452 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 February 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

SNIP tons of intelligent, well worded stuff

Dead on.

Fixing a communication problem is what I do for a living. If an employee in your business says or does something stupid to a client I'm the guy who gets to fix the business relationships back up.

At one time I worked in the gaming industry but that was a while ago so I'm vaguely familiar with it but not the F2P business model. I'm not sure it's going to work the same as what you or I are used to for dealing with consumers. In a way it's a lot more ruthless and the value of new players is quite possibly far less important than it is for most models.

Consumers are always hungry for data but can't be trusted with handling it in my experience. They twist it, blow it out of proportion, often attempt to use it in the worst possible light.

I would absolutely agree with your take on communication though. The largest part of my job is just petting people, telling them that they are pretty and no no we're still friends and they're the prettiest princess we work with and no we absolutely value your business. There are a lot of ways to express that but it's kinda the gist of it.

What concerns me about ECM/missile balance isn't that it's game-breaking. It's that it's skewed and effectively introduces two relatively OPed aspects that need to be balanced or the whole match goes a bit askew. Fixing it by adding more complex counters and counter-counters just exacerbates the problem - it's balancing a game wide metric in a way that only a tiny percentage of users can really employ. Thus everyone else has to use kludgy work-arounds like only using ECM mechs so their side will be guaranteed of having one, dropping a laser in favor of TAG so that your sides LRM boats are not just screwed - if you happen to have any, which in pugging you usually don't. You just all accept that you're at a disadvantage and try to muscle through and hope the other side makes a mistake.

That's not fun. It's not skill based it's luck based.

The response from PGI comes across as defensive and dismissive. I don't know how it's intended but it feels that way and it damages my calm so to speak.

Not that they have a lot of choice. There's a huge disparity in the pbase on what they want from missiles and ECM and the like and I don't think there's a happy solution. It's just irksome to be on the losing side of that equation.

I really want to be a MWO fan. I really do. I want to pour money into it and feel justified. You can't please everyone though and sometimes you just need to accept that you're part of the everyone that isn't going to get pleased.

Next question becomes 'in spite of the ECM/missile balance will you still play'. That's going to depend more on X3:Rebirth, Star Citizen, Limit Theory et all more than any other MWO feature I guess.

[Fate 6]

Eddrick, on 14 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

This was me. It just happened earlier. I stopped near the end of WothLK. Because, the classes were becoming to much alike. I was very bothered by the reduction of choices in Cata and infuriated by the almost none existence of character customization. I have not even bothered looking back.

I have one game that I keep going back to. Ragnarok Online. Mostly, because you have complete controle over character growth. Simlar to, Diablo 2.

You'd probably like PoE. It's already amazingly fun, and it's not even done yet.

EDIT: And I must say that I quit D3 but stayed on the forums for a couple weeks hoping that maybe something good would happen. Hopped back on the forums a week ago, still no PvP in the game (a feature I was promised, which is why I bought the damn game), left for good.

Edited by Fate 6, 14 February 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

I would absolutely agree with your take on communication though. The largest part of my job is just petting people, telling them that they are pretty and no no we're still friends and they're the prettiest princess we work with and no we absolutely value your business. There are a lot of ways to express that but it's kinda the gist of it.

LOL that made me laugh - probably because I hear myself say the same thing every other day while trying to make them realise they might be wrong but letting them come to that conclusion themself.

Mind you - I have been proven wrong by my customers too and have had to tell my own business they are doing it WRONG WRONG WRONG. Hell today I am putting a carefully worded letter to a senior manager explaining that and am requesting a heap more money to do focus groups because we DONT know enough.

Knowing when you are wrong and having the humility to accept that has already got me more business relationships that want to help in any way they can than pretending we know better and being combative.

[Hekalite]

Garth Erlam, on 14 February 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Notice what? Any negative poll will receive more votes - people don't leave the game to come on the forums to tell us they don't mind a feature. Why would they?

I am constantly left with the impression that you would really rather post "just suck it up" on the matter of ECM. And Paul just flat out locked a topic after saying basically "I already told you I'm not going to comment on that until I feel like it." Both of your posts on the subject of ECM make it really hard not to just fly into a blind rage.

