63 replies to this topic

[Volthorne]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM indirect fire doesn't exist in TT until C3 comes into play

Hold the boat, HOLD THE ******* BOAT. STOP RIGHT THERE.

... WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?


Clearly you've never played TT because otherwise you'd know that before C3, friendly 'Mechs COULD spot for indirect fire... but you had to use YOUR distance, movement and penalty modifiers, PLUS an extra +2 to hit, PLUS the spotter couldn't attack on that turn. All C3 did was reduce the penalties down to the spotter's range plus the standard movement and other penalties, with NO to hit penalty from using a spotter (IIRC he still couldn't fire, though).

You have been proven as incorrect, do you wish to continue this topic?

[Regrets]

Well, if you hate the lagshield with lasers, wait until you use dumb fire lrms!

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

LRM usage today is without danger. The fact that you might get stuck in a brawl without a brawler mech is another issue completely. Any long range mech is at a loss at close range, but being able to fire on an opponent when the opponent has no chance to fire back is unfair. It might be realistic, but it's unfair and this is a game which means it's designed to be fun for all parties.

It's full of danger. They have been stated. Remember, you can't make reality bend.
And of course being unable (amongst the other dangers) to defend is totally in line.It's the POINT of LRMs. Strike where others cannot, and unable to defend against others.
Any other long range mech can defend itself at short range. Even PPCs.
I notice that lights that can't be fired at, being four times too quick to be any<where but in your back, don't seem to qualify for "unfair". Your definition of unfair seems restricted to streaks, and nothing else. Interesting.

Quote

As for repeating my opinion, why not?

You're still wrong on everyone of those threads.
What bothers me, in addition, is that on EACH of those threads you're beginning anew as if noone had ever explained why you were wrong.
You won't bend reality, again.
It also bothers me when you speak like you wanted to debate about, when in fact you just don't care about what the other ones say. For example, you still don't get that dumbfire LRMs won't ever work.

Quote

Agreed.(...)

Fut, you're so a lucky man.

Quote

But if the flight duration were reduced to 2 seconds from the 10 seconds they take now, more would hit.

Because 2s if far too short to move 5m, yes.

Quote

Also, I find that Gauss and PPC snipers stand still a lot and they're the perfect targets for LRM fire.

Yeah, because anti-sniper-only role is so fun. What did you say about fun, some minutes ago ?

Quote

IMO LRM should not be the answer to light mechs

Huh ?

Edited by Amarius, 23 January 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[focuspark]

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Clearly you've never played TT[...]
You have been proven as incorrect, do you wish to continue this topic?

Yes, I do believe I've stated that I've never played TT/CBT before. No plans to start now.

How have I been proven incorrect? Because I misquoted TT? I really could care less about TT mechanics as I'm focusing on improving MW:O.

[Theobald Hauser]

This guy is so fantastic. I love him.
He can't be wrong because he can't be wrong, and you can't also prove he's wrong, given he isn't wrong.

THAT is belief, people.

[Volthorne]

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

This guy is so fantastic. I love him.
He can't be wrong because he can't be wrong, and you can't also prove he's wrong, given he isn't wrong.

THAT is belief, people.

That belief is why we can't have nice things. Both IRL and in games.

Quote

How have I been proven incorrect? Because I misquoted TT? I really could care less about TT mechanics as I'm focusing on improving MW:O.

So you're willing to overlook CORE MECHANICS when it suits you just because? I don't give a single **** about the reason you give, you can't overlook something so important.

Edited by Volthorne, 23 January 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[focuspark]

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's full of danger.

No it's not, I'm a CAT pilot. LRM have been the safest role in the game since open beta started. Still are, just a lot less useful after ECM.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Because 2s if far too short to move 5m, yes.

It is of they don't know the missiles are coming. Remember I said to remove the incoming missile warning.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Yeah, because anti-sniper-only role is so fun. What did you say about fun, some minutes ago ?

Didn't say anti-sniper only role, but I was using them as an example of easy prey. LRM will still be stupid useful even if they're not fire and forget and require a little skill.

