52 replies to this topic

[Aim64C]

Enough forum chatter and -talking- about what happened in certain games... the behavior we -think- we saw.

I've recorded six of my matches (actually, more - I have some back from when it was the "lurmageddon" if you all are interested... at least... I think I still have some from back then...) - from drop to score tally - and uploaded them to Youtube for your all's enjoyment.

You can laugh when I run into buildings like a Noob, cheer when I get a telephone pole shoved up my ******, and giggle when I shoot at things I shouldn't.

Moreover - what I wanted to capture was the perspective of playing as LRMs in the current environment. For what it is. You can see where the numbers at the end of the game come from (or don't) - rather than us sitting here, arguing over the factors that may or may not have contributed to each match.

Yes - I do play music in the background when I play.

And... well - I'm still trying to get them to play at something greater than 480... I'm a bit new to this whole "youtube" thing. Darned kids and your transistor radios...

Video one:



Two:



You get the idea:









Don't forget to follow the nice lady's instructions.

[Trauglodyte]

I'm watching your vids now. Without having any comments, I'm just appreciative of you posting them. Call me a dork, but I've always enjoyed the work that people put forth even if I'm on the bad end of said work.

[Aim64C]

Trauglodyte, on 02 June 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

I'm watching your vids now. Without having any comments, I'm just appreciative of you posting them. Call me a dork, but I've always enjoyed the work that people put forth even if I'm on the bad end of said work.

It's rare that people actually post videos of things that can be used to get some kind of idea of what their experience is.

Everyone likes to talk about how one weapon system or another is overpowered... yet we are lucky to see end-of-game screenshots on these issues.

The raw numbers do tell a story... but they only tell part of the story... and it can be easy to draw misguided conclusions from those data.

[Ningyo]

Hmm got through 2 (my connection loads them really slow lol) and have to say your play style is very different than mine, more similar to how I run my Cicada Sniper. Too be fair my LRM boat I am testing with is a 45kph Highlander so thats probably a lot of it. You do seem to switch targets far more often than me, I tend to fire 2-4 salvos into most mechs I get a decent lock on which seems to core or kill many.

I tend to kill Assaults and heavies very well, but lights and mediums it almost seems not worth firing at in most cases for me.

[Demuder]

Ningyo, on 02 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Hmm got through 2 (my connection loads them really slow lol) and have to say your play style is very different than mine, more similar to how I run my Cicada Sniper. Too be fair my LRM boat I am testing with is a 45kph Highlander so thats probably a lot of it. You do seem to switch targets far more often than me, I tend to fire 2-4 salvos into most mechs I get a decent lock on which seems to core or kill many.

I tend to kill Assaults and heavies very well, but lights and mediums it almost seems not worth firing at in most cases for me.

Yes, I have noticed that Highlander or Atlas LRMs have a different playstyle than Catapults when they lob their payload on me. Damned Highlanders will not let go !

[Aim64C]

Ningyo, on 02 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Hmm got through 2 (my connection loads them really slow lol) and have to say your play style is very different than mine, more similar to how I run my Cicada Sniper. Too be fair my LRM boat I am testing with is a 45kph Highlander so thats probably a lot of it. You do seem to switch targets far more often than me, I tend to fire 2-4 salvos into most mechs I get a decent lock on which seems to core or kill many.

I tend to kill Assaults and heavies very well, but lights and mediums it almost seems not worth firing at in most cases for me.

dimstog, on 03 June 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

Yes, I have noticed that Highlander or Atlas LRMs have a different playstyle than Catapults when they lob their payload on me. Damned Highlanders will not let go !

That could explain some of the stupidly contradictory reports we are getting on the forums, if the various chassis actually generate different "cluster rolls."

Because I've no idea how you core anything with 2-4 salvos with LRMs, these days. With the kind of damage missiles do today, that implies very tight clustering or is reminiscent of the days when splash damage was causing all kinds of mayhem.

I could core some things in 3-6 40rnd salvos back when I started playing around January (before PGI decided to 'fix' missiles... or whatever their hope was with that) - Cataphracts were particularly fragile in this regard... most builds were three hits flat unless they applied torso twist.

