373 replies to this topic

[Lynx7725]

Roadkill, on 01 April 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

What really makes LRMs different from other weapon types is that they depend far more on the skill of the target than on the skill of the firer. It doesn't matter how good I am at maneuvering against a skilled poptart - those 1200+ m/s FLD bolts are still going to hit me. But against even the best LRM boaters, I can still void a significant portion of their damage just using my own skill.

I'd disagree slightly with you here, in that the skill of the firer plays a part before actually pulling the trigger, as the Mech positioning to maximize damage and protection, reading of HUD info pertaining to team, prioritizing of targets all make a difference to the end result.

However, I do agree with you that LRMs are one of the few weapons in which the skill of the target actually has a say in the amount of damage received in the weapon terminal phase. Once the firer pull the trigger, ballistic weapons and SRMs hit or miss based on firer skill, lasers the target get some say by torso rolling, but LRMs give the target time to get into cover or move to reduce most of the damage, more so if the firer positions or utilizes the weapon poorly and/ or if the target chose to utilize AMS.

[El Bandito]

People need to learn to use the shut down feature to defend against incoming long range LRM flights.

Just as there are many different ways to fire and guide LRMs, there are many different ways to defend against them. In this way, LRMs actually require more thoughts to use or counter than any other weapon system.

Edited by El Bandito, 01 April 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[Lynx7725]

El Bandito, on 01 April 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

People need to learn to use the shut down feature to defend against incoming long range LRM flights.

Eh, tricky that one. Depends on the situation, since LRMs revert to "dumbass" mode when it loses lock, it can still hit your powered-down Mech. Double the odds if the LRMboater is using Advance Locks, which a specialist should be. I personally would just get the heck out of dodge instead.

El Bandito, on 01 April 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Just as there are many different ways to fire and guide LRMs, there are many different ways to defend against them. In this way, LRMs actually require more thoughts to use or counter than any other weapon system.

Easy enough to lock and pull trigger, harder to get mileage out of it.

[Corwin Vickers]

Ultimatum X, on 01 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Need is a strong word. It’s more like a low skill investment with a medium to high output.

I don’t recall myself even once using the word “need”.

What you said was:

Quote

It's basically LRM or be LRMd, so if this is what the devs feel is working as intended - so be it.

Sounds like you were saying people need LRMs to me.

Ultimatum X said:

1) If you are pop-tarting there must be someone in your LoS after you jump for you to shoot. If you can see them they can see you.

2) If you are firing LRMs from behind cover while someone on your team manages to find the "R" key, how do you take more return fire than you would pop-tarting?


One requires you to expose yourself, the other does not. This isn't rocket science.


Or are all of your targets when poptarting always bad players looking in the other direction standing out in the open?

It may not be rocket science but it is a lot more complicated than you are laying it out to be.

When I poptart or use direct fire weapons in general, I tend to hug cover giving myself the widest angle of protection from that cover. I jump enough to clear my weapons, fire, drop down again, and usually move to another spot so that people aren't waiting for me to jump up in the same place again so they can return fire.

When you are using LRMs you must stand away from cover, sometimes out of cover, in order to get a flight path to the target. This gives people the ability to get angles on you and since everyone is poptarting you don't necessarily know the angles that you need to protect against.
Also, not all LRM fire is indirect. Self targeted LRM fire requires you to expose your self for the travel time of the volley and all subsequent volleys. Direct fire requires you to expose your self for the 1 second you need to clear your arms over the object in front of you.

Ultimatum X, on 01 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

I think IDF + Force Multipliers (TAG, NARC) creates a balance issue that allows too much focus fire that doesn't require as much risk and doesn't require every user to have LoS or even a decent attack vector - particularly for PUG teams."

The "teamwork is OP" argument is not a very strong one. Team work with any style of play is powerful. In fact, I, and others are saying, that direct fire team work is far superior to LRM team work.

Also TAG and NARC are primarily taken to counter ECM, not for the bonuses.


Just to be clear, I am the poptart player saying LRMs are useless and you are the LRM user saying LRMs are over powered.

[Wolfways]

Ultimatum X, on 01 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

So you are saying that in your higher-than-my Elo bracket, many players still haven't found the "R" key?

Considering I get team-assisted locks all the time right now, you'll forgive me if I simply don't believe that.


You've appealed to your own skill level a few times now. "Decent Elo bracket", "decent competition".

