384 replies to this topic

[Johny Rocket]

Satan n stuff, on 31 May 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

That's the exact logic that leads to 30kph LRM boats with 20 tons of ammo and we all know how effective those are, right?

Sorry but no, It is the logic that leads to a Medium doing 97.2 kph carrying 10 tons of ammo and 5x lrm5 and an ERLL.

Edited by Tractor Joe, 31 May 2015 - 10:04 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Moomtazz, on 31 May 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

What makes you think those accuracy numbers mean anything useful?

1. Laser accuracy is meaningless
2. Does anyone know how LRM accuracy is calculated? Is it per missile fired? Per volley?
3. The only accuracy stats that have any meaning is PPC, Gauss, and IS AC afaik, since the are all one projectile.
4. People who think comparing LRM and Laser accuracy reflect the difficulty of using the weapon system are misguided.
5. Comparing LRM accuracy between players might give a measure of those players' relative skill with LRMs compared to each other.
6. Comparing Laser accuracy between players is meaningless unless there is a huge difference (say 30% vs 80%).

The accuracy stats for LRMs are per missile.

[Wintersdark]

1. Yup. Laser accuracy is counted as a hit even if you just nick someone with one tick of damage. More useful for lasers is damage done / shots fired (not by hits) - that shows how much actual damage you out out per trigger pull.

2. Per missile. Really easy to test.

3. Missile accuracy stats have every bit as much meaning. Learn how things work before making statements like this.

4. Perhaps Laser accuracy is meaningless as a stat, but missile accuracy is very useful. And you can easily compare the actual effectiveness of the systems and resultant accuracy in usage, as well as damage / shot as in referenced above

5. Sure

6. As established, laser accuracy is worthless, but damage/shot is not.

[Moomtazz]

Satan n stuff, on 31 May 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

The accuracy stats for LRMs are per missile.

Thanks, I just saw that on my stats as well. Volley spread, cover partially blocking volleys, and broken locks account for the overall lower accuracy.

I was looking at my stats page and there really isn't enough info to judge skill based on what's given. You have total damage and number of hits, but most weapons have damage dropoff and some weapon damage has changed over time.

I was trying to see if there was a way to tell if a person held lasers for full duration or simply a short time to register a hit but there is not enough info. Even if you could determine that a player hold the laser for full duration, the next level in skill is holding it on a component.

[Satan n stuff]

Moomtazz, on 31 May 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

Thanks, I just saw that on my stats as well. Volley spread, cover partially blocking volleys, and broken locks account for the overall lower accuracy.

I was looking at my stats page and there really isn't enough info to judge skill based on what's given. You have total damage and number of hits, but most weapons have damage dropoff and some weapon damage has changed over time.

I was trying to see if there was a way to tell if a person held lasers for full duration or simply a short time to register a hit but there is not enough info. Even if you could determine that a player hold the laser for full duration, the next level in skill is holding it on a component.

You can say the same for any weapon, 60% accuracy with an AC/20 does not mean you hit what you're aiming for 60% of the time either.

[Moomtazz]

Wintersdark, on 31 May 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

1. Yup. Laser accuracy is counted as a hit even if you just nick someone with one tick of damage. More useful for lasers is damage done / shots fired (not by hits) - that shows how much actual damage you out out per trigger pull.

2. Per missile. Really easy to test.

3. Missile accuracy stats have every bit as much meaning. Learn how things work before making statements like this.

4. Perhaps Laser accuracy is meaningless as a stat, but missile accuracy is very useful. And you can easily compare the actual effectiveness of the systems and resultant accuracy in usage, as well as damage / shot as in referenced above

5. Sure

6. As established, laser accuracy is worthless, but damage/shot is not.

Missile accuracy would go through the roof if it was reported per volley, rather than per missile. Likewise, laser accuracy would drop if they reported per tick. There is a fundamental difference in how the accuracy is reported that leads to players like you misunderstanding the meaning of the calculated values.

Satan n stuff, on 31 May 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

You can say the same for any weapon, 60% accuracy with an AC/20 does not mean you hit what you're aiming for 60% of the time either.

Absolutely. Accuracy in this game is much less of an indicator of skill than in other FPS games.

[IraqiWalker]

Aresye Kerensky, on 30 May 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

Alright then. Completely remove the indirect fire element and buff the direct fire element to be rewarding. Problem solved,

Can't have your cake and eat it too. It's about risk vs reward. Most people's problems with LRMs aren't the direct fire, and yes, I'm saying if a player wants to stick behind cover and not have a care in the world other than keeping a crosshair in a box, they shouldn't have 100% effectiveness.

