Warning: Too long of post coming in. You guys respond too fast when I'm at work!
Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:
Please link me to the post you're talking about. I can't disprove something that doesn't even have a basis. Show me the basis and I'll address this happily.
"Please disprove what I read in the forum one time that I cannot find anywhere and nobody but me remembers."
Actually accurate and verified information.
At A Glance- 50% bonus to missile tracking strength
- Target lock takes 25% longer to decay
- Decreases missile lock on time by 50%
- Must be mounted on an energy Hardpoint
- Displays an icon (a small crosshair symbol) above the target's red triangle icon in HUD to display to team-mates that target is being lased.
- Effect lasts for 1 second after each laser "hit".
- Generates no heat, recommend using continuous fire.
- TAG completely nullifies ECM (One target only) if the beam is held on the target from beyond the ECM's range.
- TAG effect HUD Icon
NARC
- Provides the same bonuses to accuracy and targeting as the Narc Beacon
- Using TAG and NARC together decreases weapon lock on time by 75% [3]
- Using TAG and NARC together increases missile tracking strength by 75% [4]
- TAG requires a beam be held on target while the Narc requires you to hit your target with a missile
Artemis IV
- Provides different bonuses than the Artemis IV FCS system
- The tracking strength bonus and Artemis can stack to be 2X the strength of normal radar
- Using TAG and NARC together decreases weapon lock on time by 75% [5]
- Using TAG and NARC together increases missile tracking strength by 75% [6]
Funny thing is, I was saying the same thing you are now months ago with TAG and Artemis stacking, before someone posted a link to prove me otherwise, and I was happy to be proven wrong. Funnier thing is, I also was using that same site you are to prove my point, and when linked elsewhere to a devs post (which I think was deleted now, which would explain why I can't find it now). However, I found the thread where this is explained, and so did Nathan...
However, for later use in this response, I shall quote the thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...0089-breakdown/
Quote
WEAPON LOCK TIME WITH TAG, NARC and ArtemisIV
TAG decreases weapon lock time by 50%
NARC decreases weapon lock time by 50%
ArtemisIV decreases weapon lock time by 50%
ArtemisIV has to have line of sight with the target in order to grant any bonuses
TAG and ArtemisIV work together to decrease weapon lock time by 75%
TAG and NARC work together to decrease weapon lock time by 75%
ArtemisIV will always replace any bonuses from NARC. Even if Artemis does not have line of sight.
MISSILE TRACKING BONUS WITH TAG, NARC and ArtemisIV
Tracking helps missiles retain lock on a target. It helps a little with stationary targets but it is mainly used to control the hit % on moving targets.
It follows the same rules as above with weapon lock time.
TAG and NARC work together.
TAG and ArtemisIV (with line of sight) work together.
ArtemisIV trumps NARC.
Now, I was proven wrong and I don't shy from that, seen as I said "I think" and "I believe" and "last I knew" when referring to this information from my head. There was a reason I started to say "prove it", as if I'm wrong, I want to see where, how and why so I can understand the material better and relay this to others, so I can "stop spreading incorrect information", which was never my goal to begin with.
Quote
Displays an icon (a small crosshair symbol) above the target's red triangle icon in HUD to display to team-mates that target is being lased.
- TAG effect HUD Icon
These two entries are basically repeated information was all I was saying on the first one... Nothing more was ment with these two. (But the picture really would help with new players, so that's a good idea.)
Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:
Again, new players to MechWarrior, this man runs a 50kph Shadow Hawk. Take his advise accordingly.
Haha. See above.
It demonstrates repeatedly the difference between TAG + Artemis (CT exclusive hits) and TAG w/o Artemis (Broad chest-to-arm hits.) So yeah, it does kind show more than you realize.
Oh yeah, it also shows TAG speeding lock time up to almost 0.
So yeah.
50 kph Shadow Hawks.
AC 10 Locusts that "can work."
Information based on a thread only you remember stated as fact to be disproven.
"TAG doesn't improve lock on speed."
You
lose, good day sir.
[ Now stop spreading made up rumors from your own memory to newbies, will you? Not to mention the bad advice. ]
But then, you start to troll or flame your own thread. That's mature. That will really win you points in a thread to "help new players".
I've presented my stats. Look at the 5M. It probably isn't the "greatest" build around, but it does more overall damage per match than my other Shadowhawks, even if it doesn't do as many kills per death as the other ones (it's in the front lines more). Running a slow mech isn't a "bad" thing last I knew, even if it doesn't come recommended.