You ask for patience, but you give us no hope that anything significant will be changed. There is plenty of constructive criticism floating around. Why not offer some form of response to the many coherent objections to ECM in it's current state?

[BlackSquirrel]

The bubble IMO is what needs to go...least on the base 1.5 version. If say a 5 ton version was added that has that effect... I'd be ok with it.

[CDLord HHGD]

Since they have ECM doing the job of 5 pieces of equipment (GECM, AECM, NS) and if they aren't going to split them up, then I say make ECM weight 4.5 tons and take up 6 slots.

[MischiefSC]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

LOL that made me laugh - probably because I hear myself say the same thing every other day while trying to make them realise they might be wrong but letting them come to that conclusion themself.

Mind you - I have been proven wrong by my customers too and have had to tell my own business they are doing it WRONG WRONG WRONG. Hell today I am putting a carefully worded letter to a senior manager explaining that and am requesting a heap more money to do focus groups because we DONT know enough.

Knowing when you are wrong and having the humility to accept that has already got me more business relationships that want to help in any way they can than pretending we know better and being combative.

We're all wrong sometimes. I'm wrong often. I don't promise that I won't make mistakes but I do try to make good on them.

Perhaps ECM isn't wrong though, based on the business model.

Here's the thing about the current F2P model of MWO. It's a steep buy-in that's going to draw in your top few percent of spenders. These are people who are investing and I would wager statistically more likely to be parts of organized teams either now or the future. Everyone else is just content for these guys to play with. You're providing the other players an F2P environment specifically so that 90-some percent of the people in the game are creating content (read that as targets) for the remaining tiny percent. Team members that don't up-convert into paying subs are still creating richer content than non-team F2P subs in terms of their impact on your prime customers.

So it doesn't matter if F2P pugs hate ECM. So long as you're churning less than you're onboarding you're still generating content for the people who are actually paying subs.

Make sense? That's what I meant about it not being a model I'm familiar with. You don't need to make F2P be fun, just fun enough to shake the wheat from the chaff so to speak. You make the challenges driven to motivate those who would join teams anyway to invest and join teams. Everyone really can just quit - eventually. After they've been replaced by another F2P sub.

Does that make sense? Hence the nature of the responses. Even if I spend money to buy MC if I'm not joining a team and providing richer content for the core prime subs I'm an outlier, an exception and not the rule. I'm only a minor value-add customer If I churn out they've still got more money if I spent any than if I didn't but when they're projecting revenue it's off their prime subs not people like me.

So it would indicate, at least to my absolutely ignorant of the facts perspective it's important to say, that the business model truly is a 'join a team, buy MC or **** you deadbeat' sort.

Which is fair. They need to make money or they're not a business they're a charity. Their significant others deserve roses on Valentines Day and those are not cheap. Baby needs a new pair of shoes and a G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip.

The pricing model though indicates doubling down on a core segment. The rest of us are just content generation for them.

[ollo]

ECM really gets on my nerves, or more the imbalances connected to it...

• Drop in a low ECM game and get a couple kills or drop in a ECM heavy game and get 100dmg
  
• Drop with 4 ECMs on team and have an easy win button or drop against them and don't have a chance
  
• Have a non-ECM raven circle you and kick his *** or have an ECM raven circle you and die horribly

PGI has the data, it would be interesting to see stats on the outcome of games ordered by X ECM vs. 8 ECM, X ECM vs. 7 ECM and so on for damage dealt, kills/deaths etc., but i guess we all know how it would look like. I have never seen a losing game on the team which has 3+ more ECM than the other.

Also i don't get why PGI chose to cripple it's upgrade options by essentially hammering angel ECM and NSS into the guardian. It just doesn't make sense.

[Livewyr]

PGI needs to release a tutorial video on how to deal with ECM, and one for how to deal with LRMs..

People can't seem to figure it out.

[Tombstoner]

852 people voteing and not in favor of the current implementation of ECM is winning.
I think nothing will come of this pole because some one will simply say it only represents a very small portion of the gaming community. The ones who play, visit and partake of the forums.
that's not representative of the "whole" community. we are not going to listen to the forum community and go with our best guess as to why the non forum poster is leaving the game. we have no other information but forum posters to go on....