They already don't have 100% effectiveness in any way shape or form. I personally think they should have indirect fire. They should always have that. My problem is that they are such a binary weapon. Either you wreck everything, or you do zilch.

The hard counters don't help. The players are 80% idiots, or an insult to idiots, so if we remove/tweak even one of them down, the cries would rise up again, and the weapon system itself still has flaws.

Joseph Mallan, on 31 May 2015 - 03:56 AM, said:

Me, I wanna eat my Cake and have it to.

[Aresye]

Bush Hopper, on 31 May 2015 - 03:39 AM, said:

I agree with that. However, I would keep the indirect fire element for TAGGed or NARCed targets.

Edit: And give ECM also a thorough re-work at the same time

Yeah I agree there, on all accounts, and have actually lobbied for that in the past.

Probably not going to happen though, because the LRM crowd, while very vocal about how much work it takes to acquire and maintain their own locks, will never sign on to anything that takes away their precious indirect fire.

Yeah, I know indirect fire is in tabletop. Guess what? That's indirect fire from somebody who's dedicated to maintaining a lock, not moving, and certainly not in the middle of a fight. The problem comes when you're up brawling in someone's face, and yet because they have you targeted to see your damage readout, LRMs are raining down on your head the entire time. I'm sorry, but indirect fire should not work if you're moving and fighting. There's a reason why there's multipliers in TT that degrade indirect fire for that exact reason.

No more light mechs running around an entire team at 140kph holding a lock whilst simultaneously shooting 3-4 other mechs. Take away that cheesy mechanic, limit indirect fire to UAV, NARC, TAG, or a stationary spotter, buff the missile speed, and make direct fire more effective. Problem solved.

[Johny Rocket]

Aresye Kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yeah I agree there, on all accounts, and have actually lobbied for that in the past.

Probably not going to happen though, because the LRM crowd, while very vocal about how much work it takes to acquire and maintain their own locks, will never sign on to anything that takes away their precious indirect fire.

Yeah, I know indirect fire is in tabletop. Guess what? That's indirect fire from somebody who's dedicated to maintaining a lock, not moving, and certainly not in the middle of a fight. The problem comes when you're up brawling in someone's face, and yet because they have you targeted to see your damage readout, LRMs are raining down on your head the entire time. I'm sorry, but indirect fire should not work if you're moving and fighting. There's a reason why there's multipliers in TT that degrade indirect fire for that exact reason.

No more light mechs running around an entire team at 140kph holding a lock whilst simultaneously shooting 3-4 other mechs. Take away that cheesy mechanic, limit indirect fire to UAV, NARC, TAG, or a stationary spotter, buff the missile speed, and make direct fire more effective. Problem solved.

How about leaving them as is and quit complaining

[Aresye]

Tractor Joe, on 31 May 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

How about leaving them as is and quit complaining

You want to leave them as worthless and barely viable in anything other than the lower Elo brackets? I could care less. I don't use or see LRMs in my Elo bracket anyway, and when I do, they're laughably easy to defeat.

[Weeny Machine]

Tractor Joe, on 31 May 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

How about leaving them as is and quit complaining

Jup, because the game is doing so good, right. I mean why not leave crappy mechanics as they are. Just stop complaining. And why have more viable and diverse weapon systems when you can spam your hitscan weapons?

Edited by Bush Hopper, 31 May 2015 - 01:57 PM.

[Weztside]

This whole discussion is pointless.

[xWiredx]

Weztside, on 31 May 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

This whole discussion is pointless.

I and a couple others pointed this out in the first few pages. If it weren't for my knowledge of how idiots will argue about anything on the internet, I wouldn't have believed it could go to 18 pages (and probably still has a bit of steam left to reach 20 or more).

[KuroNyra]

Aresye Kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

You want to leave them as worthless and barely viable in anything other than the lower Elo brackets? I could care less. I don't use or see LRMs in my Elo bracket anyway, and when I do, they're laughably easy to defeat.

Your solution would make them basicly completly worthless and not even viable.
And did you just say you actually don't give a sh!t about Lrms because you never see them/use them?
And you dare come talking about something you don't even know?!

Aresye Kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but indirect fire should not work if you're moving and fighting.