Refer to the quote from the "Breakdown" thread. It mentions Tracking and Lock speed, it does not mention missile groupings or target delay, but then it also says that Tag and Artemis stacks. But how far does it stack? I think the Devs should be pressed for a more defined answer to this, so it is more readily known. So far, we have proven that TAG and Artemis stack some bonuses, but we can't prove if it stacks all bonuses. (It may, I don't know.)
Um... for the record... what do I have to do with the AC10 Locust?
I never stated it as "Fact" but "something I heard that as far as I know is how it is, but might be wrong and if so I'd like to see the correct information for myself so I don't have this happen again because someone else (you in this case) says it has to be this way" (maybe not in as many words or as precise as that, or this is what I meant). I was just asking for you to prove what you are saying.
Believe it or not, I was (and did) search several times for a dev related post to help clear this out. Nathan just beat me to it. (I didn't go to the site you linked because I know it's information was off last time I looked at it.) PS: Apparently, from other people's reactions in other threads when I was looking, my "reaction" to what I thought I knew about TAG and Artemis is not something only I remember as "fact". Refer to one of the links Nathan posted to see how many other people also believed that TAG and Artemis provided no bonuses to each other...
Oh, and I haven't "lost" anything. I gained knowledge and corrected an oversight in the way I thought something ran. However, you have still failed to provide proof that "LRM mechs without Artemis and Tag are "bad"". You can't clearly prove this. They might be less likely to cause as much pin point damage as Artemis and TAG, but it doesn't mean it is as "bad" as you keep shouting it is. It can still be very viable, build and play style dependent.
Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:
I just did. I linked you resources. I've shown you videos. All you've done is go "I READ A THREAD I CAN'T FIND LOL." Why do you think I should spend time locating and disproving something that you've literally pulled out of nowhere?
I'm not treating you like a new player. Most new players are looking to learn and not just make up or "remember" baseless facts and then claim everyone has to prove them wrong.
PS: Average damage doesn't even mean much, so that too is not worth arguing. It's about effective damage. That's what TAG+Artemis gives you.
EDIT: I'd like to remind new people that what is largely going on here is a demographic that detests the meta, and wants to play a game without any sort of meta, and thus try to steer as many people away from it as possible for that end. Some of them might honestly believe a lot of what they're saying, but many are probably full aware what they are doing is simply inferior. But that's the game they want to play, so they want you to play that game too.
Information I've posted is to help new people sort through this mud and get honest, accurate information from the higher levels of the game. Again, LRMs are 2nd tier as a platform in general, but when they are used - this is how they have to be used to be truly effective.
The video (I only saw one, but I might have missed one from before hand?) only proved that the way you use them works, which I wasn't disagreeing with. My only disagreement was with you pushing it as "do it my way or your are wrong/bad". There are more than one way to play LRMs. That's all I'm saying.
The thread I read I think got deleted when they made some updates (they do delete some of their older command chair threads last I knew), which might explain why I can't find it anymore. Anyway, it's replaced by the "Breakdown" thread, which is less clear than the old thread I was referring to.
I am actually happy to be proven incorrect in a manner (thanks to Nathan) that I can actually see where I am wrong and can adjust correctly. All you did was tell me how wrong I was with no back up.
Why do I think you should spend time locating and disproving what I claimed? Because this is a guide you wrote, and as such, you probably would want to have it as accurate as possible. I brought up a different concept on how I thought the systems work. If you can provide facts for yourself, then you can easily prove this to new players, making them even more likely to use your advise, as well as keeping the "new players" more informed with proper facts that can be proven to be true, not just word of mouth from someone they don't know. I thought I already mentioned this, but maybe I wasn't all that clear about it.
If you can convince an old player, then a new player would know (s)he is on the right tracks, don't you think? Otherwise, you (or I) could be saying anything we want, like saying how LRMs are fire and forget weapons (not true). I know of guides that said that LRMs are fire and forget weapons, when we know they aren't. Same kind of thing here. Who was right? Look at it like a new player, if that is your intended audience. I only asked you to prove me wrong as it would help your guide to do so. It is your guide, you want it accurate, do you not? (I know if it was my guide, I'd be trying to prove my points with links to dev posts when and where needed, even if I had to search for the information a bit. This is me personally of course.)
PS: Damage is damage and is often times seen as a measure of a mech, though many people (including myself) see it as only a minutely helpful stat. Also, you yourself are the one who said "an LRM mech should get 600+ damage". So, which is it with you? TAG + Artemis does give you more concentrated damage, I will give. But, if you are using LRMs as a sub system, and not as a primary weapon system like you, it might not be worth taking all the bells and whistles for your small LRM weapons, and instead focus more on your primary damage systems, and let the LRMs support you and your team while you are out of position. (AKA: While moving into position. While capping. While being slow. After finishing a stray mech away from the main fight. I'm talking about one of many possible uses for LRMs in the game.)
