172 replies to this topic

[Viltor]

Void Angel, on 27 January 2024 - 09:46 PM, said:

It's not "sleighting" people to point out that they don't know what they're talking about - whether that's Vix, or you. Your clumsy attempt to redirect the conversation from your own errors is unsuccessful, by they way. I'm not going to dignify any of your straw men with a rebuttal, except to point out that using a straw man is a form of lying, and you should stop doing it. You're not doing very well for yourself at avoiding embarrassment today... you're literally making up things that I haven't said because you don't read well; it isn't a good look.

As I pointed out in the nuanced opinion you willfully ignored, LRMs are a problem weapon. They're very easy to use, but their actual effectiveness relies heavily on factors outside of the pilot's individual performance. Team composition is a huge factor in LRM effectiveness, for example, that a pilot does not control- and to top it all off, LRM damage is inflated from its actual killing power. This gives a situation where LRM boats can either smash enemies when spotters and favorable terrain exist, but often struggle to kill enemies despite putting up moderate damage numbers. With the previous volley height, I've had my Stone Rhino take significant leg damage despite being parked behind a rock fully taller than the Battlemech. The guy hitting me wasn't doing anything skilled; he literally just had a spotter, and I took a lot of unanswerable damage from him purely because of that. This is the problem with LRMs in general, and with the volley height specifically, pre-patch. The change is reasonable and thought-out. If additional balance is required - as it likely will be - the weapon systems or individual 'mechs can be changed. That's how this works.

Artemis is also a problem with that system, for the same reasons that those who really understand LRMs seldom use it. The tonnage and (perhaps more importantly) space requirements provide a strongly situational benefit that is often just not in play for most of the match. For a lot of LRM platforms, this amounts to a 4-6 ton build tax for a small benefit that may never trigger during a match, and the space inflation can invalidate builds - particularly for 'mechs using head- or CT-mounted LRMs. So Artemis needs a reason for people to take it, and now they do. If it still does not provide enough benefit, or the weapon system underperforms in general, the weapon system or individual 'mechs can be changed. That's how this works.

How this does not work is subjective hissy fits about how LRMs totally didn't need a nerf, conspiracy theories about how the Cauldron hates LRMs (because aimbots, apparently?) or complaints that LRMs arc like ATMs now, so now there's no important difference between the systems. While people are throwing fits, the grown-ups will be using LRMs on people, and generating the numbers and data the developers need to tune the system.

In short, as the actual announcement put it:
[/left]

[redacted]

LRMs are not the problem, Gauss+ERLL snipers are. They stand on a wall and shoot you across the map, only way to counter them is LRMs, and now they are nerfed.
Playing LRM effectively is quite hard and requires a lot of map awareness and positioning, while with laser vomit you can turn your brain off and run around like a headless chicken.

So we must nerf velocity on ballistic weapons by 40%, to force players to start using TC8. Right?

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 19 February 2024 - 10:47 PM.

[Far Reach]

Jesus, look at that wall of agony. Never meant to break him, but it is what it is. Thanks for the highlight, Viltor!

[Void Angel]

Viltor, on 28 January 2024 - 03:08 PM, said:

[redacted]

LRMs are not the problem, Gauss+ERLL snipers are. They stand on a wall and shoot you across the map, only way to counter them is LRMs, and now they are nerfed.
Playing LRM effectively is quite hard and requires a lot of map awareness and positioning, while with laser vomit you can turn your brain off and run around like a headless chicken.

So we must nerf velocity on ballistic weapons by 40%, to force players to start using TC8. Right?

[redacted]

LRM use can have skill applied to it - but the same "map awareness" it requires are also required by snipers, and for many of the same reasons. You have to know where enemies are likely to show up, both as targets and flankers. The only super-duper 1337 skill that LRMs need is remembering where the high cover is. That's... not rocket surgery.

So. My dudes. Both of you congratulating each other's self-embarrassment have singularly failed to offer any actual objection to my reasoning, instead offering insults - or gloating about how a simple logical argument is a "wall of pain" that must have "broken me." I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tapping out a few paragraphs of exposition and using a high school level vocabulary is not as painful for most other people as it seems to be for you - nor is it diagnostic of anyone's political views.

It's just amazing to me how many people on the internet are savagely determined to embarrass themselves.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 19 February 2024 - 10:57 PM.

