146 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Kilo 40, on 18 March 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

The suggestions to "fix" LRMs are always worth a chuckle, and they always sound pretty similar.

"well. fixing them is easy. Just make them LOS only, increase lock on time, decrease speed, make triple AMS for all mechs, make the Radar dep module standard for all mechs, have AMS ammo be 6000 rounds per half ton, cut in half the amount of LRM ammo per ton, stream fire all launchers at I missile per half second, let lasers shoot them down, ECM should cause damage to any LRM boat within 360 meters, make them self detonate at 50m out if your mech is facing the firing mech, have all LRM boats(anything with more than a single LRM5) pulsate in neon pink lighting, and increase the weight of TAG and NARC by 5 tons.

I think that sounds reasonable."

...and don't do anything to ecm except increase range to 1000m.

[Alistair Winter]

Lynx7725, on 19 March 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

Actually, that's not the point. Both needs skills, especially if you spec your build and modules correctly (i.e., have zoom, weapons module, etc. etc.)

I don't want to get into a long philosophical discussion about different schools of thought and what defines skill. In the end, we will not agree on anything, I think, and it's hard to prove anything through such dialectic reasoning.

Let's be scientific about this and see if we can find a statement that is falsifiable.

LRMs are popular among new players, but highly unpopular among the most skilled, competitive groups who will do anything they can to win. This, I think, is fairly easy to test. And I think the evidence is rather conclusive.

[Lynx7725]

Alistair Winter, on 19 March 2015 - 12:34 AM, said:

LRMs are popular among new players, but highly unpopular among the most skilled, competitive groups who will do anything they can to win. This, I think, is fairly easy to test. And I think the evidence is rather conclusive.

There are at least three people participating in this thread that would instantly void this assumption.

[Madcap72]

wanderer, on 19 March 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

Do you have the dumb, sir? C3/C3i in Battletech does something very specific.

As noted before, it renders all weapons fire by networked 'Mechs accurate as if the target was at the range of the nearest member of the network with LOS. That is, because one of my network is 3 hexes away, I fire my guns as if -I- were 3 hexes away.

As MWO 'Mechs don't magically get to shoot things that way, no MWO unit gets "free C3/C3i".



Location, yes. Targeting data? See above for what C3 actually does in Battletech, not what you want to say it does. Maybe get a rulebook, so you can actually read the effects of such equipment. What IDF fire with LRMs (and mortars and other non-LOS guns in Battletech) requires has nothing to do with what C3 provides. All you need is a unit with LOS to the target and you NOT having LOS from the firer. Period. One guy with a walkie-talkie doesn't have magical free C3 equipment, but he'll do for bombing someone with LRMs. Or artillery. Or mortars.

We already had the joys of "BUUUUUUT LRMS DON'T HAVE GUIDANCE SYSTEMS" in this thread already. You're verging on the same spergfest with "BUUUUUUT C3 DOES THIS CAUSE I SAY SO!", when in fact, it doesn't do anything like what you say it does in TT OR MWO..

So either read a book, or stop interjecting with gems of ignorance. Please.

A lack of comprehension and critical thinking on your part does not negate that the C3 for BT as scoped operates like the C3 in MWO.

Mechwarrior online isn't the battletech table top game. Once again your comparision with ranging and hexes means nothing. Once again your attempts to compare turnbased tabletop gaming to real time FPS fails due to the incongruity of the two systems.

Posts like yours remind me why I avoided forum warrior online for so long.

The rulebook and game functions of the table top literally don't matter here. You can know all the books by heart, it's meaningless.

Take it easy

[Kilo 40]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

I didn't think I actually had to explain myself in detail. Yes, bad players are easy to kill. But obviously there's a difference in the skills required to hit a target at 900 meters with LRMs versus the gauss rifle. With the LRMs, your reticule just has to be inside the giant red box for a certain period of time. If you lose the target lock for some reason, you can get it back. With the gauss rifle, you actually have to hold and release the button and try to calculate the trajectory and speed of the projectile compared to the speed and distance to your target.

are you REALLY trying to say gauss sniping is...hard???

ok dude.

[Kilo 40]

Alistair Winter, on 19 March 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

You'll notice I actually suggested buffing LRM speed to compensate for harder target locks in the OP.

yes you did. you just never gave a reason for there to be harder target locks in the first place other than "it's easy to kill bad players" or something.

