138 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Brody319, on 08 November 2014 - 12:17 AM, said:

Lack of reward for mounting AMS means that most puggers will never mount it. coordinated teams will easily take out missile boats so even they don't really have an interest in bringing it if they can bring more ammo or heat sinks.

AMS doesn't help when you have 2-3 guys with LRM boats hitting the same guy.

That's player mentality. It is their ******* fault for not having AMS awareness. Don't blame the game just because the players are either stupid, or selfish, or both. I never had problems dealing with LRMs but I still bring AMS, because I actually give a damn about the continued survivability of my less skilled/fortunate teammates.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 November 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[ToxinTractor]

I do agree that some thing should be done about LRMs... however there are lots of options in terms of how they could do this. One option would be to say.. increase LRM missile speed in a scaling manner (So LRM 5s say move the quickest, while 20s move the slowest), while that would make the larger racks more venerable to AMS fire this might be a nice way to saturate a area with LRMs.

Another as stated would be to standardize the spread which doesnt sound like a bad idea in my head, I am not sure how hard that would be to code in cry engine. But if it was doable I do enjoy the idea of LRMs say.. picking a target on the mech (kinda like a streak SRM) so when they come down on the mech, they spread. hitting the arms, STs and CT but with TAG and NARC tightening that spread so say.. with a tag arms suddenly are not targeted any more and the cone is now over the STs and CT. And with both the LRMs will say.. mostly hit the CT. That is just a example of course.

The idea of tweaking quirks or adding mods that affect LRMs in a variety of ways sounds cool as well. (Such as removing the arching affect on clan LRMs OR making IS LRMs fire higher into the air before they begin to seek their target.)

These are just some ideas I have. in my eyes LRMs are a indirect source of damage, ment to soften up a target, and only are to be used as a primary weapon when you are going to have support. (So basicly if you boat them, yea youll do high damage but you will not be efficient for getting kills but merely to soften them up and the hope is that it encourages a mechwarrior to have a LRM X on his mech.)

This is providing you are in a optimal enviroment (No AMS and your able to hold your locks for all missiles to hit)

Edited by ToxinTractor, 08 November 2014 - 12:23 AM.

[Brody319]

El Bandito, on 08 November 2014 - 12:19 AM, said:

That's player mentality. It is their ******* fault for not having AMS awareness. Don't blame the game just because the players are either stupid, or selfish, or both.

So how about rewarding them for playing as a teammate? 10 CB and 5 XP for each missile shot down with AMS, and guess what, you will see a huge rise in AMS systems.

It maybe stupid that they have to pay people to do something they should do because its a good idea, but you kinda just have to with this game. Its a grind, and people are going to do what gives them the most income. AMS does not help that income when they can bring more ammo or guns, both of which vastly help my chance of getting kills and "most damage" bonuses which is where the big money is.

[El Bandito]

Brody319, on 08 November 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

So how about rewarding them for playing as a teammate? 10 CB and 5 XP for each missile shot down with AMS, and guess what, you will see a huge rise in AMS systems.

It maybe stupid that they have to pay people to do something they should do because its a good idea, but you kinda just have to with this game. Its a grind, and people are going to do what gives them the most income. AMS does not help that income when they can bring more ammo or guns, both of which vastly help my chance of getting kills and "most damage" bonuses which is where the big money is.

I highly, highly doubt mere 1.5 ton can "vastly help your chance of getting kills", as you claim. Also, I tend to view my teammates surviving longer as reward in itself. They live longer, they can shield me longer, and I can shoot more.

It is very much game deciding when your Fat Whale dies to LRMs before moving away from spawn in River City. With my Dual AMS STK-5S in a tow, that is much less of an issue.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 November 2014 - 12:32 AM.

[Brody319]

El Bandito, on 08 November 2014 - 12:28 AM, said:

I highly, highly doubt mere 1.5 ton can "vastly help your chance of getting kills", as you claim. Also, I tend to view my teammates surviving longer as reward in itself. They live longer, they can shield me longer, and I can shoot more.

1.5 tons:
1.5 tons of ammo
1.5 tons of armor
1 ton medium lasers
1 ton double heat sink
2 machine guns with half a ton of ammo.
1 streaker SRM 2
1. SRM 2 + half a ton of ammo

Not a lot but in some situations those can get you the tiny amount of damage you need to out damage your friends and enemies to put them down. That 1.5 tons is even more valuble for lights.

The reward system doesn't encourage team play, it encourages kill steals, and out DPSing your friendlies.

[El Bandito]

Brody319, on 08 November 2014 - 12:35 AM, said:

1.5 tons:
1.5 tons of ammo
1.5 tons of armor
1 ton medium lasers
1 ton double heat sink
2 machine guns with half a ton of ammo.
1 streaker SRM 2
1. SRM 2 + half a ton of ammo

Not a lot but in some situations those can get you the tiny amount of damage you need to out damage your friends and enemies to put them down. That 1.5 tons is even more valuble for lights.