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

So you're willing to overlook CORE MECHANICS when it suits you just because? I don't give a single **** about the reason you give, you can't overlook something so important.

I only mentioned CBT mechanics because it makes some people happy. Check my sig, I really don't and have never cared about CBT. I like big stompy robots.

I'm not overlooking anything. All I'm saying is that LRM and SSRM have an unfair mechanic which allows unskilled, fire and forget usage and that mechanic should be removed; and if removed those weapons need some TLC to make them useful.

[Volthorne]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

I only mentioned CBT mechanics because it makes some people happy. Check my sig, I really don't and have never cared about CBT. I like big stompy robots.

I'm not overlooking anything. All I'm saying is that LRM and SSRM have an unfair mechanic which allows unskilled, fire and forget usage and that mechanic should be removed; and if removed those weapons need some TLC to make them useful.

Unfair? More like "tactically advantageous". If you bring a massive gun to a war, you don't want it out where it can be easily shot to pieces. You want it where it will be relatively safe and can attack from with relative ease. Some place such as behind a hill or cliff or forest.

Setting up indirect-fire lances hidden behind hills was hella fun in TT, simply because you could rain fiery death upon your opponent and then he had to come up with a plan to get to your artillery without getting blown the hell up. Yes, I realize that LRMs were not that accurate at extreme range, but set up properly, they were easily on-par with every other weapon system.

What you are suggesting would remove LRMs all-together. It wouldn't simply be a nerf, you'd be introducing MRMs about 15 years too early. And frankly, that is unacceptable.

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

It is of they don't know the missiles are coming. Remember I said to remove the incoming missile warning.

You can SEE them ! It's not some gauss pellet ! Furthermore, you don't have to see them at all, if you're already on the move (people are moving like what, 99% of the time ?) they simply don't care. They won't be hit. And don't have to worry about.

Quote

Didn't say anti-sniper only role, but I was using them as an example of easy prey. LRM will still be stupid useful even if they're not fire and forget and require a little skill.

Where is the skill if you need target data to dumbfire ? You can only indirectly fire at targets that someone else gives you and there's only a very little chance that something is hit. That's fun gameplay !

If you play an indirect fire Catapult by those days, you can't be making lots of unfair kills and never be in troubles. It's just not possible. At all.

[focuspark]

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Unfair? More like &quot;tactically advantageous&quot;. If you bring a massive gun to a war, you don't want it out where it can be easily shot to pieces. You want it where it will be relatively safe and can attack from with relative ease. Some place such as behind a hill or cliff or forest.

Setting up indirect-fire lances hidden behind hills was hella fun in TT, simply because you could rain fiery death upon your opponent and then he had to come up with a plan to get to your artillery without getting blown the hell up. Yes, I realize that LRMs were not that accurate at extreme range, but set up properly, they were easily on-par with every other weapon system.

What you are suggesting would remove LRMs all-together. It wouldn't simply be a nerf, you'd be introducing MRMs about 15 years too early. And frankly, that is unacceptable.

Not at all. I'm just suggesting a different mechanism for indirect LRM fire. Once where the closer the target is, the more likely the missiles connect and one that is not impeded by ECM. I agree, indirect fire is a fantastic addition to MW:O that helps make it feel unique and interesting. LRM are very cool, but it's the guided missile lock on that I do not like.

Let me setup a scenario with my suggestion, it might help you understand what I'm trying to say.

Mech A (let's say a Jenner) is 400m from a Stalker, 500m from Mech B, and has LOS to the Stalker. Mech B (let's say a CAT-A1) does not have LOS to the Stalker but can share targeting data with Mech A. Mech B then selects the Stalker as it's target and lines up the shot. Mech B fires and LRM swarm flies off towards the Stalker. Now, if the Stalker is just moving full speed the LRM might miss, but if the Jenner can harass that Stalker for just 1 second the LRM should slam into it.

Make the Stalker a faster mech and there's less of chance of hitting, but that's true for any ranged weapon BUT LRM can still be fired from behind cover.