Quote

you deliberately just chose a meaningless strawman argument to lel @ lrm threads. Either way, you may want to reconsider the use of the word "always".

"strawman argument" to you, a "joke" to everyone else.

Kjudoon, on 19 March 2015 - 12:16 AM, said:

...and don't do anything to ecm except increase range to 1000m.

I can't believe I forgot ECM...

[Kjudoon]

Madcap72, on 19 March 2015 - 12:41 AM, said:

A lack of comprehension and critical thinking on your part does not negate that the C3 for BT as scoped operates like the C3 in MWO.

Mechwarrior online isn't the battletech table top game. Once again your comparision with ranging and hexes means nothing. Once again your attempts to compare turnbased tabletop gaming to real time FPS fails due to the incongruity of the two systems.

Posts like yours remind me why I avoided forum warrior online for so long.

The rulebook and game functions of the table top literally don't matter here. You can know all the books by heart, it's meaningless.

Take it easy

Ergo you deny the validity of all lore arguments. What was your point about freeC3 again? It wasn't lore?

[Kjudoon]

Lynx7725, on 19 March 2015 - 12:40 AM, said:

There are at least three people participating in this thread that would instantly void this assumption.

Can't be me. I only have 6000 matches in with only 2 eight kill games and a half dozen maybe 1500 damage games with LRMs.

I'm average at best.

[Alistair Winter]

[Joseph Mallan]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

I am not sure about easy mode, but When teh masses scream like they just did, Skill is not something the loud Competitive players want. See it interferes with their skillz.

[Kilo 40]

Alistair Winter, on 19 March 2015 - 12:34 AM, said:

Let's be scientific about this and see if we can find a statement that is falsifiable.

LRMs are popular among new players, but highly unpopular among the most skilled, competitive groups who will do anything they can to win.

except that LRMs are very UNpopular among new players as evidenced by every single "nerf LRMS!" thread ever.

Alistair Winter, on 19 March 2015 - 01:02 AM, said:

[Madcap72]

Hmmm, just looked at my stats...


Over 1 million LRM5+ Atremis missles fired. 31% hit rate.


ER Large laser has a 64% hit rate...



PGI should make LRM's more accurate to balance out with other weapons.

[Kjudoon]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

I didn't think I actually had to explain myself in detail. Yes, bad players are easy to kill. But obviously there's a difference in the skills required to hit a target at 900 meters with LRMs versus the gauss rifle. With the LRMs, your reticule just has to be inside the giant red box for a certain period of time. If you lose the target lock for some reason, you can get it back. With the gauss rifle, you actually have to hold and release the button and try to calculate the trajectory and speed of the projectile compared to the speed and distance to your target.

I don't understand why other players are so touchy about LRMs being easy to use. I regularly play my CPLT-C1 and AWS-8R. I still recognise that hitting a target with LRMs is easy as hell. It's the reason I get bored with them so quickly. And the fact that they're woefully inferior against competent players with good aim and good use of cover.

Here is part of the problem. People are touchy because "pro" players make the false equivalency that ease of use equals incompetence and treat other players that way.

Also, the mechanics between using ballistics, lasers and LRMs should be looked at.

ACs require a small target point for a player to match on a mech. Range and zoom determine size and control. The weapon can be snap shot, but will require calculating how much to lead and compensate for drop. This process can happen inside a split second from start to completion.

Gauss varies in one key aspect: it requires anticipation. The ability to read your target's movement and predict when you need to make that shot. This is what makes using them harder than acs but is still over inside one second.

Laserfire has the opposite problem. You still have to line up the shot, worry about drop or travel time. The big challenge there is keeping the laser on target so full damage is dealt. Something all PPFLD weapons do not have to worry about.

LRMs have to aim just like everybody else, except they get credit for being close. But this is in conflict with needing time to lock. The farther off your target retical is from dead center, the slower the lock speed. Or didn't you notice? Actually using adv zoom shows this even better. So, once lock is achieved, which is almost a hitscan process in itself, then you must fire and STILL then you must hitscan till the missiles land. This process can last up to 8 seconds with range and over 45 seconds of fighting for a lock (that hitscanning again) if ecm is present.

Now... which of the 4 main methods described is harder, more involved or difficult?

[Lily from animove]

But why would you want it to be harder to use if its anyways a bad wepaon?

@Mapcap the 31% comes from the way how poeple dodge your lrms's by going behing cover and having them impact into buildings or landscape.