Your right we don't have access to average retention numbers and how much income your generating. you could be very happy with the state of things and consider ECM fine. We (forum users) don't have access to your level of information, but i can only tell you that
my expectations for this game are drifting lower and lower in parallel to my play time. If you cant keep a legendary founder 30+ year BT fan interested in your game how are you going to keep the person who thinks ill give this a try.... this person is what your really focused on and not us.
this as you have stated in the past is what keeps you awake at night. not the displeased BT fan
or forum poster.

The aftermath of ECM is true only if you think the current system in place is what will go live.
if it is then god help this game.

[MischiefSC]

Livewyr, on 14 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

PGI needs to release a tutorial video on how to deal with ECM, and one for how to deal with LRMs..

People can't seem to figure it out.

No. People get it. They just don't like it. I have two, technically 3 ECM mechs. I've played 9 non-ECM mechs. I rarely die to LRMs. Most people would say the same. You could release clan ERPPCs with 15 damage and less heat and weight and people would learn to deal with it. That wouldn't make it balanced.

[Asmudius Heng]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Perhaps ECM isn't wrong though, based on the business model.

I totally get you and you are probably right. However this is a kind of mathematical way of looking at the longevity of the game and there are other factors to consider such as word of mouth advertising.

If you chew up players and spit them out those players will communicate the experience which might discourage new players. A game can limit it's success if it treats even it's F2P players badly.

ELO - if you get more people in onthe bottom level but they thin out, the top level becomes more sparce as people leave out of frustration if things are not balanced. The top level can become a boys club of few players and teams whi will start to feel they have some ownership of the end game - more abuse on forums incoming.

High level competition - Those end game people want a fun and balanced game too. If things become too unbalanced and certain tactics become a norm then people start looking for other challnges and other games.

The Battletech franchise - This one worries me. In frequent interviews hey have said that MWT and MWO are key peices designed to invigorate the BT brand. I love this because i love BT silliness and all. However, the more they stray from the original premise, and the more BT veternas they annoy, the less people will become enmeshed by the BT lore in general. I think MWT is doing a better job of it to be onest - though it is easier for them since it is a turn based game. However, they have a certain responsibility to the brand that a RUTHLESS F2P model might cause harm to.

I think they can have thier cake and eat it too, all it requires is to make the game more fun with better balance. I think they will get mroe paying converting customers that way than using it as a meat grinder as you sem to propose - unless i read you wrong

[Orzorn]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Star Citizen

I like you.

That game has such intense promise. I'm glad I got my package when I did.

[Orzorn]

Livewyr, on 14 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

PGI needs to release a tutorial video on how to deal with ECM, and one for how to deal with LRMs..

People can't seem to figure it out.

See, that's just it. I figured it out, and it involved never, ever using any of the pieces of equipment or weapon systems that ECM counters. Why would you put on rubber soled shoes and then run through a pile of nails? You're intentionally exposing yourself.

If I have line of sight to get a TAG laser on target, I have the line of sight to blast a guy with gauss and PPCs.

I really can't wrap my head around it when people claim that ECM promotes game variety. I really do not see that. It seems some people misdirect their dislike for missiles as support for ECM. But if missiles were too strong before, they're still too strong, just behind a veneer that is ECM. Witness the Raven 3L for all the fun that streaks still provide. ECM mostly kills LRM play at lower and middle uses of LRMs. That is, just using them as a secondary or even tertiary weapon. Primary LRM users can still play with liberal application of TAG lasers or just good dumb firing, as frustrating as it can be. But people who uses LRMs as supporting weapons, such as the Centurion or Dragon? No reason to bother, especially with how powerful SRMs are.

ECM's effect on the metagame might as well be its worst part. ECM could never appear in a match and still be causing problems, because not a single mech, literally not one, of my mechs uses LRMs. In fact, until recently, nobody in my merc corp used them either. It wasn't worth bothering with. When there is the threat of ECM randomly appearing on the enemy team, it creates a tension that you can never break. If I bring LRMs, I might play several games without seeing ECM, but as soon as I do it will wreck my build. That's why some folks in this thread have been talking about "random chance" determining outcome. I can't tell when ECM will be on the enemy team, so taking a lock-on missile using mech (boat or not) is just me rolling the dice.

Edited by Orzorn, 14 February 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[ArmandTulsen]

The poll results are quite telling.