In response to your edit: What we are trying to inform the new players is that there are other ways to use LRMs besides as direct, primary damage. This is not wrong, and is not even against Meta. If you want to do with just Meta, then LRMs are far from it right now. ACs are meta, with either 2-3 AC2s and/or 2-3 AC5s being the more popular loadouts, with AC10s/20s coming in as well. We are not trying to steer people away from "good builds", but instead offer other options that are also "good builds". The biggest thing we advise, for the most part, is to not boat just LRMs, especially if you are a new player, but to have placed a few direct fire weapons to defend yourself with. It's a recommendation, and option. It is us saying things we believe will help other players, as this is what we experience ourselves. We aren't trying to decree that they must do it this way or "they are wrong". We simply stated our suggestion and opinions, and hope that a new player will consider everything and see what ends up working for them.
Now, this is about the only problem many of us have with your posts, "this is how they
have to be used to be truly effective". You give no room. It has to be. It must. We don't disagree with your advice for the most part, as it really is good advice, but we disagree with how thickly you lay the "it must be this (my) way or it's ineffective/inferior/wrong". Highly suggested is good. Must is not right. Remove the "must" and I'd be willing to agree that a lot of this as good advice. I only advise a few other things as well, based upon my personal experience as a "new player" from back when I was a "new player". (Such as taking back up secondary defensive weapons.)
Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:
If you want to disprove what I'm saying, feel free to make comparison videos to do so.
I am not going to go spend time trying to find static targets to demonstrate this stuff on (or waste a whole sync drop) just to disprove theories that "TAG and Artemis don't work together" and "TAG doesn't speed lock time" when I clearly, clearly see that it does, have been told that it does, and every bit of information out there (Except Tsuani's "lost post") states that it does.
Feel free to just try it yourself and watch the missiles. They notably shift. Remember, missiles work like this:
Firiing ------- X ---------- X ----------- X ----------- X ------- Target
Those four Xs are the four points along the missile arc path that it will "update" the angle, and when it does so, it makes a dramatic sweep in / sweep out based on targets. If you have a flight in the air and then TAG someone halfway through, you can literally see the missiles swarm in tighter.
I don't know what more I can tell anyone who chooses to not believe that these items do what they're supposed to do.
Why does it "have" to be a video? I can't produce videos due to lack of a program to do so, and my computer is on the older side and can play the game fine, but I'm afraid that trying to make a video would make the game play poorly. It shouldn't be "video or it didn't happen", as that is very exclusive...
We aren't asking for Static Targets (unless that is how you wish to prove it), but was asking for a dev thread or something credible to back you up. It was found (Breakdown thread), which was all we were asking. Helps to clear the air a lot faster when you can bring some hard evidence. And I'm all the happier for the hard evidence being added into the thread, helping to make some obscure facts tangible. And now I know, which is a good thing (and any new player who might read this far knows too, which only does them good compared to all the "I thinks" on each side). (PS: You spelled my name wrong...
)
Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:
NARC is just awful, for a ton of reasons:
- 4 tons plus ammo
- Low ammo per ton
- Dumbfire with a poor velocity
- Can get disabled early when being LRM'ed
- Short range
- Supposedly does not stack with Artemis in the last Artemis update. I do not have confirmation on this personally because NARCs already lost me by point 3.
Effectively while it stacks with TAG, it's just a super, super crappy TAG. It's way too heavy and offers almost no benefits. The Living Legends NARCs were edited to have tracking up to 800m and a range up to 1000m and last much longer by comparison; so NARCs CAN be done right, but my God, they are awful in MW:O.
They badly need a buff but until then there's definitely better things you can do with that 5 tons minimum of space, esp. since a TAG has all the benefits for a single ton.
Yep.
NARC does have a few "minor" advantages over TAG, but they are so minimal that it's just about lost. And for the weight, yeah. Only thing NARC gives to Artemis is the ability to shoot at a target that isn't in line of sight. Only thing NARC does that TAG doesn't is being able to be dropped onto a target and then you can duck and hide for a few (hit them and run away). Only reason to take NARC is to "hit and run" with them (pod them and hide), or if Artemis didn't have the bug of always giving it's bonuses even for indirect fire (unless that has been fixed), is to TAG and NARC to give LRM mechs with no line of sight the same effects as Artemis and TAG... but for the weight... it's just not worth it at this time...
Agreed with the comparison between TAG and NARC. TAG is lighter, does the same thing, but instead of having ammo and a timer is an instant hit weapon. This leaves it with more power over it's ammoed NARC cousin.
Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:
Anyway back to LRMs .... I don't know why people are bashing on victors post ... It looks pretty spot on theoretically and from my own experience.
As for the target decay being worthless because of moving into cover. ... A lot of the time people move behind low hills out of LOS so the missiles will still hit easily if they are still on radar and locked on. If you are in maps with lots of buildings then sure you gotta be more careful but I counted the number of salvos I missed due to loss of LOS where the missiles would still hit and that was quite a few on some maps.
I don't disagree with the advice persay. I disagree with the "you MUST" concept, as well as the strong reference to boating the LRMs in general. I'd say most of his advice is "highly recommended", but is far from the "must" he makes it out to be. The problem is he tells anyone who gives any other form of advice that they are out right wrong. I don't mind being proven wrong with things like TAG and Artemis and how they work together. I don't like being told that any other way of using LRMs is wrong, which is not true as there are a lot of different ways to play LRMs in this game.
Target Decay is... situational. Sometimes it's great to have and it helps land those rounds when you would have lost tracking otherwise. Sometimes, it doesn't help anyway, you lose your lock early anyway, or you would have still hit your target even if you had lost lock. It's a "I'd take it if I have it, but if I don't have it yet, it's okay". Basically, we just say it's still playable without this module, but the module does no harm and is useful enough to have on your mech. It comes "highly recommended", but is not a necessary item.
Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:
"I have an theory that is based on a forum post I cannot remember or find and now you have to prove to me that I'm full of it." That's all every one of the posts claiming I need to dig up information to prove basic facts, like how TAG works.
The LRM arc point was explained, with tons of graphics, by the developer when the new missile arc went in. Am I going to tons of time looking for it? Likely not.
Also ECM does slow the lock time a bit. TAG lets you crack it, but against non-ECM, it's a near-instant lock.
You... seem to have misquoted me. I believe I was more "This is what I last heard about this, this is what I believe to be true, please prove me wrong so if I am wrong I will know better, but if I'm right then you will know and can adjust/change this guide accordingly". Some "Basic" facts are not as well known as they should be. We know TAG and Artemis improve cluster, but we can't seem to find any hard evidence that TAG and Artemis stack these features together making an even tighter cluster, or does it only stack that which is described in the "breakdown" thread, which only mention lock acquisition time and tracking strength (which are good in and of themselves). If they don't stack improved cluster, than a small section of your guide could use to be edited to display this data, making it more relevant to you, than to me at this time and in this thread.
If the arc was in question, I'd think you would want to mention a link if you could find it, as it would only help prove your case. However, missile arc has not been mentioned in this thread yet, and no questions have been brought up relating or questioning it. So, there is no need to link this information at this time (and probably wont need to be linked to this thread at any time.) (PS: You say the data is scattered all over the forums. That's true. Maybe it would be helpful to the community if someone could make a thread with all this scattered information consolidated, with links to the original source? Would make it a lot easier for new players to find all the data, keeping them even better informed...)
As far as ECM, agreed. From what I have experienced, ECM still slows down lock on time, even when you can lock on to the mech.
Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:
Oh hey from that same lin straight from the devs:
Apologies may be sent to:
Victor Morson
Guides & Strategies
[ LRM Commandment Thread ]
Care of Page 9
EDIT: It's a shame we couldn't have cleared this up before leaving the New Player section because you guys have confused the complete hell out of newbies for no reason whatsoever.
Look at quoted post from that thread above. It does not mention cluster/groupings, but only tracking strength and lock on time. I don't know still if these stack between the two systems. Wished there was some concrete proof one way or the other...
No apologies, as I did not say anything as a "must". I recommend certain things different from you. If anything, you should apologize to those of us you have out right insulted, where as we did not insult (or I did not mean insult at least, and I will apologize if you took it that way, as it was not intended) when we disagreed with your original post. Though, a thank you is in order here. Thank you to Nathan Bloodguard for digging up the post to prove that TAG and Artemis shares at least some, that we can prove, bonuses that do stack. If you had done this instead, I would be thanking you, Victor Morson, instead.
To the Edit: This thread never belonged inside the New Player section, but clearly belongs in the Guides and Strategies section. All that was done was it was placed in it's proper spot. The responses here did not "move" the thread to this spot, but the fact it is a guide is what moved the thread to this new forum. Also, we tried to provide additional strategies and suggestions. The out of hand topic was what would confuse (or inform if they read far enough) new players. Proving this information would have been to the best interest of yourself and this thread overall. Otherwise, it was just hearsay on each side.
20
I said it was possible, not game-legal. 
*Trollface.*