The reward system doesn't encourage team play, it encourages kill steals, and out DPSing your friendlies.

All your examples apply to pretty much Lights only, and even then, a 30 ton Kitfox can easily cram in three. Heavier than that, mechs can squeeze in 1.5 ton easily. You and all the others are not thinking outside the box when it comes to rewards. Victory gives the best chance for larger rewards, and spending 1.5 ton for AMS and ammo has more impact towards victory than 1 more heat sink or 1 more ML, in pug matches.

A single AMS is guaranteed to shoot down an incoming NARC beacon as long as the NARC travels for more than 140 meters, thus potentially saving an entire mech from buried in LRMs afterwards. Think about that for a second.
No single heat sink or ML can have equal impact.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 November 2014 - 12:51 AM.

[StonedDead]

So basically, you want to see the missile spread standardized between the missile classes. I'll admit, there is quite a difference between using an LRM20 and quad5's. I've been using the quad 5 setup since before it was cool. It's great for softening up the enemy before you close, and deadly at medium range in LOS If you're firing into clumps of mechs though, the 20 does fine. I tend to run best with it on the Orion VA.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bc7e2061c604af0

I think both sets of launchers have their place if used right. There are quite a few mechs that don't hold 4 launchers either, and the ones that do, tend to run very hot depending on what extra weapons they are carrying.

[Thorqemada]

Imho multiple IS-LRM10 be the best bcs they still have a tight spread and you do not need Artemis while the number of Missiles enables it to break through light AMS defenses and still delivering significant damage.

[Yumemi79]

Glythe, on 07 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

This is why you see people chain firing LRM 5s because it gives a long range chest seeking weapon.

Actually, it is for many reasons.

1.) when there are enough slots, 4x5 are two tons lighter than 1x20 withouth Artemis atleast.
2.) the recharge is faster, so you can get better k/d ration.
3.) when people run behind cover you have wasted mostly 5-10 rockets rather than 20. Same goes for missfiring.
4.) psycholigical reasons: the constant shake is irritating as well as hearing the incoming missile voice and seeing the stream will make you cover in fear. ^^
5.) almost every fool seem to consider taking more weapons instead of atleast one AMS per mech. Changing that egoistic mentality will take care of the LRM5 stream.

[Joseph Mallan]

Brody319, on 07 November 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

LRM 20s launch a fat wall of missiles.
LRM 5s are tiny clusters. It makes sense, more spread of the missiles the more the damage is spread out.
LRM 5s also generate less heat, and reload much faster meaning you can chain fire them to get an almost constant stream of missiles on the enemy. A stream of tightly clustered missiles is better than a wall of missiles. If you made the LRM 20s launch 4 volleys of 5 missiles in a tight cluster you might see more play from them.

Add to this that it takes less time to reload 5 missiles and you can see how multiple LRM5s trump a LRM15/20.

On TT an LRM5 averaged 3 missiles hitting the target. An LRM 20 averaged 12 and a LRM15 averaged 9. There was not much difference. BUT 4 LRM5s made a bit more heat than an LRM20, And had a higher probability of hitting with SOME of the missiles where an LRM20 could miss with ALL for less heat.

So it's a trade off either way. Now Can PGI make it so 4 LRM5s do NOT hit with more missiles than an LRM20? That is the question?

[The Boz]

OK, I see a whole lot of misinformation flying around, so I'll just post this...

And that is ignoring the clear advantage of chest-seeking. Six LRM5 will outdamage two LRM20 simply because the LRM20 misses more shots.
LRM heat is rarely an issue, unless you're in a brawl, in which case you chain-fire in order to induce the maximum amount of epilepsy, and LRM5s are better here as well.
The only reason to toss an LRM20 on a mech is if you have one slot and twenty tubes.

Edited by The Boz, 08 November 2014 - 03:50 AM.

[The Boz]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Add to this that it takes less time to reload 5 missiles and you can see how multiple LRM5s trump a LRM15/20.

Well that's just ******** reasoning. One LRM5 is easier to reload than one LRM20, but four? Really?

[Joseph Mallan]

The Boz, on 08 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

Well that's just ******** reasoning. One LRM5 is easier to reload than one LRM20, but four? Really?

What Each LRM5 Reloads faster. Set to ripple fire that is a sweet roaring stream of missiles that an LRM20 cannot match. Fire all 4 at the same time and all 4 will still reload faster. And yes Really.

[Zerberus]

The Boz, on 08 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

Well that's just ******** reasoning. One LRM5 is easier to reload than one LRM20, but four? Really?

4 launchers = 4 reloading mechanisms as opposed to one, meaining the reload SHOULD be, in theory, 4x as fast.