[MischiefSC]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 February 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I totally get you and you are probably right. However this is a kind of mathematical way of looking at the longevity of the game and there are other factors to consider such as word of mouth advertising.

No, you get it right. I hope I'm mistaken but the problem is that somewhere along the line someone wrote a business case to get capitalized be it through loan or venture. They had to then say how they were going to make that money back. You can adjust that on the fly of course but the reality is that your business needs to be pointed at making a profit or you're not really a business.

That business case or model though doesn't need to be focused on 'down the road', the assumption is always that you'll just figure that part out as you get closer to it. Pricing indicates however that the focus is on a small number of high spenders - which seems to fit into the F2P cost/return metrics you can find on the web. A small number of people pay a disproportionate amount of money. The micro-transaction model only works if you don't have a small that's only 1/100th the size but willing to spend 150 times as much per consumer if that's what they have to do.

I don't know though. I truly don't. Just making assumptions here based on what data is available.

Orzorn, on 14 February 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

I like you.

That game has such intense promise. I'm glad I got my package when I did.

I love SC with a deep and abiding passion and I believe that it has the potential to change the gaming industry. Persistent universe plus private servers with full support, modding... no subscription? All by Chris freaking Roberts? Star Citizen isn't ground-breaking, it's terraforming.

Orzorn, on 14 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

See, that's just it. I figured it out, and it involved never, ever using any of the pieces of equipment or weapon systems that ECM counters. Why would you put on rubber soled shoes and then run through a pile of nails? You're intentionally exposing yourself.

Exactly. Quoted for truth. If you're not part of a premade team with a purposeful tactical build you're best off just cutting a huge part of the games options and potentials off your list and playing it direct fire, sniper or brawler and learning to avoid LRMs regardless of ECM. Most don't even care if a mech on their team has it anymore - you can't count on it. It's not reliable. You only have to get shafted 1 game in 10 because of your teams mech loadout to learn to never count on or plan around it again.

[Orzorn]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Exactly. Quoted for truth. If you're not part of a premade team with a purposeful tactical build you're best off just cutting a huge part of the games options and potentials off your list and playing it direct fire, sniper or brawler and learning to avoid LRMs regardless of ECM. Most don't even care if a mech on their team has it anymore - you can't count on it. It's not reliable. You only have to get shafted 1 game in 10 because of your teams mech loadout to learn to never count on or plan around it again.

That's part of why this issue isn't just about ECM. I think its telling that LRMs are not nearly as reliable once they lose their lock. And it all comes down to one number: 100 m/s. Their speed is pathetic. Their maximum range in the TT (and indeed, in closed beta for a while) was 630 meters. At current speed, it takes 6.3 seconds to get that distance. That is ridiculously slow. Yet LRMs, before ECM, were hated for their intense damage. Its been altered a bit since then, but 1.8 is still 38 damage in an LRM 20. A boating mech hits you hard enough to kill you instantly, regardless of any AMS around.

AMS also needs looking at. A pathetic 1.8 missiles are destroyed if you aren't moving, meaning, at best, you'll destroy 2 missiles. It punishes small missile counts, but does effectively nothing against large missile counts, and yet here we have ECM doing AMS' job so well that you see games where LRMs literally do not appear on any mech.

On the other side, we have SSRMs, which are too effective. You can get an maintain a lock easily and fire with impunity. ECM creates an exclusivity field, where the Ravens and Commandos frolic. And then we're back to ECM removing variety, rather than adding it. So this ECM on only 2 lights combined with SSRMs being as effective as they are makes those two varients particularly worth taking, and devalues other variants. I'm sure you've attempted playing non-ECM lights, yes? I'm sure you saw very quickly just how hard you have to play to survive that kind of environment. ECM being exclusive to particular models is fine, but when SSRMs are cut off like that, as well as being as strong as they are, you enter into a dangerous scenario where not only do you have mechs with one of the best light killer weapons in the game, they're also the only two light mechs that can mount the counter to that weapon, and thus, they also hold the key to countering the counter (that is, the key to using SSRMs). Go ahead and try to use SSRMs on any mech without ECM. Count the games you were able to fire them and get a kill vs the games were you didn't fire them at a target a single time.