[Demuder]

Aim64C, on 03 June 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

That could explain some of the stupidly contradictory reports we are getting on the forums, if the various chassis actually generate different "cluster rolls."

Because I've no idea how you core anything with 2-4 salvos with LRMs, these days. With the kind of damage missiles do today, that implies very tight clustering or is reminiscent of the days when splash damage was causing all kinds of mayhem.

I could core some things in 3-6 40rnd salvos back when I started playing around January (before PGI decided to 'fix' missiles... or whatever their hope was with that) - Cataphracts were particularly fragile in this regard... most builds were three hits flat unless they applied torso twist.

Well, tbh, I don't think mounting 80 missile salvos on 40 tube mechs does anything to enhance their effectiveness, quite the opposite and if it did, it would definitely be wrong and would need fixing.

What's more, when you try to close the distance with an LRM Highlander or Atlas they are much more prone to stand their ground and use their secondary weapons on you, thus firing a couple of more perfect LOS salvos on you. Catapults and Trebuchets and even Stalkers on the other hand try to avoid you, thus losing LOS more easily and generally they try to keep at the edge of their effective range.

Generally mixed builds I find tougher to crack. I don't know if it's because their pilots are more experienced and simply don't want to play with boring cheesy boats or because mixed builds are plainly more effective - as they should be anyway imho.

[Ningyo]

Well its not that the missiles spread differently we were talking about maintaining the same target for 3-4 volleys (you do sometimes but less often (I think mostly due to your faster movement speed as you rush around the battlefield)

As to the coring in 3-4 volleys I do have this happen alot, on the other hand yesterday I had a perfect view of a slowly moving Misery (slow even for that mech might have been going 15 kph) at maybe 250-350 range, and fired SIX volleys of 70 missiles into it 420 missiles. On screen they all or near all hit (massive explosions on top of it none on ground around it). It barely turned yellow and at end of match I had a total of 110 damage (I had fired salvos that retained target till hit at least 4 other times on other mechs too, and got at least 12-15 damage with my medium laser before I died.

So yes I have seen that issue occurring like you are.

[Aim64C]

dimstog, on 03 June 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

Well, tbh, I don't think mounting 80 missile salvos on 40 tube mechs does anything to enhance their effectiveness, quite the opposite and if it did, it would definitely be wrong and would need fixing.

I was talking more about 20 round launchers into 5-tube mounts - where perhaps a smaller number of missiles in each 'swarm' tend to cluster tighter together for whatever random coding reason.

Quote

What's more, when you try to close the distance with an LRM Highlander or Atlas they are much more prone to stand their ground and use their secondary weapons on you, thus firing a couple of more perfect LOS salvos on you. Catapults and Trebuchets and even Stalkers on the other hand try to avoid you, thus losing LOS more easily and generally they try to keep at the edge of their effective range.

I tend to play a little differently between my C1 and C4. The C1 I have backed up with medium pulse lasers (decided to go with those to help in dealing with lights a little easier - even though I lose 4 tons that... I guess I'd put into Ammo or AMS?) - so I'd slam a few volleys of LRM15s into something, then clip or core with the medium pulse lasers.

I loved stalkers and LRM awesomes. I'd sprint serpentine at them, laughing as their missiles rounded to either side of me while all of my missiles are dead-on with Artemis. Usually about 4 volleys and two servings of 4 medium pulse lasers fixed their little red wagon until their next drop.

The same with an Atlas. Those things were points on legs unless they were bristling with direct fire (even then - those were the days before host-state rewind - a lot of the perceived problems with 'overpowered' LRMs were because projectile and beam weapons were simply not hitting when they justifiably should have - which made LRMs the only decent medium to long range fire option).

In my C4 - I have to skirt the battles a little more. But, again, back when LRMs were more effective - you could push a wide flank (as you often see me doing) and really screw with the enemy. You could see who was foolish enough to chase you out into the bay on River City and teach them why that was a very bad idea. You could flank around "Epsilon Ridge" on Alpine (because hardly anyone ever went wide around the radio tower or paid attention to what was going on over there) and drop a few salvos into their line and break up their formation when they sought cover or decided to try and gun you down.

