910 replies to this topic

[Rex Budman]

Lyoto Machida, on 01 April 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

HAhahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh JHC that is just a brilliant Gif

Bravo you *******!

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 31 March 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

I am the same way with ACs. I use them quite a bit, but think they need to be brought down a notch or three to make them inline with the other weapon systems. The difference I see is that ACs are powerful WITHOUT teamwork, whereas LRMs are only powerful when multiple people on the same team use them together.

I think that's a fair assessment, with the caveat that direct fire doesn't scale the same way that indirect fire does due to force multiplication.

Basically it's a much less frequent scenario to expect 4 to 6 players on your team to all have LoS to a single target for direct fire, where as the same scenario can scale up to 12 players for indirect fire.


So I think much of what we're seeing being complained about is like this aspect, the force multiplicative scaling that simple comes from someone else spotting for IDF. Add TAG, NARC and it gets even stronger.

It's exceedingly difficult to pull off that level of focus fire with direct weapons outside of completely blindsiding an opposing lance or similar situations.

[KharnZor]

Lyoto Machida, on 01 April 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Hehehe an Artemis equipped gif, tight and on target

[Ngamok]

Rex Budman, on 01 April 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

Hybrid mechs are not my forte` - I prefer class roles. DPS/Support etc.

Also it's hard to post videos of particular matches as every match is different and a lot of us were unlucky enough to cop the hardcore spam. I just hit a match now that was LRM lacking, and it felt like old times.

I like mechs with a mix load out so I can stay up at all ranges. Yes, in 12 mans, all that goes out the windows. But playing with 1-3 friends in the PuG queue, they do pretty well for me. I am now working on my 2nd and 3rd Banshee for Basics and the 3S I have been running looks like this:

BNC-3S

Of course you could always go with 2xPPC and drop the LRM for SRMs or more DHS and one more ML. But this lets me engage at all ranges.

[Cimarb]

Ultimatum X, on 01 April 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

I think that's a fair assessment, with the caveat that direct fire doesn't scale the same way that indirect fire does due to force multiplication.

Basically it's a much less frequent scenario to expect 4 to 6 players on your team to all have LoS to a single target for direct fire, where as the same scenario can scale up to 12 players for indirect fire.

So I think much of what we're seeing being complained about is like this aspect, the force multiplicative scaling that simple comes from someone else spotting for IDF. Add TAG, NARC and it gets even stronger.

It's exceedingly difficult to pull off that level of focus fire with direct weapons outside of completely blindsiding an opposing lance or similar situations.

I have to agree with your assessment in return, but with a similar caveat: teamwork is overpowered, regardless of what you are using, and coordinated direct-fire attacks will take out an enemy dramatically quicker than an equal number of indirect attacks.

Put equal numbers of 5/10/15/20 weapons in direct-fire groups and indirect fire groups, and the direct fire will easily take out the indirect fire, all other things being equal.

Put a roof over the direct-fire group, and the indirect-fire group will not even be able to do damage, or put a low wall between the two groups where you can see/target, but not shoot directly, and the same is true in reverse.

(Edit - I fail at paragraphs)

Edited by Cimarb, 02 April 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[Master Maniac]

CapperDeluxe, on 07 November 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

The circle of OP crying life:

- LRM OP
- PPC OP
- Gauss OP
- SRM OP
- UAC OP
- PPC OP
- LRM OP

it just goes around and around and around

LRMs aren't "OP." They're just fundamentally broken as a weapon, requiring little to no actual player involvement. If they required more skill, I'd have absolutely no problem with them whatsoever. This is coming from the guy who *loves* indirect fire in a lot of other games, and a prime missile spammer in the world of Armored Core.

Indirect fire weapons should never be as reliably damaging, easy to use, or accurate as direct fire weapons, and that's it - full stop. Direct fire weapons require exposure to the potential of return fire, while indirect fire weapons do not. This alone means that they should NEVER be comparable.