I think what gets people so confused, angry, and confrontational about this issue is they do not understand, or perhaps, do not see, all the issues. This isn't black and white. Its a spectrum of issues that have stacked up, morphed through patches, and finally reached critical mass. Before we had ECM+Streaks+Lagshields, now its down to ECM+Streaks.

Even worse, when I try to think of solutions, I'm confronted with the issues with the game mechanics that limit it. For example, for a long time now I've been suggesting that the lock-on box for SSRMs be restricted to be smaller. Then I had a sudden realization today: SSRMs and LRMs share the exact same lock-on box and reticule. If PGI attempted to lower the lock-on box for SSRMs, you would see odd behavior when mixing LRMs (with their larger box) and SSRMs (with their smaller box). Then they'd have to implement two different lock reticules that looked different so that you knew which weapon systems had locks or not. They may not even be able to separate out locks like that right now with their implementation. Its disconcerting that potential solutions can be limited so heavily by the game mechanics like that, just as how ECM is able to counter radar in the TT double blind rules, yet implementing that in MWO, due to the need of LRMs to use radar to get a lock, causes the side effect that we can not lock missiles, when that was never the case in the TT.

Truly it is a web of issues.

[Drenzul]

Garth Erlam, on 14 February 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Notice what? Any negative poll will receive more votes - people don't leave the game to come on the forums to tell us they don't mind a feature. Why would they?

I'm sorry but what?
While I agree there may be SOME negative sway, thats going to be at a max 10%, this is a MUCH larger swing.

Lets look at all the other metrics you can look at:

% of variants played (ECM vs non-ECM varients)

Total ECM mechs vs non-ECM mechs fielded, then divide both by the total number of variants of that type.
If ECM was balanced the numbers should come out fairly equal, I'll guarantee you the numbers for ECM will be at least double that for non-ECM. The numbers will be even worse if you just look at 8v8s where people go even more for the OP builds rather than 'joke' or leveling builds.

If ALL this data isn't giving the Devs a clue that there is a problem with ECM, well then they need to go back to Dev school..... because they aren't helping the game, as it stands it neither fits Balance nor Lore so is doing a really bad job.

[MischiefSC]

Orzorn, on 14 February 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

SNIP tons of good stuff

See, it's validating to speak with someone else who gets it.

My recommendation?

LRMs down to 1.3 but drastically faster, lock faster, lock lasts a bit longer. Remember armor is still doubled. Half the travel time would be good because the other allied missile buffs are helpful...

ECM doesn't counter radar but does slow missile locking within radius. It also makes SSRMs fire like SRMs. It also blocks NARC, TAG and BAP.

AMS works the same.

NARC makes you show up on all allied reticules as a yellow target and lasts for minutes regardless of LOS. Get stuck with a NARC and every enemy with missiles is going to be tempted to shoot you. LRMs cluster better against you. Suddenly you need to hide under cover or near ECM.

TAG gives a bonus to missile concentration for all allied LRMs fired at you, lasts for several seconds after LOS break. Makes you show up with a flashing red marker to allied radar.

BAP works through walls out to 120m in addition to current effects. In cities or by the crater this would have a ton of uses. All enemies with 120m of you show up on all allied radar, not just the one you're targeting.

Lower damage output means boating isn't as viable but loading them up in place of SRMs when you know you're likely to soften targets at range with them helps. One guy with BAP, TAG and NARC on the field when half the mechs are likely to have some LRMs is suddenly a valued build.

XP bonus for NARCing and TAGing when they're destroyed (counts as 10% of all damage done by missiles) and a 5XP bonus per enemy mech pinged with BAP when there's no LOS, max 1 bonus per mech per 5 minutes.

Module for ECM that makes your paper doll invisible. Level 2 module that makes the paperdoll of everyone within radius invisible.

Less LRM boats, wider missile deployment, wider diversity of equipment viable on any build be it team or pug.

Edited by MischiefSC, 14 February 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[Orzorn]

MischiefSC, on 14 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

See, it's validating to speak with someone else who gets it.

I'd like to think (hope) I do, but I'm willing to listen to opposing views provided they're actually willing to discuss the issues like a human being. My own corp mate, Vlad Ward, gave me a good debate, as he believes ECM isn't really that much of an issue. The difference is he actually talked it out, and I ended up agreeing with several points.