[torsie]

I am sorry for my amateur opinion, but weapon with 1000m maximum range is absolutely in no way repellent against people with weapons that have 2000m range, I dont understand why people keep using this part for arguments.

Which is in my opinion one of problems, LRMs should absolutely be able to reach 2000 meters, maybe working like reverse C-ATMs with different speed and/or damage and/or spread and/or lockon for different distances.

Edited by torsie, 28 January 2024 - 08:04 PM.

[Void Angel]

Well, I don't think adding more range to the battlefield will be better for balance overall. Short- and mid-range builds often suffer in the current meta as it is.

As for the "LRMs keep the snipers down" thing... that's so nonsensical that I'm at a loss to explain why it keeps cropping up. I think people have experiences where a spotter or UAV is keeping their ranged trade build (e.g. gaussvomit, ERPPC, etc) pinned behind a rock somewhere, and think, "wow, I can't play at all. LRMs sure counter my build!" - not realizing that LRMs with spotters keep everyone from being able to play.

Possibly it's the same reason you see people talking up how much skill it takes to use LRMs: people have these matches where they see LRMs being very effective, and think "hey, that guy's really good," where in reality (while the guy might well be really good,) the reason that Supernova did 1200 damage was a combination of factors, many of which are not dependent on the LRM pilot at all.

In short, MWO is complicated, and it's not always clear to people what the causality of a situation actually is, particularly if they don't think about it very deeply. People used to claim that the reason everyone tends to circle around counter-clockwise on every map was because of where most Battlemech's weapon hardpoints were placed - even though they did the same thing with symmetrical builds, or when their heavy weapon was on the left torso. I haven't heard that myth in years, but it became common wisdom for a time. The more likely explanation is ergonomics: you have better control reaching toward the center of your body (to include with a mouse,) and most players are right-handed - which makes it easier to cover the left side, and encouraging players to round corners on the right.

[EVA_Unit_4A]

Viltor, on 28 January 2024 - 02:30 PM, said:

Locust with 2xLRM5? Ugh..... One AMS will nullify your damage input. Lowest you can go on LRM boat is LRM40, if it got some really good quirks, I mean really really good like 40% cooldown or velocity.
Lightest LRM boat I can think of is Jagermech-A, it got good quirks and can fit 4xLRM15+A.

The reason I used the LCT-1M here specifically was it moves fast, so I could reposition quickly for the demonstration of different terrain/angles. I was not making a build demonstration, strictly a first-reaction to the overall LRM nerf.

The LRM-10 Locust is not intended to be a big pivoting point in competitive tactics... but it is quite fun to use in PUG! And yes- it has velocity, cooldown and ammo quirks, before Skills. But after playing on-and-off for ten years, I am well aware that a single AMS will easily defeat its paltry LRM10. ...which is why I have the two ERSLs as a sidearm/back-up.

I'd been wanting a fast-moving lightweight LRM boat for many years, and a recent 2023 patch changed the LCT-1M enough to get my attention and fulfill my needs. (My only regrets are I can't squeeze in another ton of ammo, or an AMS.)

[Viltor]

Void Angel, on 28 January 2024 - 05:49 PM, said:

[redacted]

LRM use can have skill applied to it - but the same "map awareness" it requires are also required by snipers, and for many of the same reasons. You have to know where enemies are likely to show up, both as targets and flankers. The only super-duper 1337 skill that LRMs need is remembering where the high cover is. That's... not rocket surgery.

So. My dudes. Both of you congratulating each other's self-embarrassment have singularly failed to offer any actual objection to my reasoning, instead offering insults - or gloating about how a simple logical argument is a "wall of pain" that must have "broken me." I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but tapping out a few paragraphs of exposition and using a high school level vocabulary is not as painful for most other people as it seems to be for you - nor is it diagnostic of anyone's political views.

It's just amazing to me how many people on the internet are savagely determined to embarrass themselves.

What do you know about philosophy, when you can't handle basic level of logic, you resort to denying facts, trying to subvert and twist them to fit your narrative of "akshually LRMs got buffed, my dude".

Sniper mechs - point and shoot, doesn't require team assistance to deal damage, doesn't have minimal range and can always shoot targets.
LRMs - complicated system of target lock, missiles launch and missile hit, if any of those stages are interrupted then your damage is nullified. Requires your team to provide locks and protection from light mechs. Can't deal damage if target is behind an obstacle, target closer than 180 or Radar Depr breaking locks.
Lurmers are jumping through significantly more hoops than sniper mechs.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 19 February 2024 - 10:59 PM.
quote clean-up

[Viltor]

torsie, on 28 January 2024 - 07:57 PM, said:

I am sorry for my amateur opinion, but weapon with 1000m maximum range is absolutely in no way repellent against people with weapons that have 2000m range, I dont understand why people keep using this part for arguments.