SOOO many LRM lovers say that LRMs should be even more powerful than they are now, and it's somehow a grievous wrong that an LRM20 is not the equivalent of an AC/20, only one that better suits their preferred method of play. And part of that is the problem.

Should an LRM20 be as powerful as an AC/20? Heck, I'd have no problem with it at all, if only it required a greater investment of skill, accuracy, and tactics than it does now.

[Joseph Mallan]

If they require More skill they wouldn't be Fire Support! However I don't feel they need to be more powerful but more usable would be nice.

An AC20 requires drag point and click
An LRM20 requires point click and drag

The level of skill is identical.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 April 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[KnowBuddy]

Master Maniac, on 02 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

LRMs aren't "OP." They're just fundamentally broken as a weapon, requiring little to no actual player involvement. If they required more skill, I'd have absolutely no problem with them whatsoever. This is coming from the guy who *loves* indirect fire in a lot of other games, and a prime missile spammer in the world of Armored Core.

This is false. LRMs require actual player involvement to be used effectively. Furthermore, for more than one 'Mech to utilize primarily LRMs in the indirect fashion that everyone is whining about, it requires at least an additional player. In most cases, this is not present, and LRM use requires significant player involvement anyway.

Master Maniac, on 02 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Indirect fire weapons should never be as reliably damaging, easy to use, or accurate as direct fire weapons, and that's it - full stop. Direct fire weapons require exposure to the potential of return fire, while indirect fire weapons do not. This alone means that they should NEVER be comparable.

They are not. They are not. They never will be.

Master Maniac, on 02 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

SOOO many LRM lovers say that LRMs should be even more powerful than they are now, and it's somehow a grievous wrong that an LRM20 is not the equivalent of an AC/20, only one that better suits their preferred method of play. And part of that is the problem.

I think that LRMs are in a decent place now. But I am going to argue against people who think LRMs were effective or fairly balanced before, because they were not. If I don't speak out against the whining about LRMs, then I have no doubt that we'll effectively lose the important tactical options of bringing med-long range fire which helps disrupt the still-reigning poptart even-longer-range direct fire meta.

Master Maniac, on 02 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Should an LRM20 be as powerful as an AC/20? Heck, I'd have no problem with it at all, if only it required a greater investment of skill, accuracy, and tactics than it does now.

It requires more investment by far than an AC/20. Only because people feel that they are powerless to deal with LRMs (even though more hard and soft counters exist for LRMs than any other weapon system combined) just because some of the LRM fire is indirect, do they feel that it's an easy win-button. It is not. In fact, in my experience, quite the opposite. I will continue to assert that using LRMs effectively requires a huge investment of skill, tactics, and tonnage, and also necessitates eschewing indirect fire to achieve the highest levels of 40-50% LRM accuracy. Quit acting like we're being unreasonable pointing out that the AC/20 is pinpoint damage, can achieve much higher accuracy, and doesn't require the same level of module, tactical, equipment, and overall tonnage that LRMs do to get the most out of them, which isn't even near the performance of an AC/20 in similarly skilled hands.

Edited by KnowBuddy, 02 April 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

If they require More skill they wouldn't be Fire Support! However I don't feel they need to be more powerful but more usable would be nice.

An AC20 requires drag point and click
An LRM20 requires point click and drag

The level of skill is identical.

I would argue that the level of skill with LRMs is actually higher than that of lasers, which is then higher than that of ballistics. The reason for this is the time it takes to apply the damage.

Ballistics (inc PPCs, etc) require snapshot aim > trigger
Lasers require snapshot aim > trigger > maintain for beam duration (up to 1 sec)
Missiles require maintain for lock > trigger > maintain for lock during flight time (up to 5+ seconds)

Yes, ballistics may take practice to hit because of the flight time, but it does not require anything more than a snapshot aim regardless. Both lasers and missiles, under these definitions, require MORE skill to use effectively than ballistics.

