103 replies to this topic

[Shifty McSwift]

I am fine with lrms as a weapon in a general sense, my hate for them grows as you get bigger mechs boating/playing them more selfishly.

i.e. I am just going to auto hate an LRM assault who has no AMS, no tag, no narc and travels at about 50 kph, who hangs out behind buildings and hills waiting for locks, that is a big fat waste right there, in many ways. I would hate someone less and less for the more of the above they do not do, and the more they build into being able to support themselves.

Sigh necroposts...

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 20 November 2017 - 11:13 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Whipley, on 20 November 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

Uh, I was in that game and the guy said it because just a moment before someone else said "lrm boat, hold locks pls". He was being silly.

That was my point. "Hold locks" is something worth mocking, and this is coming from someone who lives in missile boats.

Also, he uses that line every game someone else talks about missile boats.

[MischiefSC]

Wolfways, on 20 November 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

where this idea of sharing armour came from but it's ridiculous.

It came from people who win.

Sharing armor is about spreading damage and drawing fire. A locust 'shares' its armor too - by drawing fire, by presenting a target.

Mechs trade heat and ammo for damage. Every time they fire a weapon it reduces their ability to fire again, either in the long term (ammo) or the short term (heat). Mechs also, obviously, put out damage. The fundamental goal of every single team is to get the damage the enemy puts out spread as thing as possible over their whole team, if not wasted all together. You also want the enemy to heatcap or go bins dry before you do.

Sharing armor is part of that. That you've intentionally picked a flat out inferior weapon which means at longer ranges you have to stay focused on the target is a problem you've created for yourself. If your solution is to just shoot from cover, I want to be clear here, you are a functioning detriment to your team. You have reduced the total targets the other team has to shoot at, which conversely focuses their fire.

You should be with your team and part of its firing line. You need to be soaking about 1/12th of the fire the enemy team puts out. Be that by taking hits and shedding armor or drawing fire into cover or however you do it. If you're not, what you're doing is using your teammates as armor, which significantly increases the odds of your team losing the match.

If you are consistently the last person to die on your team and not one of the better players in the game (like top 10% or less), then how you are playing is a detriment to your team.

That goes for any loadout.

[MischiefSC]

As to total tubes -

An LRM assault is a bad use of tonnage. Full stop. Lack of mobility while having a lot of armor it can not use effective and a lot of weapon tonnage that's very, very easily negated by cover, positioning, ECM and AMS.

Your best option for an LRM boat is going to be a medium mech or a fast heavy. Something you can quickly position/reposition with. Taking 30 tubes with artemis on a Griffin can work great. A 2N with ECM so you're less likely to draw fire at 400m? A solid choice. Hunchie with tag in the head and 30 tubes? I've repeatedly seen one that could tag over cover and launch without being able to effectively shoot back at it he was just barely peeking. HBK IIC with 45 tubes? CXL 275, quick and nimble.

Your Super Nova, Stalker et al LRM boat are slaves to their team. Any and every single mech in the game can kill them and kill them easily if your team doesn't carefully protect you. A quick medium can reposition, shoot mechs who are away from their allies and support and if you get chased or shot at you're still going 80-100 and can scoot back to your own teammates and avoid pushes.

LRM assaults are a waste. A direct fire assault carries his own weight. A LRM assault never does.

[SteelMantis]

MischiefSC, on 21 November 2017 - 02:42 AM, said:

An LRM assault is a bad use of tonnage. Full stop.

I disagree (for solo QP at least).

Yes, a LRM boat assault has to stay with the team and position well in order not to get ganked by faster direct fire mechs. But all assaults have to position well. Positioning is the key to playing all assaults, especially in QP, so having to position correctly in an LRM boat not a disadvantage that is unique to having LRMS.

As far as armor sharing goes a properly played LRM boat is better than a direct fire assault because the direct fire assault has to be in a position to take damage to deal damage. A LRM boat only has to take damage to deal optimum damage and after taking it's share of fire can rotate off the front line and continue to do a reasonable amount of indirect fire damage. The fact that many players are bad at armor sharing in general and terrible at it when they pilot LRM boats is a problem with their play and not the LRM boats themselves.