Edited by focuspark, 23 January 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Theobald Hauser]

Harassing make people dead stop in your games ? o_O
They can be fired behind cover, but to no use. That's not what I call a fair advantage.

In fact you're converting LRMs to voiced-groups-only-still-under-average-weapons. That's BAD.

Furthermore, as has been said, this is how MRMs will work (but with like DOUBLE missiles per salvo). Wait for the first warp.

Edited by Amarius, 23 January 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[focuspark]

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Harassing make people dead stop in your games ? o_O
They can be fired behind cover, but to no use. That's not what I call a fair advantage.

In fact you're converting LRMs to voiced-groups-only-still-under-average-weapons. That's BAD.

Furthermore, as has been said, this is how MRMs will work (but with like DOUBLE missiles per salvo). Wait for the first warp.

Yes, similar to MRM (had to look that up). Since all mechs already have C3i, why not make LRM more like MRM? They're still long range, can fire indirectly, and are best used with a proper team and skill. Sounds more fair than fire and forget requiring no skill to me. Not say they can't work in a PUG format as I describe them. They'd work, they'd just work better with a solid team.

LRM today can be fired behind cover, but you're arguing for no change. You're not being consistent or I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

[Volthorne]

With your suggestion, people would never stop moving, because they KNOW they can dodge LRMs all day, which is worse than ECM (due to the fact that you can attempt to hit them but it will never work, which is infinitely more frustrating than simply not having the option). People would then only attempt at direct-firing LRMs, and while this is more accurate in both TT and MWO currently, you generally don't want to be in the LoS of another player, because they'll try and close on you ASAP. No, your suggestion would harm LRMs more than balance them, effectively making them less effective SRMs with a minimum range and non of the benefits of being pseudo-MRMs.

Also, MRMs have no tracking hardware and are essentially ER-SRMs.

As for LRMs being "fire and forget": you wish. The person firing LRMs must maintain lock, and their reticules may NOT leave the target box, otherwise the missiles revert to dumbfire and fly to the target's last known location. LRM support is a dedicated role, and must pick between giving support or self-defence if threatened.

Edited by Volthorne, 23 January 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[focuspark]

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

With your suggestion, people would never stop moving, because they KNOW they can dodge LRMs all day, which is worse than ECM (due to the fact that you can attempt to hit them but it will never work, which is infinitely more frustrating than simply not having the option). People would then only attempt at direct-firing LRMs, and while this is more accurate in both TT and MWO currently, you generally don't want to be in the LoS of another player, because they'll try and close on you ASAP. No, your suggestion would harm LRMs more than balance them, effectively making them less effective SRMs with a minimum range.

To some degree I do agree with you, but it's hard to know without being able to actually test it out. I believe if the missile speed is fast enough, this solution works and works well.

[Volthorne]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

To some degree I do agree with you, but it's hard to know without being able to actually test it out. I believe if the missile speed is fast enough, this solution works and works well.

You'd have to triple their flight speed to make it even remotely viable, and then you start getting cries of "OP" from players, and they'd be right, regardless of how it measures up to other weapons of similar calibre.

[focuspark]

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

You'd have to triple their flight speed to make it even remotely viable, and then you start getting cries of &quot;OP&quot; from players, and they'd be right, regardless of how it measures up to other weapons of similar calibre.

I'm suggesting that they're 5x as fast which is still only 55% the velocity of an AC/20 round, hardly OP.

Edited by focuspark, 23 January 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Volthorne]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

I'm suggesting that they're 5x as fast which is still only 55% the velocity of an AC/20 round, hardly OP.

Now think of someone with a massive quantity of LRM-20s onboard firing them all at once (such as a Stalker with 4x20s). Under the current system they're bad enough, but at x5 speed? "OP OP OP" is all you'd hear.

[Evax]

Just change the ECM to the light mechs that dont have Missle hard points. The atlas is so slow that if you stay close too long and get killed by streaks thats your fault.