[Tesunie]

Ngamok, on 02 April 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

I like mechs with a mix load out so I can stay up at all ranges. Yes, in 12 mans, all that goes out the windows. But playing with 1-3 friends in the PuG queue, they do pretty well for me. I am now working on my 2nd and 3rd Banshee for Basics and the 3S I have been running looks like this:

BNC-3S

Of course you could always go with 2xPPC and drop the LRM for SRMs or more DHS and one more ML. But this lets me engage at all ranges.

That is the point of balancing out a build more. To always remain effective.

My 3S (if I ever buy one, which I probably wont) looks fairly similar: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7b8cb758cfc902b

LLs and AC5 kinda fall into a "can work for long and short range" kinda roles... And works well with the TAG range as well.

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

If they require More skill they wouldn't be Fire Support! However I don't feel they need to be more powerful but more usable would be nice.

An AC20 requires drag point and click
An LRM20 requires point click and drag

The level of skill is identical.

Level is identical, but the skills required are different. Completely agree.

Cimarb, on 02 April 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

I would argue that the level of skill with LRMs is actually higher than that of lasers, which is then higher than that of ballistics. The reason for this is the time it takes to apply the damage.

Ballistics (inc PPCs, etc) require snapshot aim > trigger
Lasers require snapshot aim > trigger > maintain for beam duration (up to 1 sec)
Missiles require maintain for lock > trigger > maintain for lock during flight time (up to 5+ seconds)

Yes, ballistics may take practice to hit because of the flight time, but it does not require anything more than a snapshot aim regardless. Both lasers and missiles, under these definitions, require MORE skill to use effectively than ballistics.

And yet... I suck with ballistic weapons... but I do great with laser and missiles! Go figure...

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

If they require More skill they wouldn't be Fire Support! However I don't feel they need to be more powerful but more usable would be nice.

An AC20 requires drag point and click
An LRM20 requires point click and drag

The level of skill is identical.

[Redacted]
lrm reticle only requires touching the huge red target square every second or so to do full damage regardless of how steady or shaky your aim is. saying that is just as hard as making an ac/20 hit a 100+ kph medium at 300m much less in the component that would be optimum, is just flat out wrong lol. not much else to say.

Now if you had to keep your reticle within the profile of the mech itself, not the giant red box, for the entire duration of the lock and straying off of it for more than ~.25-.5 secs or you would lose lock then maybe you could argue it requiring some skill.

Right now lasers should be the model that other weapons should strive for. Able to be used effectively, fun for both sides of the combat, less prone to bull%&^$ insta gibbing that is less fun than a dentist appointment with a blind doctor, and actually allow torso twisting to reliably spread damage without requiring JJs. Even if I lose a laser brawl at least I have fun and am always able to contribute to the team before being taken out. People would actually have to work for those 800-1k damage games instead of pop snipe from 500+m or lrm spam from safely behind your team's cover. No more getting instagibbed by the first shot of the game in a medium/light thanks to a lucky shot. Fun for everyone, not just the winners is what I look for in a video game.

Edited by miSs, 02 April 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Tesunie]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 02 April 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

[Redacted]
lrm reticle only requires touching the huge red target square every second or so to do full damage regardless of how steady or shaky your aim is. saying that is just as hard as making an ac/20 hit a 100+ kph medium at 300m much less in the component that would be optimum, is just flat out wrong lol. not much else to say.

Now if you had to keep your reticle within the profile of the mech itself, not the giant red box, for the entire duration of the lock and straying off of it for more than ~.25-.5 secs or you would lose lock then maybe you could argue it requiring some skill.

http://mwomercs.com/...use/page__st__0
My opinion on LRMs and the skills needed to use them...

And a guide about how to use them: http://mwomercs.com/...05#entry2474605

And then my guide I create about balanced build loadouts, which is vital for LRM users in most PUG matches (though not completely necessary, as you can boat them and do well, but you take a gamble): http://mwomercs.com/...92#entry3225192

I'd have to say LRMs require skill to use. Their skills are not the same as other weapons. Their skills are planing, positioning, knowing your arcs of fire, situational awareness, etc. Many of these skills are also used with direct fire weapons, but they are more important for LRM mechs.