[Roadbuster]

I also liked the increased difficulty to get locks.
The only problem which remains is that LRMs are very unreliable at the moment.

We have lots of ECM cappable mechs, radar deprivation module even breaks lock when the mech is running past a gantry and the low speed of LRMs makes it easy to dodge them.
NARC is not much help either, if there is more than 1 ECM on the other team.
TAG, as the only 100% working counter to ECM requires too much exposure time.

Small or single LRM launchers make little sense.
On the other side we have the problem that too many LRMs are too powerful and streams of LRMs, like Clan LRMs or multiple small IS launchers, cause so much cockpit shake that it's almost impossible to return fire.


I think these changes would be worth a try:
- require better aiming to get locks
- make LRMs fire and forget unless the target gets under ECM cover or is using radar deprivation module
- increase missile speed
- remove ECM stacking; increase ECM range when their fields overlap
- reduce cockpit shake and adjust it depending on launcher size and cluster or serial fire (IS/Clan)

[Madcap72]

Lily from animove, on 19 March 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:

But why would you want it to be harder to use if its anyways a bad wepaon?

@Mapcap the 31% comes from the way how poeple dodge your lrms's by going behing cover and having them impact into buildings or landscape.

No it's not, my actual hit rate is probably closer to 40-45%.

A lot of my missles hit dead mechs because they were already in the air when I got a kill.

The joy of pulling 80kph in a Catapult, and using LRM5's is that I can range targets and if I don't get a hit reposition to a place I can and bring the pain. Having played thousands of matches in it, I know all the firing angles on all of the maps both stationary, and where I can get away doing fade away jump shots to clear obstacles.


I also throw away missles to make people go where I want them too, and herd them or keep them put. By shooting the ground where someone is turkey peeking, I can vector friendly players into trap them, normally forcing them out then I can reposition when friendlies keep them busy and start targeting them again.

There's nothing funnier to me than when I'm brawling a dude with LRMs, and they duck around a corner thinking they are safe because I'm close, then I just jump and lob missles into them.

[wanderer]

Madcap72, on 19 March 2015 - 12:41 AM, said:

A lack of comprehension and critical thinking on your part does not negate that the C3 for BT as scoped operates like the C3 in MWO.

You do have the dumb here! I'm going to just call you the special snowflake you deserve to be. Here's the relevant information on 'Mech sensor systems.

http://www.sarna.net...racking_systemz

I'm even gonna quote the relevant part.

"Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) is a key ability of the T&T system. It eases the burden of identifying targets for MechWarriors in battle conditions, especially in poor visibility. Friendly and enemy 'Mechs are tagged with differing graphic tokens. IFF broadcast beacons are used by the BattleMechs targeting and tracking system to avoid accidental missile fire at a friendly 'Mech, though the system can be manually overridden.

Battlemech sensory processors and programming stand out for their ability to recognize other units and classify them by type and as friend or foe. Virtually all T&T suites can tell what type of unit is being detected, and can even make educated guesses at what variant that unit is. The system is surprisingly intuitive and at times it will present an interesting "guess." For example, the famous Inner Sphere naming of the Clan Timber Wolf OmniMech. The first Inner Sphere BattleMech to encounter one saw it as a cross between two designs it already knew - the Marauder and Catapult designs, thus the name "Mad Cat" was born.

BattleMechs can also share some sensor data. Specialized C3, C3i, and other hardware takes this to new heights, but all BattleMechs can at the least handle basic sensory data from friendly 'Mechs in order to pinpoint enemy positions, or share more detailed information. This is usually done with a separate communications channel, and can be difficult to maintain during battle."

Now read up and maybe, just maybe we can get you out of the 4th grade before next year.

Quote

Mechwarrior online isn't the battletech table top game. Once again your comparision with ranging and hexes means nothing. Once again your attempts to compare turnbased tabletop gaming to real time FPS fails due to the incongruity of the two systems.

Posts like yours remind me why I avoided forum warrior online for so long.

The rulebook and game functions of the table top literally don't matter here. You can know all the books by heart, it's meaningless.

Take it easy

Y'know what? Missiles should be self-guiding without need for a lock and explode 'Mechs with a single one vs. full armor. Because we can easily shoot down a fighter jet with one. Because Gundams.

What, you say? Gundams have nothing to do with MWO? Real missiles can blow up tanks with a single hit, too. Who cares that it's got nothing to do with the game universe! Silly, right?

If you're going to make a game about 'Mechs, ignoring the primary sources completely only destroys the entire idea.