As far as lights go, no one complains about the spider or the Cada, it is mostly Raven and commando hate. You cant lock on them they have nothing that locks on to you. Now with some improved net code hit box stuff.....EVEN.

It also may go along way to get the voip in game so the crying pugs can at least call for help when an ECM is circleing them.

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

Yes, similar to MRM (had to look that up).

Then they are MRMs, and not LRMs. You'll come with another crazy core mechanic change when we get MRMs ?

Quote

Since all mechs already have C3i, why not make LRM more like MRM?

What ?
Can't see any link between C3 and MRMs here.

Quote

They're still long range, can fire indirectly, and are best used with a proper team and skill.

You DO understand we've got free C3 because all Mechs have radio links that we CAN'T emule any other way in a GAME than making a graphical C3 ??
And what make you think MRMs are indirect fire weapons ? We don't have them. And they're not long range. Theyre medium range. Because they're dumbfire.

Quote

Sounds more fair than fire and forget requiring no skill to me.

LRMs aren't fire and forget missiles. What game are you at playing with your CAT ?

And you're again bringing this **** about no-skill missiles. YOU THINK ECM ARE SKILL THINGS ?

Quote

Not say they can't work in a PUG format as I describe them. They'd work, they'd just work better with a solid team.

No they won't, And we're not playing curling, attacks that need two mechs to work (not to be effective, to work) are just stupid.

Quote

LRM today can be fired behind cover, but you're arguing for no change. You're not being consistent or I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

Yes I think you're not understanding everything. LRMs are indirect fire capable locking projectiles. If they're not indirect fire capable, and not tracking, they're not LRMs anymore. You basically want them to be something entirely else.

Quote

I'm suggesting that they're 5x as fast which is still only 55% the velocity of an AC/20 round, hardly OP.

Then try to it a 1000m away moving target with an AC20.

[focuspark]

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Now think of someone with a massive quantity of LRM-20s onboard firing them all at once (such as a Stalker with 4x20s). Under the current system they're bad enough, but at x5 speed? &quot;OP OP OP&quot; is all you'd hear.

Except that since the missiles aren't guided the not OP. They're slightly less powerful than they are now.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Then they are MRMs, and not LRMs. You'll come with another crazy core mechanic change when we get MRMs ?

MRM are just LRM with less max and min range. I don't see the problem.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

What ?
Can't see any link between C3 and MRMs here.

The point is, if we already effectively have C3i why not MRM usability in LRM?

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

You DO understand we've got free C3 because all Mechs have radio links that we CAN'T emule any other way in a GAME than making a graphical C3 ??
And what make you think MRMs are indirect fire weapons ? We don't have them. And they're not long range. Theyre medium range. Because they're dumbfire.

Yes. MRM aren't completely dumbfire, they do arc to a specified range, very similar to LRM. At least the write up I found suggested they do. Maybe you have a Technical Manual I can borrow or something - I could be wrong here - doesn't matter. I really don't care about MRM, I'm just looking for a solution to LRM and what we have isn't it.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

LRMs aren't fire and forget missiles. What game are you at playing with your CAT ?

And you're again bringing this **** about no-skill missiles. YOU THINK ECM ARE SKILL THINGS ?

LRM are incredibly fire and forget. Lock on, fire. So long as you lock doesn't break you can shoot things locally with no problem.

ECM is a huge problem... have you forgotten what we're talking about here?

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

No they won't, And we're not playing curling, attacks that need two mechs to work (not to be effective, to work) are just stupid.

But that's how LRM indirect fire works today and you said you like it how it is.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Yes I think you're not understanding everything. LRMs are indirect fire capable locking projectiles. If they're not indirect fire capable, and not tracking, they're not LRMs anymore. You basically want them to be something entirely else.

But they're not lock on in any of the write ups about them. Their ability to hit is based on pilot skill, MW:O LRM are based no skill - just lock on.

Amarius, on 23 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Then try to it a 1000m away moving target with an AC20.

I'd love to, but the AC/20 won't reach.