Yet you also present scenarios where your team is not generating team assisted locks (i.e. pressing the "R" key) nor are your opponents wise enough to keep their heads down when there are poptarts about.

These scenarios you are presenting are contradictory to your appeal to LRMs being useless against "decent competition" as these decent players seem unable to perform fairly basic actions.

You can get team-assist locks all day, but if the enemy aren't newbs/noobs you still won't hit them much.

Quote

I have no problem with LRMs being long range support weapons, I think their LoS (self-generated locks) firing mode is fine.

Then you do have a problem as LRM's are not a support weapon.

[Lyoto Machida]

Damocles69, on 01 April 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Regardless, they have been nerfed back to the garbage pile. All is right with the world. Back to learning to aim LRM bads

[Bishop Steiner]

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

What you said was:
[/font]
Sounds like you were saying people need LRMs to me.





It may not be rocket science but it is a lot more complicated than you are laying it out to be.

When I poptart or use direct fire weapons in general, I tend to hug cover giving myself the widest angle of protection from that cover. I jump enough to clear my weapons, fire, drop down again, and usually move to another spot so that people aren't waiting for me to jump up in the same place again so they can return fire.

When you are using LRMs you must stand away from cover, sometimes out of cover, in order to get a flight path to the target. This gives people the ability to get angles on you and since everyone is poptarting you don't necessarily know the angles that you need to protect against.
Also, not all LRM fire is indirect. Self targeted LRM fire requires you to expose your self for the travel time of the volley and all subsequent volleys. Direct fire requires you to expose your self for the 1 second you need to clear your arms over the object in front of you.






The "teamwork is OP" argument is not a very strong one. Team work with any style of play is powerful. In fact, I, and others are saying, that direct fire team work is far superior to LRM team work.

Also TAG and NARC are primarily taken to counter ECM, not for the bonuses.


Just to be clear, I am the poptart player saying LRMs are useless and you are the LRM user saying LRMs are over powered.

Don't waste time arguing with the "church of skill" folk. They all know better than us, even if they can't actually articulate a cogent argument to HOW their point makes sense, and totally ignore the reams of logically reasoned out arguments counter to their belief.

It must be rather like Magellan trying to reason with the Church back in the day. Those poor enlightened "Skill" people dealing with our plebian superstitions/blasphemies.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 April 2014 - 03:41 AM.

[Rex Budman]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Don't waste time arguing with the "church of skill" folk. They all know better than us, even if they can't actually articulate a cogent argument to HOW their point makes sense, and totally ignore the reams of logically reasoned out arguments counter to their belief.

It must be rather like Magellan trying to reason with the Church back in the day. Those poor enlightened "Skill" people dealing with our plebian superstitions/blasphemies.

Oh give me a break... This superiority complex that this attitude emanates is the kind of thing you see on Richard Dawkins website or Huffington post. "Oh their argument is logically fallacious and lacks reason I cannot comprehend as my level of education has somewhat blocked me off from reality and understandeth not I the words of the peasants and serfs who still believeth in God almighty hurhurhurhruhruhruhruhruhrur"

So many perfectly sound arguments have been presented that you refuse to acknowledge because they did not present it in the same manner one would argue Atheism in a public debate...

[Bishop Steiner]

Rex Budman, on 02 April 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

Oh give me a break... This superiority complex that this attitude emanates is the kind of thing you see on Richard Dawkins website or Huffington post. "Oh their argument is logically fallacious and lacks reason I cannot comprehend as my level of education has somewhat blocked me off from reality and understandeth not I the words of the peasants and serfs who still believeth in God almighty hurhurhurhruhruhruhruhruhrur"

So many perfectly sound arguments have been presented that you refuse to acknowledge because they did not present it in the same manner one would argue Atheism in a public debate...

Oh wait, you dislike it when you are served back the exact same attitudes you folks spout in place of actual arguments?

HUH. Funny that.

Herherher Derpderpderp, GG? Isn't that your usual line?

You'll have to excuse me if I find your contribution meaningless.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 01 April 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

You might have better luck, Roland, if you'd stop calling LRMs "no skill" weapons.

I described them as "low skill" weapons.

Joseph Mallan, on 01 April 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

I don't know the monitor you are using Roland, but that Hit box is around a 1/2" or less on my Monitor... Huge...

The box you need to roughly hold the reticle inside for an LRM lock is larger than the entire mech's chassis.