Before their large lasers, gauss rifles, and PPCs were hitting like they should have - people always thought LRMs were sickly overpowered because I -could- solo 3 atlasses (unless it was a DDC with ECM... then it was just a good idea to stay the hell away from that) because they had to come out of cover, some time, if they wanted to win - and I was moving fast enough in and out of obstacles while holding lock that they were often just screwed.

That story would be different now. The role I play would come with the risks and penalties it was supposed to - but that weren't there because people were not really in control of where their weapons were hitting.

Quote

Generally mixed builds I find tougher to crack. I don't know if it's because their pilots are more experienced and simply don't want to play with boring cheesy boats or because mixed builds are plainly more effective - as they should be anyway imho.

Mixed builds are harder to find on maps these days.

You'll run into a few of them - but there's a lot of min-maxing going on, these days, and a lot of it is centered around the long ranged direct fire weapons (because host state rewind now works). Even if you were to put missile damage back to 1.8 points of damage (which I do think is a bit too high given current missile dynamics) - you would still see a lot of people going with the sniper-boat options simply out of preference or because they can compete with those builds (you would probably just see a lot of people drop their Stalker for a Highlander, since it could jump from behind cover and drop back into it).

Ningyo, on 03 June 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Well its not that the missiles spread differently we were talking about maintaining the same target for 3-4 volleys (you do sometimes but less often (I think mostly due to your faster movement speed as you rush around the battlefield)

Even when I can put 3-4 volleys on a single target - I'm lucky if his armor is orange afterward.

Part of it is that I was running against far less organized teams on late-night games. The atmosphere of the games changes depending upon what time you play at. I'd have been eaten alive by snipers if I were playing at 6 in the evening instead of 4 in the morning - and I would have had to adjust my play style, accordingly.

Though I noticed I was getting far more 'resource' missions using my Catapult than when I was using my Jenner - which tended to net me far more 'kill **** or **** everyone off by capturing' missions during prime hours. But that could just be a fluke or me recalling things that seemed abnormal as opposed to routine.

I do dump a lot of locks intentionally, though. It's something of an instinct - I'll occasionally fire before I really took in all the information in front of me - and I'll realize that my contact is going to drop or that my missiles will likely hit an obstacle (particularly on maps like Caustic - where someone drops behind a ridge... though some of this is habits from before the change in flight behavior of missiles - which is a higher arc and a steeper drop than before... so I'll need to re-learn) - so I dump the lock and cycle through targets.

I'm also looking for targets that are near my allies that have too much armor, tonnage, or weaponry to be safe for my allies to take in a brawl. So I'll start dropping missiles on them (even if I'm not certain I'll be making a hit). My first salvo is usually a pilot salvo - if my cursor turns red when I expect them to hit, and I get damage reports on the paper doll - I'll spam salvos until I realize a change, my lock drops, or I see that it's no longer sensible for me to drop missiles into that target (unless I feel I need the kill).

Quote

As to the coring in 3-4 volleys I do have this happen alot, on the other hand yesterday I had a perfect view of a slowly moving Misery (slow even for that mech might have been going 15 kph) at maybe 250-350 range, and fired SIX volleys of 70 missiles into it 420 missiles. On screen they all or near all hit (massive explosions on top of it none on ground around it). It barely turned yellow and at end of match I had a total of 110 damage (I had fired salvos that retained target till hit at least 4 other times on other mechs too, and got at least 12-15 damage with my medium laser before I died.

So yes I have seen that issue occurring like you are.

And that's the worst part of it... It's very difficult for me to tell if the ... lack ... of effectiveness is just due to weird hit registry (which seems odd - because I'm topping the damage charts...) or if it's actually because missiles do too little damage.