Which is in my opinion one of problems, LRMs should absolutely be able to reach 2000 meters, maybe working like reverse C-ATMs with different speed and/or damage and/or spread and/or lockon for different distances.

Lurmers have TAG, and can counter hidden ECM snipers sitting on top of a hill by shooting rockets at them and giving your team a target to shoot at.

[Viltor]

Void Angel, on 28 January 2024 - 09:55 PM, said:

Well, I don't think adding more range to the battlefield will be better for balance overall. Short- and mid-range builds often suffer in the current meta as it is.

As for the "LRMs keep the snipers down" thing... that's so nonsensical that I'm at a loss to explain why it keeps cropping up. I think people have experiences where a spotter or UAV is keeping their ranged trade build (e.g. gaussvomit, ERPPC, etc) pinned behind a rock somewhere, and think, "wow, I can't play at all. LRMs sure counter my build!" - not realizing that LRMs with spotters keep everyone from being able to play.

Possibly it's the same reason you see people talking up how much skill it takes to use LRMs: people have these matches where they see LRMs being very effective, and think "hey, that guy's really good," where in reality (while the guy might well be really good,) the reason that Supernova did 1200 damage was a combination of factors, many of which are not dependent on the LRM pilot at all.

In short, MWO is complicated, and it's not always clear to people what the causality of a situation actually is, particularly if they don't think about it very deeply. People used to claim that the reason everyone tends to circle around counter-clockwise on every map was because of where most Battlemech's weapon hardpoints were placed - even though they did the same thing with symmetrical builds, or when their heavy weapon was on the left torso. I haven't heard that myth in years, but it became common wisdom for a time. The more likely explanation is ergonomics: you have better control reaching toward the center of your body (to include with a mouse,) and most players are right-handed - which makes it easier to cover the left side, and encouraging players to round corners on the right.

You can peek, shoot and hide back before rockets reach you. It's even more easier now, since LRMs are slower and have even less reach behind an obstacle.

I've played with NARCers, it's a mixed bag. Half of the time NARCed target hides behind a wall and you waste your ammo.

Doing 1200 damage is not dependent on your personal skills? OMG LUL. Are you serious?!

[Void Angel]

Viltor, on 29 January 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

I've played with NARCers, it's a mixed bag. Half of the time NARCed target hides behind a wall and you waste your ammo.

Doing 1200 damage is not dependent on your personal skills? OMG LUL. Are you serious?!

OK, I'm going to ask you to read those last two sentences together until you realize you've accidentally contradicted yourself.

To quote an "expert," LRM damage:

Viltor, on 29 January 2024 - 06:00 PM, said:

Requires your team to provide locks and protection from light mechs.

There are other factors that affect LRM damage which this peerless virtuoso of MWO neglected to mention: map terrain, the composition of random matching on both teams, the presence of premade LRM teams dropping in a lance together, and even game mode. I feel sure someone mentioned stuff like that earlier in this thread, though...

I'm not even going to dignify your latest personal attack with a response, but your "comparison" between LRM fire and ranged trading builds is a great example of the pitfalls of motivated reasoning. I particularly like how you claim that snipers can always shoot targets, and then list "can't deal damage if target is behind an obstacle" as a drawback of LRMs. Direct-fire weapons can't penetrate obstacles, but to quote an "expert:"

Viltor, on 29 January 2024 - 06:14 PM, said:

...LRMs are slower and have even less reach behind an obstacle. [emphasis added]

So, LRMs can reach behind obstacles, but sniper weapons can't. Of course, pre-patch an LRM boat could inflict significant leg damage to a Stone Rhino that was taking cover behind a rock too large for it to see over, but I'm sure no one pointed that out earlier in this thread, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