Edited by KuroNyra, 31 May 2015 - 02:26 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Aresye Kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yeah, I know indirect fire is in tabletop. Guess what? That's indirect fire from somebody who's dedicated to maintaining a lock, not moving, and certainly not in the middle of a fight. The problem comes when you're up brawling in someone's face, and yet because they have you targeted to see your damage readout, LRMs are raining down on your head the entire time. I'm sorry, but indirect fire should not work if you're moving and fighting. There's a reason why there's multipliers in TT that degrade indirect fire for that exact reason.

I like a lot of your posts, but on this account you are wrong.

There are modifiers that degrade the reliability of the lock if the spotter moved. We have the same here. When I am running around spotting for my team, while under fire. My locks are not as reliable, because I will be torso twisting, and ducking, and diving, so locks become less reliable.

Less reliable =/= non-existent.

[Wintersdark]

xWiredx, on 31 May 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I and a couple others pointed this out in the first few pages. If it weren't for my knowledge of how idiots will argue about anything on the internet, I wouldn't have believed it could go to 18 pages (and probably still has a bit of steam left to reach 20 or more).

It is pointless.

But in all honesty, so are the vast majority of posts here. Most of them, in fact. All most accomplish is letting players discuss the game they love (or, love to hate, as the case sometimes is).

Welcome to online gaming communities. Practically nothing useful ever comes of it, aside from providing a measure of enjoyment to some fans who like to discuss the game they're playing.

[Aresye]

KuroNyra, on 31 May 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Your solution would make them basicly completly worthless and not even viable.
And did you just say you actually don't give a sh!t about Lrms because you never see them/use them?
And you dare come talking about something you don't even know?!

It's probably because I've USED LRMs before, and stopped, because they are a crap weapon. And tell me exactly how buffing the direct fire element would lower their effectiveness?

Direct Fire:
- Faster lock-on.
- Fire and Forget (No Maintaining Lock)
- Tighter Grouping

Indirect Fire:
- NARC doesn't require manual lock. All dumbfired missiles automatically home on NARC.
- TAG doesn't require manual lock. All dumbfired missiles automatically home on location of TAG laser (ex: Left Leg).
- UAV works the same.
- Spotters must be stationary for another mech to lock.

Both:
- Faster missile speed.

Or, another way I like to put the above:

"How missiles worked in other MW games where they were actually useful."

Edited by Aresye Kerensky, 31 May 2015 - 07:02 PM.

[KuroNyra]

Aresye Kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

It's probably because I've USED LRMs before, and stopped, because they are a crap weapon. And tell me exactly how buffing the direct fire element would lower their effectiveness?

Direct Fire:
- Faster lock-on.
- Fire and Forget (No Maintaining Lock)
- Tighter Grouping

Indirect Fire:
- NARC doesn't require manual lock. All dumbfired missiles automatically home on NARC.
- TAG doesn't require manual lock. All dumbfired missiles automatically home on location of TAG laser (ex: Left Leg).
- UAV works the same.
- Spotters must be stationary for another mech to lock.

Both:
- Faster missile speed.

Or, another way I like to put the above:

"How missiles worked in other MW games where they were actually useful."

For that, if you want the missiles to work the same way they did in the other games.
You would then be able to:

Direct fires with TAGS, And NARCS
Lock guys EVEN if they are not the ones you are targeting with "R" button, and all that while moving, because yeah, you could lock and move in earlier MW games. And that applyes to Spotter too.


Your idea of making mech stationnary to lock is just plain wrong, wouldn't work and won't solve in any freaking way the problem.

All of that without forgeting the fact that the others games were SOLO games. Where you had unbalanced weapons with the Clans AC actually useful, clans laser with highter range for same laser duration for LESS HEAT AND LESS TONS. Let's not forget it was the same for the Clans LRMS.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tractor Joe, on 31 May 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Just checked on this and you are correct, but, this at best would bring them back to even if you want to consider spread vs pinpoint because the potential on the lrms is still 3x+.
But if we are going to consider that maybe we should take a look at over all utility, range, and LOS.

This is why I can honestly say I have never used an AC20 and prefer missiles to ballistics in general.

you sir, are missing out. PP-FLD of the ac20 makes it worth every ton.

[jaxjace]

Ive been requesting the laser vomit meta for 3 years. I finally got my wish.

Suffered through the many LURMAGEDDONS, PPC boats, Poptarts, PPCACs, the dual gauss jager wars, and now we have correctly settled in the energy camp. Burn your enemies to glass.