So yes, that's huge. If you have trouble doing that, then it is no wonder you don't like direct fire weapons, because you aren't able to hit the broad side of a barn.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 01 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Actually this is a video game, that's why we have balance discussions.

It is a combat Video game and as such I will use Combat strategy and military science to hopefully put me in a position of beating someone not using those Skills.you know determining the right blend of short & long Range with Fast and armored forces that blend direct and indirect fire support. That is the thinking portion of the Thinking mans game. A good team that has the right blend of these qualities will kick the crap out of any improperly "balanced" team. Point being that one of the Top 60 of the last Tournament made it there in almost Stock Builds! That is the guy to listen to. No Meta, Double sinks Endo as his major changes, and he made Into the top 60 or better!(IIRC) That sir is skill and Balance!

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

I described them as "low skill" weapons.


The box you need to roughly hold the reticle inside for an LRM lock is larger than the entire mech's chassis.

So yes, that's huge. If you have trouble doing that, then it is no wonder you don't like direct fire weapons, because you aren't able to hit the broad side of a barn.

Ok your definition of huge is way smaller than mine... And I split Microns for a living! I didn't say it was a problem I said it isn't HUGE on a 16" HD monitor. And if you are using that logic... Why do I have a 50-80% accuracy with direct fire weapons and a meer 20-38% with Missiles... looks like Ballistics (50-70%) and lasers(65-80%) are easy mode next to Missiles!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 April 2014 - 05:25 AM.

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Ok your definition of huge is way smaller than mine... And I split Microns for a living! I didn't say it was a problem I said it isn't HUGE on a 16" HD monitor. And if you are using that logic... Why do I have a 50-80% accuracy with direct fire weapons and a meer 20-38% with Missiles... looks like Ballistics (50-70%) and lasers(65-80%) are easy mode next to Missiles!

Playing on a 16 inch monitor must be a painful experience.

[Joseph Mallan]

Rex Budman, on 02 April 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

Oh give me a break... This superiority complex that this attitude emanates is the kind of thing you see on Richard Dawkins website or Huffington post. "Oh their argument is logically fallacious and lacks reason I cannot comprehend as my level of education has somewhat blocked me off from reality and understandeth not I the words of the peasants and serfs who still believeth in God almighty hurhurhurhruhruhruhruhruhrur"

So many perfectly sound arguments have been presented that you refuse to acknowledge because they did not present it in the same manner one would argue Atheism in a public debate...

So many Perfect Sounding Arguments fall on their face in the church of experience though Rex. All I keep reading I am a sore loser in each of the Nerf this Posts. Every time I look at my this is what killed you screen I see
Lasers
PPCs
ACs
Missiles Long and Short
and sometimes Machine Guns.

In a pretty fair mix on any given death.

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

Playing on a 16 inch monitor must be a painful experience.

Not at all!

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

I described them as "low skill" weapons.


The box you need to roughly hold the reticle inside for an LRM lock is larger than the entire mech's chassis.

So yes, that's huge. If you have trouble doing that, then it is no wonder you don't like direct fire weapons, because you aren't able to hit the broad side of a barn.

Sometimes you speak perfect sense bro, other times, I think you stick to rhetoric far too much and are far too dismissive of the fact that many of us have just as much experience at this game, as yourself.

Very little of the actual "point and shoot" in this game is "skill", TBH. It is all easy mode, with perfect convergence, weapon accuracy only impinged while up-jumping, etc.

The basic act of aiming is indeed simpler in execution with LRMs. That tends to be balanced by the PLETHORA of inherent limitations to the weapon system itself, such as the length of time of exposure (yes a good team can counteract this with spotters and such, that is the TACTIC, the teamwork that makes the weapon work easy, not so much the weapon itself).

Let's be honest. Most Comp players are not about the "Church of SkilL", no matter the protestations. It is about finding the easiest, highest reward, lowest risk method to play the game. Poptarting is STILL that, by a landslide, as the results in the tournament, and the consistently tapering use of LRMs (and their almost complete lack in any 12 man I have played) show.

If they are true "EZMode" in a PUG environment, that is because the competition MAKES them easy, by being stupid, by driving slow mechs, by not understanding cover, by not comprehending flanking and simple basic tactics. Tactics, which, BTW, are another skill, even if the idea seems missing in the twitch lexicon, often. I have run LRMs, and generally find that boating them is about as exciting and interesting as Poptarting. Aka, paint drying. But then I have also fought quite effectively with them, grabbing my own locks and fighting in the open at mid ranges (the old Founders cat, 2 ALRM15s, 3 mediums and a TAG can still scrap). I choose not to do it most times, because it doesn't suit my preferred playstyle.