What more explanation is necessary, beyond that be-all end-all argument of "It`s a game in a fictional universe where we walk around in completely unrealistic 30 foot high battlemechs that defy any and every law physics ever gave us just by their mere existence"... don`t even get me started on bore size /range or still being able to dissaipate heat effectively in the vacuum of space, or magneto-kinetic weapons (looking at you, gauss rifle) weiging less than the mech itself...of course, despite being bombed back into the stone age, resulting in weapons that "should" have ranges of multiple kilometers maxing out at 2 with a targeting computer that can`t even consistently target something at that range, and an overall level of computerization that would allow a single person with a modern cell phone to become the Supreme Undisputed Emperor of the Inner Sphere within minutes, in an absolutely legal fashion (at least theoretically)

Edited by Zerberus, 08 November 2014 - 04:19 AM.

[Zerberus]

We know, we can read at least as well as you can.

And? Your logically sound argument that this obvious and therefore superfluous statement (remember your own maxim, and I quote "MAKE LOVE, NOT SPAM") was is meant to underscore is?

Edited by Zerberus, 08 November 2014 - 04:29 AM.

[QuantumButler]

I love it when people use LRM5s, because a single AMS can take out huge chunks of each LRM salvo, since it works by shooting down 2 or 3 missiles PER SALVO FIRED, IE: 40-50% of each LRM 5 cloud, but this means bigger launchers can punch through AMS with ease since taking 2 missiles out of a single 20 cloud isn't going help a whole lot.

and if you have dual [or triple!] AMS people with 5s might as well not even bother.

[Joseph Mallan]

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

I love it when people use LRM5s, because a single AMS can take out huge chunks of each LRM salvo, since it works by shooting down 2 or 3 missiles PER SALVO FIRED, IE: 40-50% of each LRM 5 cloud, but this means bigger launchers can punch through AMS with ease since taking 2 missiles out of a single 20 cloud isn't going help a whole lot.

and if you have dual [or triple!] AMS people with 5s might as well not even bother.

Yes but its the trade off for faster rate of fire.

[Zerberus]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

And what does that have to do with how fast it loads?

a Single LRM20 is also cooler than firing 4 LRM5s So it has an advantage for its size.

I suggest we cease trying to discuss this rationally with him, it obviously isn`t working, and is by now only causing him to betray his own morals by posting contentless post after contentless post

Quote

Name calling is not required and totally ineffective Boz.

FTFY

But is actually is effective for the discussion: It gives people with actual arguments valid reason to start dissecting his every stateme3nt, so as to display character flaws, false perceptions, forked tongues, and other rhetorically detrimental elements of his delivery. Which, in theory, will eventually lead to him

a: Leaving the discussion entirely to reflkect on his own rhetorical shortcomings (however unlikely this may be post-1990)
b: Rethink his standpoint (even less likely post 1990)
c: throw a hissy fit and put both of us and any others that may not share his opinion or offer actual facts on ignore, as would be proper in 2014 where intelligence is viewed as a flaw by society where malinformed loudmouths that lack any capacity for self reflection are the new gold standard

I mean, has he even considered the fact that about 95% of the mechs that can evenmount an lrm 20 can not realistically mount more than 2 lrm 5s in teh first place? or that , esp w/ clans, not every hardpoint could even accomodate a 20? Methinks not

[The Boz]

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

I love it when people use LRM5s, because a single AMS can take out huge chunks of each LRM salvo, since it works by shooting down 2 or 3 missiles PER SALVO FIRED, IE: 40-50% of each LRM 5 cloud, but this means bigger launchers can punch through AMS with ease since taking 2 missiles out of a single 20 cloud isn't going help a whole lot.

and if you have dual [or triple!] AMS people with 5s might as well not even bother.

AMS is more effective vs LRM20 than salvo-fired 3xLRM5, because even though they take out the same number of missiles, the LRM20 will miss, and does a piss-poor job of concentrating fire.

Zerberus, on 08 November 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

I mean, has he even considered the fact that about 95% of the mechs that can evenmount an lrm 20 can not realistically mount more than 2 lrm 5s in teh first place? or that , esp w/ clans, not every hardpoint could even accomodate a 20? Methinks not

Methinks you didn't even read my posts, because I've clearly stated that the only reason to mount a 20 is if you have just 1 missile slot, and that slot has 20 tubes. And even there, I'd rather mount a 15.

Edited by The Boz, 08 November 2014 - 04:50 AM.

[QuantumButler]

The Boz, on 08 November 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

AMS is more effective vs LRM20 than salvo-fired 3xLRM5, because even though they take out the same number of missiles, the LRM5 will miss, and does a piss-poor job of concentrating fire.


Methinks you didn't even read my posts, because I've clearly stated that the only reason to mount a 20 is if you have just 1 missile slot, and that slot has 20 tubes. And even there, I'd rather mount a 15.

The point being the OP has the [wrong] opinion that big launchers < small launchers and is complaining about it.

Though the LRM20 has always been terrible and no one should ever use it over the godly lrm15, thing is it has been terribly inaccurate for 'ages' now, this was not a recent change or "nerf", the 20 was always awful at concentrating damage compared to the 15.

Except for Clan Blurms of course, since those fire differently.