But its always easier for people to bring out the old "learn to play", when in reality its the very fact that I have learned to play around it that I'm so dissatisfied. Its like reaching the top of a mountain and still being able to see the forest for the trees.

Quote

LRMs down to 1.3 but drastically faster, lock faster, lock lasts a bit longer. Remember armor is still doubled. Half the travel time would be good because the other allied missile buffs are helpful...

I think we're both moving towards similar solutions, although I'm not sure about 1.3 damage. We'd have to see about that. My suggestion so far has been reserved; 1.7 damage with increased travel speed (150 m/s should be nice).

Quote

ECM doesn't counter radar but does slow missile locking within radius. It also makes SSRMs fire like SRMs. It also blocks NARC, TAG and BAP.

I think SSRMs should just fire like SSRMs.

Another solution I would be willing to compromise with would be ECM still stopping LRMs (I wouldn't like it, but I did say it was a compromise), but TAG would work within ECM range (for you, not for allies. This means if an ECM user gets in your face and you're using LRMs, you can still TAG mechs and get locks. Currently, you would not be able to do such a thing), and SSRMs could still lock in ECM range.

Quote

AMS works the same.

I think AMS needs a bit of help, but I'm not too sure how to achieve that.

Quote

NARC makes you show up on all allied reticules as a yellow target and lasts for minutes regardless of LOS. Get stuck with a NARC and every enemy with missiles is going to be tempted to shoot you. LRMs cluster better against you. Suddenly you need to hide under cover or near ECM.

I would agree with lasting for minutes, but about 20 seconds, as it is now, would be nice if it worked as I am suggesting; NARC would reveal your position on the map (unless you went under ECM) and people could target you without LoS, and even attain missile locks. Getting NARC'd with LRM users on the other team would be very scary, but isn't it only fair to reward the NARC mounting mech for having such a large and difficult to wield piece of equipment, let alone one that gets countered by ECM?

Quote

TAG gives a bonus to missile concentration for all allied LRMs fired at you, lasts for several seconds after LOS break. Makes you show up with a flashing red marker to allied radar.

Sounds good to me. TAG should also, as I said above, work under ECM for you, but not for allies. The logic behind this is that you can't transmit that data over networks to your allies because of the ECM field, so only your own mech can use it.

Quote

BAP works through walls out to 120m in addition to current effects. In cities or by the crater this would have a ton of uses. All enemies with 120m of you show up on all allied radar, not just the one you're targeting.

Absolutely. BAP should be more useful than its rather pathetic current implementation. I've tried to use it several times and really was not impressed.

Quote

Lower damage output means boating isn't as viable but loading them up in place of SRMs when you know you're likely to soften targets at range with them helps. One guy with BAP, TAG and NARC on the field when half the mechs are likely to have some LRMs is suddenly a valued build.

So your logic for lower damage LRMs is that buffed LRM support equipment will not only pick up the slack, they will make LRMs scary if used all together? I can see the idea behind that.

Quote

XP bonus for NARCing and TAGing when they're destroyed (counts as 10% of all damage done by missiles) and a 5XP bonus per enemy mech pinged with BAP when there's no LOS, max 1 bonus per mech per 5 minutes.

Sounds good. It takes a lot of effort to keep a mech TAG'd, and would take even more to keep them NARC'd.

Quote

Module for ECM that makes your paper doll invisible. Level 2 module that makes the paperdoll of everyone within radius invisible.

Sounds good. Also, I think a reduced power ECM should gain the ability to create one ghost mech. Several ECM's working in tandem could create a veritable lance of ghosts, although BAP would see through the ruse.


"Less LRM boats, wider missile deployment, wider diversity of equipment viable on any build be it team or pug."

Much agreement. Part of my disdain for the current level of the game is that its boat missiles or go home. Using a single LRM 10 or 15 is pretty much a crapshoot because those weapons are so slow. You have to put a lot of effort just to get a single salvo to hit, when I could just use SRMs and land way more hits, or just cut out the LRM altogether and put larger direct fire weapons, which I know will hit. Why bother dealing with 100 m/s molasses?

I really hope Paul at least reads some of this.

Edits: Sorry, the system seems to have ran out of quotes, so that last bolded line was the last quote I had from you.

Edited by Orzorn, 14 February 2013 - 05:06 PM.