I like to get in faces and mix it up (which doesn't, as a general rule prove conducive to huge KDrs), yet despite preferring full on brawlers (and leveling up the most painfully unmaneuverable mech in the game, the Banshee, over the last 2 weeks), for such an EZMode weapon, I am barely affected by them, even when the other team proliferates with them, despite not using ECM or AMS.

If they were so easy mode, even facing n00bs, I should be getting LRM smoked every match.

Just because something doesn't fit in your comfortable perception of skill, doesn't mean it does not involve it.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

Sometimes you speak perfect sense bro, other times, I think you stick to rhetoric far too much and are far too dismissive of the fact that many of us have just as much experience at this game, as yourself.

Very little of the actual "point and shoot" in this game is "skill", TBH. It is all easy mode, with perfect convergence, weapon accuracy only impinged while up-jumping, etc.

The basic act of aiming is indeed simpler in execution with LRMs. That tends to be balanced by the PLETHORA of inherent limitations to the weapon system itself, such as the length of time of exposure (yes a good team can counteract this with spotters and such, that is the TACTIC, the teamwork that makes the weapon work easy, not so much the weapon itself).

Let's be honest. Most Comp players are not about the "Church of SkilL", no matter the protestations. It is about finding the easiest, highest reward, lowest risk method to play the game. Poptarting is STILL that, by a landslide, as the results in the tournament, and the consistently tapering use of LRMs (and their almost complete lack in any 12 man I have played) show.

If they are true "EZMode" in a PUG environment, that is because the competition MAKES them easy, by being stupid, by driving slow mechs, by not understanding cover, by not comprehending flanking and simple basic tactics. Tactics, which, BTW, are another skill, even if the idea seems missing in the twitch lexicon, often. I have run LRMs, and generally find that boating them is about as exciting and interesting as Poptarting. Aka, paint drying. But then I have also fought quite effectively with them, grabbing my own locks and fighting in the open at mid ranges (the old Founders cat, 2 ALRM15s, 3 mediums and a TAG can still scrap). I choose not to do it most times, because it doesn't suit my preferred playstyle.

I like to get in faces and mix it up (which doesn't, as a general rule prove conducive to huge KDrs), yet despite preferring full on brawlers (and leveling up the most painfully unmaneuverable mech in the game, the Banshee, over the last 2 weeks), for such an EZMode weapon, I am barely affected by them, even when the other team proliferates with them, despite not using ECM or AMS.

If they were so easy mode, even facing n00bs, I should be getting LRM smoked every match.

Just because something doesn't fit in your comfortable perception of skill, doesn't mean it does not involve it.

Read it, learn it, love it.

[Roland]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

Very little of the actual "point and shoot" in this game is "skill", TBH. It is all easy mode, with perfect convergence, weapon accuracy only impinged while up-jumping, etc.

And yet, just previously, you said:

Joseph Mallan, on 02 April 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Why do I have a 50-80% accuracy with direct fire weapons

So if it's easy mode, then you should have significantly higher accuracy.

And those accuracy numbers you posted there, aren't even indicative of actual skill, because those are simply a record of how many times you fired a weapon and actually hit SOMETHING with it. Your actual accuracy in terms of landing a precision shot exactly where you want on a mech (which is how you actually kill mechs in Mechwarrior) is guaranteed to be even lower than that.

This is why folks who say that there isn't any skill involved in gunnery in Mechwarrior are full of it.. because there is a massive difference between people who are crack shots, and the great unwashed masses in this game. And quite frankly, you aren't one of the people who are the best shots in this game.

There are pilots who are better shots in this game, and the reason is because they are more skilled pilots than you.

Now, the reality is that most of those folks who were really best at this game don't even play it any more, due to how the game has basically stagnated.. but you're fooling yourself when you try and pretend like those people aren't better than you.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

And yet, just previously, you said:


So if it's easy mode, then you should have significantly higher accuracy.

And those accuracy numbers you posted there, aren't even indicative of actual skill, because those are simply a record of how many times you fired a weapon and actually hit SOMETHING with it. Your actual accuracy in terms of landing a precision shot exactly where you want on a mech (which is how you actually kill mechs in Mechwarrior) is guaranteed to be even lower than that.