It's also vastly amusing that you assume everyone's targets are just sort of rooted to the ground and not moving. I mean, it's not like Gauss Rifle and ERPPC users prize projectile speed for a reason or anything. It's just a style thing, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, in the real world, LRMs are extremely easy to aim - you literally just point and click. The other balancing mechanics like missile velocity, AMS, and radar deprivation (which got nerfed as well) - and angle of attack - are there to prevent LRMs from being oppressively powerful when their use factors align. The people insisting that LRMs' indirect fire (like Viltor is assuming) needs to be "balanced" against direct-fire weapons is asking for a newbie hammer that they can use to rain unanswered destruction down on 'mechs who can't even see their enemy. That's obviously silly to anyone looking at this without their LRM fanboy glasses on. LRMs DO need to be rebalanced so that their performance is more uniform, and the nerf may well have been too much - PGI is anticipating that possibility, but they're also in a time crunch with the release of the Thunderbolt. In any case, nonsensical, self-contradictory complaints about how terrible it is that an Atlas might actually make it back into cover when you fire at him from over the horizon are not reasonable objections to the patch.

[Far Reach]

You embarrass yourself so thoroughly, how could I do any better? Like I said, agonizing walls of text.

The LRM nerf *is* a nerf, whether you write a screeching novel in objection or not. We have opinions on this and haranguing us for it will only earn you more humiliation and cement our positions.

[Void Angel]

Self-defense is not a "harangue," and - as I've already pointed out - nobody but like one guy on the first page has made that claim. Of course the LRM nerf is a nerf. Duh. The reasoning behind it can be extrapolated from the facts, though, and not all opinions are equal. People are of the opinion that the earth is flat, too - either support your opinions with facts or shut up already. Trying to tone-shame me for slapping your bad reasoning down is just an admission of defeat with extra steps - maybe try not calling people "reddit radlib socialist wannabe's" or coining the phrase "words vocabulary" before you try smearing someone else's "tone," my dude.

[Strelok7]

REMINDER! WARNING!
DEVS! LRM is a "Can Of Worms" subject. A more accurate analogy would be - "Pandora's Box". And you just touched it. LOL. Are you ready?

LRM use directly correlates to every major aspect of the game! That's why.

***Cumulatively, this is a slight LRM buff patch!***
Do not forget why LRM's got nerfed.

P.S - with all the proper LRM nerfs over the years, I actually enjoyed seeing other players' LRMs flying high in the sky...You feel the need to lower the height and buff em up??? Don't mess with the old and perfect! Just make a new additional LRM type of weapon with lower parabola....other weapons got new models....why not LRM.

Edited by Strelok7, 31 January 2024 - 10:42 AM.

[Void Angel]

Strelok7, on 31 January 2024 - 10:38 AM, said:

REMINDER! WARNING!
DEVS! LRM is a "Can Of Worms" subject. A more accurate analogy would be - "Pandora's Box". And you just touched it. LOL. Are you ready?

LRM use directly correlates to every major aspect of the game! That's why.

***Cumulatively, this is a slight LRM buff patch!***
Do not forget why LRM's got nerfed.

P.S - with all the proper LRM nerfs over the years, I actually enjoyed seeing other players' LRMs flying high in the sky...You feel the need to lower the height and buff em up??? Don't mess with the old and perfect! Just make a new additional LRM type of weapon with lower parabola....other weapons got new models....why not LRM.

OK, I don't see any buffs in this patch. The volley height and Artemis changes are nerfs to the weapon system - the nerf to Radar Deprivation helps with a particular pain point, but overall I don't think that indirect buff balances out the volley height and (especially) velocity nerfs.

[Staude Coston]

Lifeblight, on 28 January 2024 - 08:41 AM, said:

Increase the tonnage to 265 for Clan in FP.

Why the IS vs Clan balance is perfect












​irony off

[MuG]

Vellron2005, on 22 January 2024 - 02:01 AM, said:

You're making a difficult weapon to use a lot more harder to use.

Laughed so hard. Tiny violins for you. LURMs are still powerful, you just have to look at the terrain a bit.

[Magic Pain Glove]

It seems like people are blind to some of the changes that happened over the course of the past year but I remind folks of things that directly benefited LRMS :

• Artemis ( kept all of its benefits vs standard launchers giving people who were already using it previously all the benefits of the below mentioned changes without it loosing anything in return)
  
• Missile health ( got increased ) , especially on smaller launchers making them more useful and resistant to AMS .
  
• Radar Depravation ( got nerfed twice , once to prevent small targets interrupting locks which was the initial 1% decrease for each node and 2nd time now to increase overall target lock time ) giving you almost 1 second of additional lock on time on target.
  