Considering I have seen LRMs being used in a "skill-less manner" before, let me just say, they do require skill to use well.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Tesunie, on 02 April 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...use/page__st__0
My opinion on LRMs and the skills needed to use them...

And a guide about how to use them: http://mwomercs.com/...05#entry2474605

And then my guide I create about balanced build loadouts, which is vital for LRM users in most PUG matches (though not completely necessary, as you can boat them and do well, but you take a gamble): http://mwomercs.com/...92#entry3225192

I'd have to say LRMs require skill to use. Their skills are not the same as other weapons. Their skills are planing, positioning, knowing your arcs of fire, situational awareness, etc. Many of these skills are also used with direct fire weapons, but they are more important for LRM mechs.

Considering I have seen LRMs being used in a "skill-less manner" before, let me just say, they do require skill to use well.

The firs two are from 2013 so I didn't really read them. Pretty much you just need to know your environment and position relative to targets/teammates and keep situational awareness. Which is true for every player. Also don't stand within 180m of your fellow lrm boats so you can cover each other. To play lrms in solo queue can require skill to succeed but with a good spotter and several lrm boat allies it can be far too destructive for the effort involved.

The problem with lrms is the ease at which focus fire is possible. No other weapon system can focus all damage output to on single target regardless as quickly and easily as lrms. This is due to being just as effective when firing usng another's LOS (spotting) as using one's own LOS to fire. This coupled with the extreme durability potential of ECM lights allows for spotting even in fortified locations that should mean death for spotters, is causing a lot of issues. There should be a penalty to lock-on time and accuracy for firing without LOS to the target which with Tag or narc on the target will bring it back up to/beyond regular LOS levels without modules/tag. This makes it so every mech on the team isn't a free spotter, only those that dedicate a hardpoint to spotting will be optimum.

Target locks that disappear before giving detailed information should not be affected by things like target decay module and should fade within 1-2 seconds or just have it a function of time spotted with a cap. Glancing target aquisitions where a target is spotted for less thna a second should not be enough for a volley of missiles to hit.

Then change he missile arc so that a good general rule to deciding what cover is good enough for lrms is not being able to bring the torso weapon reticle over the cover. This: https://onedrive.liv...nt=photo%2c.jpg
is not an acceptable missile arc from a location that is roughly on the same plane as I was. The arc should be gradual instead of sharp at the beginning and end.

I would also like to finally remove the ECM invisibilty cloak with possibly an added bonus to the decreased targeting information time and lock-on speeds that ECM has to compensate.

But the important thing is to try putting these in one at a time to see how much is needed so that things are not overnerfed. Single lrm launchers should be viable but lrm focus fire should not mean instant death for any assault not within 100m of lrm-proof cover.

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 02 April 2014 - 09:57 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Basically it's a much less frequent scenario to expect 4 to 6 players on your team to all have LoS to a single target for direct fire, where as the same scenario can scale up to 12 players for indirect fire.

And here's the difference between good players and bad ones.

At the top, you're getting focus-fired to death by a large enough portion of the team to be lethal in a brief period of time- and with direct-fire weaponry, it takes fewer people to reduce time-to-kill to minimal levels. Put a quartet of meta-cannoning 'Mechs on one target and it dies like a kitten being fed a double-barrel of buckshot.

LRMs will do the same trick, but take more of them to achieve that same TTK(that is, it's normally slower and requires more people directing fire at the same target). At lower ELOs, focus fire is accidental at best, and the IDF function of LRMs makes it the only weapon that causes "accidental" focus fire to happen with any frequency. This tends to be a rude surprise to the average scatter-firing PUG team, thus OMG NURF MISSILES!

LRMs expose low-ELO players to truth.