This is why folks who say that there isn't any skill involved in gunnery in Mechwarrior are full of it.. because there is a massive difference between people who are crack shots, and the great unwashed masses in this game. And quite frankly, you aren't one of the people who are the best shots in this game.

There are pilots who are better shots in this game, and the reason is because they are more skilled pilots than you.

Now, the reality is that most of those folks who were really best at this game don't even play it any more, due to how the game has basically stagnated.. but you're fooling yourself when you try and pretend like those people aren't better than you.

Well I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night!

I would like to see some numbers on what I am actually hitting... It would be interesting how many times I am really hitting what I aim at... Seeing as I Aim For Your Cockpit whenever I can get that shot, you should be happy I am not as skilled in game as I am in real life! And that I willingly mix my weapon load out so I can do more than one type of fighting.

[girl on fire]

Roadkill, on 31 March 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Boost LRM speed to 1200 and what do you get?

An LBX that can be countered 17 ways to Tuesday but can fire over hills provided you have some sucker spotting for you.

The no-skill whiners have clearly never tried using LRMs in any kind of decent Elo bracket. Yeah, you can roll newbs with them in the underhive. Yay for you. You can also roll newbs in the underhive with PPCs, or ACs, or... *gasp*... LBXs. Doesn't mean anything because it's the underhive.

but... most people are probably playing in low tier ELO games. It makes no sense to balance a game around the minority of 'pro' players as opposed to the majority of "bad" players...

And it seems like making the argument about "bad" versus "good" you are more trying to shame people into agreeing with your opinion, lest they think they are bad. And those that don't will just be more resentful by the implication that the way they play is "wrong" or "bad".

If you are actually interested in changing peoples' minds then I would suggest trying to be less abrasive.

Edited by girl on fire, 02 April 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

And those accuracy numbers you posted there, aren't even indicative of actual skill, because those are simply a record of how many times you fired a weapon and actually hit SOMETHING with it. Your actual accuracy in terms of landing a precision shot exactly where you want on a mech (which is how you actually kill mechs in Mechwarrior) is guaranteed to be even lower than that.

Right. You just blew your own arguments out of the water.

With missiles, it isn't possible to be precise. They are only "low skill" in the sense that you are prohibited from exercising the same kind of twitch skill that poptarts use.

Missiles aren't easy mode when looked at that way. They're hard mode. You are prohibited from using your twitch skills when you're using missiles. The best you can hope for is to scatter decent damage all over your target, unlike even an average poptart who can expect to at least hit a torso with every shot.

I put an LRM-15 on my Mech. It weighs 7 tons... 8 if I'm using Artemis which I damn well better be or that LRM0-15 is pretty pointless. So it weighs as much as an AC/5.

Both use ammo. For the sake of argument we'll say they need the same number of tons, though realistically the LRM-15 needs more to be useful.

For those 8 tons + ammo, the LRM-15 does 16.5 damage (theoretically) while the AC/5 does 5. But lets include accuracy in that. Let's say I'm 40% accurate with the LRM-15, which is pretty damn good, so I'm actually only doing 6.6 damage per volley. Now let's say I'm 70% accurate with the AC/5 - which is good but not great - so I'm doing 3.5 damage per volley.

SEE LRMS ARE OP! NURF LRMS!

Except cycle time. (Almost 3:1 in favor of the AC/5.) Except precision. (AC/5 can be aimed, LRMs can't.)

The reality is that the AC/5 is probably twice as good as the Artemis-equipped LRM-15, all things considered. It's at least 50% better if you ignore precision simply due to rate of fire.

Accuracy basically includes all of those other external factors like ECM, Tag, Narc, use of cover, etc. The numbers don't lie.

So we're back to the point I made before. If you're getting abused by LRMs, it's not because LRMs are good. It's because you screwed up. It's not because LRMs are OP, it's because [I]you are bad./[I] And I really think that's why people hate LRMs. Because subconsciously, people realize this and hate the fact that LRMs are demonstrating just how bad they are.

No matter how good the pilot is, LRMs are really only good against bad targets. Direct fire weapons are good or bad depending almost entirely on the skill of the firer. If you're good with FLD weapons you're equally good using them against scrubs or experts. The same is not true of LRMs, which is why LRMs are so bad.