Finally, while direct fire mechs do have some advantages over LRM boats, particularly in regards to focusing fire, being in a direct fire mech doesn't magically make a bad player able to carry the team.

Edited by SteelMantis, 21 November 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[SIERRA 116]

Wolfways, on 18 November 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

Yes but pgi are trying to find ways to nerf clan tech so both factions are equal.

Well, I hope they don't do the same in Mech5.

Clan-tech SHOULD be better.

[Wolfways]

Could someone give me a link to a YouTube or something that shows armour sharing done well? I think I might not be understanding correctly what it is exactly.
Of course, at least for me, getting shot means losing half a mech or instant death... in my clan mechs at least.

SIERRA 116, on 21 November 2017 - 05:44 AM, said:

Well, I hope they don't do the same in Mech5.

Clan-tech SHOULD be better.

It probably depends on if they have multiplayer or not.
Apparently people don't want to use teamwork to beat an opponent that has better tech or has more mechs.

Edited by Wolfways, 21 November 2017 - 10:40 AM.

[ThreeStooges]

Wolfways, on 21 November 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

Could someone give me a link to a YouTube or something that shows armour sharing done well? I think I might not be understanding correctly what it is exactly.
Of course, at least for me, getting shot means losing half a mech or instant death... in my clan mechs at least.


It probably depends on if they have multiplayer or not.
Apparently people don't want to use teamwork to beat an opponent that has better tech or has more mechs.

I don't have a video but if 'sharing armor' means taking fire so other mechs can take cover to cool down then fire again it's really not that hard. you just have to be balls-y and with this pnt I normally run xl so once the st goes so does my mech. Edit: I also was running as a mobile ams for this match since qp was full of lrms so there's that 'sharing' thing again. A lot of assaults surprising don't take either ams or lams. they have 90-100tons to my 35 yet they can't do 1.5 for lams?

Edited by ThreeStooges, 21 November 2017 - 10:50 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Sharing armor just means "draw some fire". If you can peek and take minimal damage flicking LRMs over the top? That's OK. The idea is that the more targets your opponents have to deal with at once, the less effective they'll be at killing any of them. But you've gotta get into decent enough range to attract that fire, and not just hide in full cover while everyone else is getting burned.

If you're holed up enough to worry, then yeah. Get down and at least empty those missile bays because as inefficient as indirect LRM fire is, you do even less dead.

[MischiefSC]

SteelMantis, on 21 November 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

I disagree (for solo QP at least).

Yes, a LRM boat assault has to stay with the team and position well in order not to get ganked by faster direct fire mechs. But all assaults have to position well. Positioning is the key to playing all assaults, especially in QP, so having to position correctly in an LRM boat not a disadvantage that is unique to having LRMS.

As far as armor sharing goes a properly played LRM boat is better than a direct fire assault because the direct fire assault has to be in a position to take damage to deal damage. A LRM boat only has to take damage to deal optimum damage and after taking it's share of fire can rotate off the front line and continue to do a reasonable amount of indirect fire damage. The fact that many players are bad at armor sharing in general and terrible at it when they pilot LRM boats is a problem with their play and not the LRM boats themselves.

Finally, while direct fire mechs do have some advantages over LRM boats, particularly in regards to focusing fire, being in a direct fire mech doesn't magically make a bad player able to carry the team.

Here's the fundamental difference.

My MC MKII does 84 pts of damage, usually 60+ of that to a single location, about every 5 seconds. Against any/every target I get LOS to within about 600m. If my team pushes up or we get pushed by the enemy I can hold with the rest of my team and stand and deliver. This drives wins in a huge way, especially in QP.

My MAD IIC with 9 MPLs does 64 pts, again and again and again, within 400m. Same thing.