Some of them can't handle the truth- the difference is that once you "get gud", instead of dying to a gang-bang of missiles, you'll just eat half a dozen autocannons/PPC's at once and melt even faster. The difference between those and LRMs is that the missiles actually give you more time to get out of the rain vs. having a blowtorch applied to your torso. I tend to bounce around in that ELO range between the rain and the blowtorches, and believe me- the rain is a far more gentle experience.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tw1stedMonkey, on 02 April 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

[Redacted]
lrm reticle only requires touching the huge red target square every second or so to do full damage regardless of how steady or shaky your aim is. saying that is just as hard as making an ac/20 hit a 100+ kph medium at 300m much less in the component that would be optimum, is just flat out wrong lol. not much else to say.

Now if you had to keep your reticle within the profile of the mech itself, not the giant red box, for the entire duration of the lock and straying off of it for more than ~.25-.5 secs or you would lose lock then maybe you could argue it requiring some skill.

You mean you don't do the Cross hairs on the target the whole time anyway? And tapping the left mouse button... NOW! Is skill to you? Sorry man its 6 of 1 and half dozen of the other to me! Neither has a higher skill cap in the least.

I am not disparaging on our departed daughter here, But if a 5 year old can play this game and gather kills... the skill cap cannot be all that high!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 04:46 AM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Get rid of indirect fire unless the target is TAG'd/NARC'd/UAV'd. Or give us 250m/s LRMs with low arc and make the LRMs target bones like the SSRMS...indirect fire would be at 120m/s. Make it so that Artemis doesn't actually give bonuses to indirect fire (which it shoudn't).

LRM whiners will still find a way to complain though.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lyoto Machida, on 03 April 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Get rid of indirect fire unless the target is TAG'd/NARC'd/UAV'd. Or give us 250m/s LRMs with low arc and make the LRMs target bones like the SSRMS...indirect fire would be at 120m/s. Make it so that Artemis doesn't actually give bonuses to indirect fire (which it shoudn't).

LRM whiners will still find a way to complain though.

Cause Missiles are both direct and indirect fire weapons. Its not a whine its a statement of fact. You can't play a combat game and for get how combat is meant to be fought.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Cause Missiles are both direct and indirect fire weapons. Its not a whine its a statement of fact. You can't play a combat game and for get how combat is meant to be fought.

There really should be some considerable difference between the spread of indirect and direct fire, though - I will definitely concede that point.

[KnowBuddy]

Cue: "C3 isn't even timeline appropriate, why is it present and installed on all 'Mechs?!?" To argue for indirect LRM fire only when TAGed/NARCed/UAVed.

and then Cue: "ECM is broken by design! Why does GECM function like Null Sig?!?" To argue that the whole system is borked.

And round and round we go. PGI's design choices are suspect, but you can't cherry pick. Get over indirect fire, it is inefficient but important for strategic viability. Bad LRM users use only indirect fire. And the same arguments against indirect LRM fire can be applied to poptarting and hillhumping. All of them allow you to deliver damage while exposing yourself to the bare minimum of incoming fire.
There are only two outcomes when an LRM-focused 'Mech is relying primarily on indirect fire, and they are predicated on external factors: 1. When a group is coordinating (usually sync-dropped, teamed, or a PUG led by one or more talented light pilots who actually are committed to spotting), it is effective; although it spreads damage more, is slower to kill, and is less efficient overall than comparable coordinated direct-fire setups under the same circumstances. or 2. When a group is uncoordinated (read: 85% of PUG drops), indirect LRM fire is hugely inefficient, wastes ammo, and in these cases, an LRM-heavy group versus a direct-fire group is usually completely routed.

[wanderer]

Note that a popular myth on the boards here is that a 'Mech in TT cannot do anything while spotting.

This is incorrect. A 'Mech doing anything else while spotting simply adds a +1 modifier to hit in tabletop instead. You want to tack on a small penalty to lock-on time for IDF mode, be my guest..