[Alex Morgaine]

Reitrix, on 18 March 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

Aiming for center of the red square and waiting for the red lock felt more involved than ... aiming inside the red square and waiting for that red lock?


While I'm a fan of the C3 system, the problem is can you find someone in the solo queue willing to sacrifice guns to take a system that ONLY benefits someone else and could could end up as dead weight because no one has LRMs.

Well groups could, but pug is pug, and people would still avoid the R button and complain about useless lrms.
Moving group support to an actual C3 wouldn't be a bad thing, just harder on pugs. It's still down to the scout hitting R tbh

Side thought of idealness:
Have C3 M and S to maintain indirect lock support like right now on the 1M = 3S like tt or make it 1M = 11S just for simplicity, and change command consoles from pseudo TC to give full sight on the map simulating satellite support/the tt initiative bonus (but not instant lock, just view) instead of the range and etc bonuses. Op? Maybe, maybe not. In pigs pugs (lol), who wants to waste 3 tons for something that requires them to look on the map all day and sit in the back lines directing a battle instead of charging in and blowing dakka and getting kills?

Leaders and Organized groups would, and directing support fire with a CC unit with C3 support would make more useful items AND might add more is/clan balance without nerds nerfs and quirks.

Edited by Frosty Brand, 19 March 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[Madcap72]

wanderer, on 19 March 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

You do have the dumb here! I'm going to just call you the special snowflake you deserve to be. Here's the relevant information on 'Mech sensor systems.

http://www.sarna.net...racking_systemz

I'm even gonna quote the relevant part.

"Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) is a key ability of the T&T system. It eases the burden of identifying targets for MechWarriors in battle conditions, especially in poor visibility. Friendly and enemy 'Mechs are tagged with differing graphic tokens. IFF broadcast beacons are used by the BattleMechs targeting and tracking system to avoid accidental missile fire at a friendly 'Mech, though the system can be manually overridden.

Battlemech sensory processors and programming stand out for their ability to recognize other units and classify them by type and as friend or foe. Virtually all T&T suites can tell what type of unit is being detected, and can even make educated guesses at what variant that unit is. The system is surprisingly intuitive and at times it will present an interesting "guess." For example, the famous Inner Sphere naming of the Clan Timber Wolf OmniMech. The first Inner Sphere BattleMech to encounter one saw it as a cross between two designs it already knew - the Marauder and Catapult designs, thus the name "Mad Cat" was born.

BattleMechs can also share some sensor data. Specialized C3, C3i, and other hardware takes this to new heights, but all BattleMechs can at the least handle basic sensory data from friendly 'Mechs in order to pinpoint enemy positions, or share more detailed information. This is usually done with a separate communications channel, and can be difficult to maintain during battle."

Now read up and maybe, just maybe we can get you out of the 4th grade before next year.



Y'know what? Missiles should be self-guiding without need for a lock and explode 'Mechs with a single one vs. full armor. Because we can easily shoot down a fighter jet with one. Because Gundams.

What, you say? Gundams have nothing to do with MWO? Real missiles can blow up tanks with a single hit, too. Who cares that it's got nothing to do with the game universe! Silly, right?

If you're going to make a game about 'Mechs, ignoring the primary sources completely only destroys the entire idea.

The entire arugument you and I are having is not about hte detection of data, but the sharing of target data and targeting.

This is directly under what you quoted...

"BattleMechs can also share some sensor data. Specialized C3, C3i, and other hardware takes this to new heights, but all BattleMechs can at the least handle basic sensory data from friendly 'Mechs in order to pinpoint enemy positions, or share more detailed information. This is usually done with a separate communications channel, and can be difficult to maintain during battle."

The "seperate communications channel" is voip and the battlemap. Locking and automatically making the data available to friendly units via locking on non los or looking at the minimap without any other intervention is the entire purpose of c3.



Your effort to be the grand old man of the internet falls short. Your nonsensical arguments and reliance on juvinile insults reinforces the fact you're just making noise in an effort to try to stay relevent in a conversation you're quickly becoming nothing more than an annoyance in.

In a game where a huge amount of the player base is late 20's to early 50's, you do an outstanding job of sounding inmature.

[CaptainScumBa11s]

Total Warfare, p. 111: "LRM Indirect Fire"


just gonna leave this here


but on a related note ECM can die in a fire

Edited by TheKillerWolf, 19 March 2015 - 01:15 PM.