[Vodrin Thales]

I think it is a hit registry thing that is causing at least some of the current problem with LRM's. I also sometimes wonder if artemis is behaving properly when LoS is re-acquired just prior to missile impact. I speculate on this because there are times when LRM's seem to have a decent amount of punch, and others when they hit like a wet noodle. Same is true of SRM's right now. That said I also think that LRM's could use a very slight damage buff in conjunction with an improvement in hit detection.

[Sybreed]

LRMs and SRMs aren't worth it at the moment, so I'll wait until tomorrow to play again, as most of of mechs use balanced builds.

[Kellea]

the vids (thx for uploading though I really didn't like your music...) completely confirmed what I already knew. LRM suck atm. Of course lrm shouldn't do as much concentrated damage as e.g. a gauss rifle. But you scored some direct salvos. And still you only did what my Cat does with a similar setup as well: Around 300 - 400 dmg which is far too low compared with a ppc/ac-loadout.

[Aim64C]

Kellea, on 03 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

the vids (thx for uploading though I really didn't like your music...) completely confirmed what I already knew. LRM suck atm. Of course lrm shouldn't do as much concentrated damage as e.g. a gauss rifle. But you scored some direct salvos. And still you only did what my Cat does with a similar setup as well: Around 300 - 400 dmg which is far too low compared with a ppc/ac-loadout.

I'll post some from the perspective of a Jenner pilot (maybe a BlackJack, if I feel I've got enough C-bills ground up to spare for customizing it... I, actually, want to try an 8x small pulse laser build, mostly for the lullz - but I also wonder if it will help with damage concentration, since it's applied in a much shorter time-frame), if I can get enough shots of times I've been "supported" by LRMs.

No knocking against the guy firing the missiles... they're on-target and would have been awesome if... missiles were ... you know... actually working as a support weapon.

Then I'll upload some after the missile update, as well... we'll see what kind of fun that ends up being.

"After carefully reviewing feedback about missile damage, we've decided to make LRMs air-burst tactical nuclear missiles that deal 200 points of damage to the internal structure of mechs caught at ground zero with that damage following a gaussian distribution to 5 points of damage to internal structure at 1.32158 kilometers. All mechs outside of this range simply recieve 15 points of damage from the flash. A later patch will introduce additional effects, such as all vegetation on the map simultaneously combusting and dealing heat and area damage to mechs standing in vegetation.

Careful play testing indicates that the game is now close to where we want it to be."

[Roland]

Kellea, on 03 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

the vids (thx for uploading though I really didn't like your music...) completely confirmed what I already knew. LRM suck atm. Of course lrm shouldn't do as much concentrated damage as e.g. a gauss rifle. But you scored some direct salvos. And still you only did what my Cat does with a similar setup as well: Around 300 - 400 dmg which is far too low compared with a ppc/ac-loadout.

The thing is though... a mech firing two LRM20's from outside visual range really SHOULDN'T be comparable to a mech firing direct fire weapons... because he isn't exposed to return fire.

If LRM's are as strong as direct fire weapons, then that means they are too strong... because you can do that damage without having to actually aim, and without exposing yourself to return fire.

[Aim64C]

Roland, on 03 June 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

The thing is though... a mech firing two LRM20's from outside visual range really SHOULDN'T be comparable to a mech firing direct fire weapons... because he isn't exposed to return fire.

If LRM's are as strong as direct fire weapons, then that means they are too strong... because you can do that damage without having to actually aim, and without exposing yourself to return fire.

Two questions:

1) Have you reviewed the videos?

2) Have you played consistently as a Catapult or Stalker?

The thing is that most of your damage that is displayed in a match when playing as an LRM player is distributed across 3 torso sections after a 3-8 second flight-time where a lock must be maintained. A single AMS usually knocks down about 20% of a 40 round volley, these days.

Oh, and all of that damage is distributed across the various opponents you shot at.

So, while it may look like you're some kind of beast on the field... an AC-20 jeager can strip 3 opponents from your team in about 30 seconds if he's decent and you've lost cohesion. He'll come out with about 300 damage or so - give or take.

You, on the other hand, can rack up 500 points, never once get a kill, and never once touch the internal critical spaces of a mech on the other team.

