquire Aim" is just wrong). Then suddenly a person who has perpetrated said argument (LRMs = noSkill 'cos "no Aim needed" ) comes around and goes "Well ACTUALLY, Aim is not even that important, its mostly positioning..." . Hm .

To be clear, while the game does highly value positioning, that doesn't mean aim doesn't matter. Knowing how to position gets you pretty far (good enough to get you to probably tier 1/2 with below average aim) but at certain point you will hit competition where aim does start to matter more because bad aim can start to limit what weapons and by extension play styles are viable for you. This game isn't unique in this either, as Counterstrike is VERY similar in that regard.

MrMadguy, on 26 January 2024 - 07:21 AM, said:

stuff

Honestly, your comments just remind me of this video, tbh this video is apt for this conversation as a whole:
https://youtu.be/Eit...re=shared&t=184

I know you probably won't watch it but definitely educational.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 26 January 2024 - 10:24 AM.

[SolCrusher]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 26 January 2024 - 10:20 AM, said:

To be clear, while the game does highly value positioning, that doesn't mean aim doesn't matter. Knowing how to position gets you pretty far (good enough to get you to probably tier 1/2 with below average aim) but at certain point you will hit competition where aim does start to matter more because bad aim can start to limit what weapons and by extension play styles are viable for you. This game isn't unique in this either, as Counterstrike is VERY similar in that regard.


Honestly, your comments just remind me of this video, tbh this video is apt for this conversation as a whole:
https://youtu.be/Eit...re=shared&t=184

I know you probably won't watch it but definitely educational.

So the FOOS strategy in this game is Blue lasers and Gauss.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SolCrusher, on 26 January 2024 - 11:01 AM, said:

So the FOOS strategy in this game is Blue lasers and Gauss.

Yes, because the best players weren't still the best players when the stock Championship happened (where LRMs were actually part of the meta) or on any meta shift