• ASP is now a thing in the game and it stacks with BAP , those who understand how sensor range works will know why this is a massive LRM boost. Provides a range boost for TAG to match it with max LRM range.
  
• BAP on the IS side got reduced in tonnage to 1 ton.
  
• LRM 5 is now using its own heat penalty group, unlinked from other LRMs . Which gives mechs with extra hardpoints ability to combine them and avoid ghost heat entirely.
  
• ECM Bubble size reduction , meaning less enemies will be under ECM Umbrellas on average
  
• ECM Skill tree node reduction ( enhanced ECM nodes )

There are discussions on making TAG less visible as well among other things .I would even argue that arc changes reducing flight time to target were a buff (even if by a little bit , especially for direct fire where you maintain direct line of sight on your target ) but that may be changed or reverted so there is that. I cant say I am the biggest fan of Standard LRM Velocity reduction but during the past year a lot was done to make them more consistent and it was normal that they were hit a bit as well since all those systems stack on top of one another and interact with each other . Artemis didn't even receive a penalty so if you were using it before you got nothing but buffs to your builds.

[Void Angel]

Volley height will make missiles land faster, but not taking leg damage when literally hugging a rock will make my Stone Rhino happier - assuming it doesn't still happen... Haven't had the situation recur yet. =]

[Far Reach]

And yet, besides the contrarians running them to spite you, fewer people than EVER play LRM's in MWO now.

Your write-up and reality are opposite. Reconcile.

Edited by Far Reach, 02 February 2024 - 01:12 PM.

[Viltor]

Void Angel, on 29 January 2024 - 08:02 PM, said:

OK, I'm going to ask you to read those last two sentences together until you realize you've accidentally contradicted yourself.

To quote an "expert," LRM damage:
There are other factors that affect LRM damage which this peerless virtuoso of MWO neglected to mention: map terrain, the composition of random matching on both teams, the presence of premade LRM teams dropping in a lance together, and even game mode. I feel sure someone mentioned stuff like that earlier in this thread, though...

I'm not even going to dignify your latest personal attack with a response, but your "comparison" between LRM fire and ranged trading builds is a great example of the pitfalls of motivated reasoning. I particularly like how you claim that snipers can always shoot targets, and then list "can't deal damage if target is behind an obstacle" as a drawback of LRMs. Direct-fire weapons can't penetrate obstacles, but to quote an "expert:"
So, LRMs can reach behind obstacles, but sniper weapons can't. Of course, pre-patch an LRM boat could inflict significant leg damage to a Stone Rhino that was taking cover behind a rock too large for it to see over, but I'm sure no one pointed that out earlier in this thread, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

It's also vastly amusing that you assume everyone's targets are just sort of rooted to the ground and not moving. I mean, it's not like Gauss Rifle and ERPPC users prize projectile speed for a reason or anything. It's just a style thing, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, in the real world, LRMs are extremely easy to aim - you literally just point and click. The other balancing mechanics like missile velocity, AMS, and radar deprivation (which got nerfed as well) - and angle of attack - are there to prevent LRMs from being oppressively powerful when their use factors align. The people insisting that LRMs' indirect fire (like Viltor is assuming) needs to be "balanced" against direct-fire weapons is asking for a newbie hammer that they can use to rain unanswered destruction down on 'mechs who can't even see their enemy. That's obviously silly to anyone looking at this without their LRM fanboy glasses on. LRMs DO need to be rebalanced so that their performance is more uniform, and the nerf may well have been too much - PGI is anticipating that possibility, but they're also in a time crunch with the release of the Thunderbolt. In any case, nonsensical, self-contradictory complaints about how terrible it is that an Atlas might actually make it back into cover when you fire at him from over the horizon are not reasonable objections to the patch.

You said: "Supernova did 1200 damage was a combination of factors, many of which are not dependent on the LRM pilot at all"
"Many of which", many means a lot. So you said A LOT of factors are not dependent on Lurmers skills. Not "some", but "a lot". As if rockets hitting target is pure luck, and not ability to pick your targets and position yourself on the map.

Rocket can be dodged, because you get prior warning of "incoming fire" and have 2-5 seconds to find cover. Sniper damage is instant and cannot be dodged.

"LRMs are extremely easy to aim - you literally just point and click." (c) Void Angel
Quotes of the "great". I'm gonna print, frame it and hang on my wall.

Edited by Viltor, 02 February 2024 - 10:26 PM.