"Well why don't you focus fire?" Because he runs behind cover. Because he just killed my team-mate that I spent 30 seconds shooting missiles over open terrain to try and assist (because it should take 400 missiles to drop an Atlas, apparently) - so my lock is now gone.

Or, just maybe... because I don't like taking a shot of PPCs to the face and have to continue virtually staring at my target to maintain lock while his PPCs recycle and he fires again before my missiles hit? Think about it... in the same time it takes me to apply a theoretical maximum of 36 points of damage where I -must- maintain LOS (okay - so I can plausibly break it with advanced target decay and a bit of creativity on my part - but I lose Artemis bonuses)... he can fire two PPCs (we're going with canon builds, here) that deal 20 damage to a single point, recycle, and fire again with another point damage of 20 for 40 total.

Sounds fair, right... I mean... if my team is still alive - I don't -have- to expose myself to return fire, right? Well - only about 15% of my missiles are going to land on any one section of torso. So, I'll be doing good to deal 12 points of damage to any given segment after a flight delay and having to keep my face in the line of fire.

I'm not saying those missiles should be center-torso homing 36-point nightmares. But the fact of the matter is that you can't use them stand-alone or in a support function. Sure - you can deal damage and -steal- kills ... but you're not really able to contribute much in the way of meaningful damage to the enemy. That AC20 jeager runs through your lines and will chew through the team-mate you are supporting before you can deal any kind of meaningful damage to him... and then he's after you. Hell - he can chew through two or three team-mates before the "support" you are supposed to be providing will start to accumulate to anything meaningful.

You have a limited window to be effective for your teams with LRMs. With flight-times in effect and mechs that can tear through your allies (through their front center torso armor, mind you) in less time than it takes for your missiles to reach their supported ally... they have to hit pretty hard to be worth having on a team.

Otherwise - you live in this fanciful little world where you can maintain a clear path-to-target, a team with stable LOS on an enemy, and an enemy that just sits there and lets you rain 2 tons of ammo on his head before he has been properly "softened" for your brawling line to engage.

Or you live in this world where every enemy you engage starts at 1000 meters and has a leasurely 30 kph stroll toward you as you rain missiles at him to "soften him up" so that your brawling line can fight with him at an advantage.

When people on your team die, and you're playing support - you have to ask yourself what you could have done to protect them... because that is your job as support. You (are supposed to) have the power to change the tide of their engagement. A Hunchback finds himself in tight with an Atlas after he's tangled with a Cataphract. Its your missiles that mean the difference between him making a return to flank the enemy at your brawling line ... or dying.

That's why you can't think of support as "softening." Your job is cracking. You crack the armor and make it so that whomever you are supporting can bring down opponents efficiently with increased survivability. You are three roles in one - buffer, debuffer, and the closest thing to a healer MWO will ever have.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, missiles have an issue that, for reasons that I cannot explain, seems to sort of bewilder the devs. Currently, missiles travel at 125m/s which means that it would take 1.44s to reach a target at the shortest distance (180m) and 8s to reach a target at the max distance (1000m). Thing is, it isn't that simple because the longer the distance, the higher an arc the missiles take. If we assume a 30 degree firing angle at 1000m and therefore assuming that the distance traveled is equal to 1/2 the circumphrense, the missiles actually travel 1570m which means it takes 12.6s to reach its target at current speeds (using an actual ballistics trajectory calculation and assuming a 10m firing height, the actual distance on flat ground is 1396m with a peak height of 209m for a total travel time of 12.9s). Now, LRMs shouldn't actually be as accurate as normal weapons because they can be fired indirectly and don't require "aim". But, the slowest weapon in game is the SRM at 300m/s which means that it gets to its target at max range in less then 1s. So, in order for the LRM to be at the most effective, you really need to be within around 300-500m with clear line of sight and no terrain blocking you. The question is ultimately: Is that plausable?

Edited by Trauglodyte, 03 June 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

1) Have you reviewed the videos?

2) Have you played consistently as a Catapult or Stalker?

Of course, as well as numerous other LRM carriers.

I tend to play a wide variety of chassis, with a number of different playstyles, so that I can speak objectively about their relative effectiveness without falling prey to a misguided notion that some style is "mine", and must be defended out of a fear that somehow changing an element of the game would somehow nerf me as a pilot.

I also regularly ran a number of support mechs in competitive league play back in MW4 for years. I am not speaking from a perspective that somehow hates support mechs.

Quote

So, while it may look like you're some kind of beast on the field... an AC-20 jeager can strip 3 opponents from your team in about 30 seconds if he's decent and you've lost cohesion. He'll come out with about 300 damage or so - give or take.

Yes, and to do so, he must be exposed to those mechs he is shooting. They will all have direct LOS to him, and he'll be in close proximity by the time he's able to use his weapons.

And in order to be effective, he's actually going to have to aim his shots and land them on the same location.

Finally, his mech is extremely fragile.

Quote

"Well why don't you focus fire?" Because he runs behind cover. Because he just killed my team-mate that I spent 30 seconds shooting missiles over open terrain to try and assist (because it should take 400 missiles to drop an Atlas, apparently) - so my lock is now gone.

Eh? I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. On one hand you say that he's somehow killing three of your teammates in 30 seconds, but your team can't focus fire on him because he's behind cover? But he's within 270 meters of your teammates?

Quote

You have a limited window to be effective for your teams with LRMs. With flight-times in effect and mechs that can tear through your allies (through their front center torso armor, mind you) in less time than it takes for your missiles to reach their supported ally... they have to hit pretty hard to be worth having on a team.

No, they can't really hit THAT hard, because then they become overpowered. When you are able to do damage against a target, while not exposing yourself to return fire at all, then you cannot have as much firepower as a mech which needs to expose itself to return fire... because then you are overpowered.

If one mech is able to fire on a target without seeing it (Especially without having to aim his weapons), then when faced directly with a comparably sized mech he really SHOULD lose the direct encounter... because that's his weakness. That's what makes the weapons balanced. Otherwise, why would you use direct fire weapons that mean you can be shot back?

And really, this is exactly what we've seen. When LRM's were capable of delivering large amounts of damage, they blotted out the sun.

This isn't to say that I believe LRM damage is currently "ok", but merely that I think folks need to recognize that LRM's can not be allowed to be as effective at killing mechs as direct fire weapons, due to the fact that you can fire them on targets who can't return fire.

[Sybreed]

I'll be honest with you guys, as long as LRMs are in this shape, I'm not really considering continuing my playing as ALL my mechs use balanced builds and therefore have either SRMS or LRMS.

It's like PGI wants us all to go poptarts :S

[Volthorne]

Roland, on 03 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

If one mech is able to fire on a target without seeing it (Especially without having to aim his weapons), then when faced directly with a comparably sized mech he really SHOULD lose the direct encounter... because that's his weakness. That's what makes the weapons balanced. Otherwise, why would you use direct fire weapons that mean you can be shot back?

Explain that to my C1 in the Table Top, which took on other heavies in direct fire-fights on a regular basis. No, go on, I want to hear this.

[Roland]

Volthorne, on 03 June 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Explain that to my C1 in the Table Top, which took on other heavies in direct fire-fights on a regular basis. No, go on, I want to hear this.

Easy answer: This is not table top. Your experience with a boardgame is not applicable to a real time combat simulator.

Slightly more complex answer: In tabletop, there was not any specific difference between the amount of aiming skill required to fire missiles compared to firing other weapons. Guided weapons determined hits just like everything else, by rolling dice.

However, in Mechwarrior, you need to actually manually aim non guided weapons, while guided weapons do not require that.

Balance issues are different in a game where you are actually controlling the mechs manually.

Quote

I'll be honest with you guys, as long as LRMs are in this shape, I'm not really considering continuing my playing as ALL my mechs use balanced builds and therefore have either SRMS or LRMS.

Just so ya know, based on all prior mechwarrior games, I would not expect "balanced" builds to be particularly effective in most situations. Certain mixed range configurations can be effective when combined with good tactics, but they are generally much harder to use than configs that are designed to be very strong at a single range.