A missile warning indicator is no different for 30-45 tubes than it is for 80. If the target is a terribad with no cover and no discipline he'll panic or whatever. If he's an experienced player he'll slip back into the cover he's right next to and take 20-50% of the tubes. If I see him in one of my other assaults I'll blow his ST off. So the difference is that unless the target is absolutely terrible your assault is no more useful than a medium, even less - because the medium can quickly get around to the flank of the guys cover and pelt him from there. I don't complain about LRM mediums - I work with them in QP, a good, aggressive 'horse archer' medium can pin down several mechs or flush them from cover into my guns.

A LRM assault just farms bads. That's it. That's 100% all it is good for. I love seeing them on the other team. An LRM 80 Supernova/Scorch is my absolute dead last target in QP, FW or anywhere else because I can negate him completely or in part with some cover or AMS. If he sees me and gets a clean shot I can heat 3 or 4 alphas before it's serious trouble. If a direct fire assault gets a clean shot on me I'm going from fresh to 1 touch from losing a ST.

You do you, play what you want and have fun. However understand that in QP or any other mode an LRM assault robs your team of a powerful weapon for controlling lanes and is only good for leeching. A LRM medium can do about the only thing LRMs are really good for; pushing covered positions and supporting flanks.

[Wolfways]

Brain Cancer, on 21 November 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

Sharing armor just means "draw some fire". If you can peek and take minimal damage flicking LRMs over the top? That's OK. The idea is that the more targets your opponents have to deal with at once, the less effective they'll be at killing any of them. But you've gotta get into decent enough range to attract that fire, and not just hide in full cover while everyone else is getting burned.

If you're holed up enough to worry, then yeah. Get down and at least empty those missile bays because as inefficient as indirect LRM fire is, you do even less dead.

Oh, well I guess I'm already sharing armour then because that's what I do. I never just sit back behind a hill or anything like that. If my teammates aren't needing support I'll get my own locks.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

A LRM assault just farms bads. That's it. That's 100% all it is good for. I love seeing them on the other team. An LRM 80 Supernova/Scorch is my absolute dead last target in QP, FW or anywhere else because I can negate him completely or in part with some cover or AMS. If he sees me and gets a clean shot I can heat 3 or 4 alphas before it's serious trouble. If a direct fire assault gets a clean shot on me I'm going from fresh to 1 touch from losing a ST.

And here, ladies and gentlemen is what you can quote any time someone whines that lurms are OP.

[MischiefSC]

Wolfways, on 21 November 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

Could someone give me a link to a YouTube or something that shows armour sharing done well? I think I might not be understanding correctly what it is exactly.
Of course, at least for me, getting shot means losing half a mech or instant death... in my clan mechs at least.


It probably depends on if they have multiplayer or not.
Apparently people don't want to use teamwork to beat an opponent that has better tech or has more mechs.

We use teamwork to beat other teams all the time. It has absolutely nothing to do with teamwork. Nothing at all. There's no more or less teamwork involved in having broken game balance. It's just a matter of 'do you want to play in a game that's designed around munchkins playing OP tech and pretending that there's going to be 60-70% of players who want to play redshirts for them.

Sharing armor means drawing fire. It's not about shooting - it's about getting shot at about as much as you're shooting. Poptarts are sharing armor - they're just doing it in such a way as to receive less damage than they give out (ideally). Same with poking. The point is that the enemy has to turn, focus on their position and either shoot or be lining up a shot. They are drawing the direct attention/fire of 1 enemy, which keeps that enemy from shooting a teammate.

If you're just behind cover lobbing missiles you're never doing that. You're also functionally incapable of being part of focused fire as your shots are always late and scattered.

The cold, brutal truth - The whole team would get more actual value out of my mech, just my 1 mech, having an extra MRM30 strapped to it than having a 60+ tube LRM assault on our team. The damage would be more useful and more focused and I'm going to be drawing an extra mechs worth of fire anyway since the LRM assault isn't viable for sharing armor.

[Wolfways]

MischiefSC, on 21 November 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

redshirts

There's the problem. Most people seem to believe that being on the side with the lower tech means dying. It doesn't if you play well.
It's just the same as saying we're going to be redshirts because the other team has more mechs. It doesn't if you play well.

Imo players who believe in "redshirts" are not team players because all that matters is their own performance. I.e.They must use the better tech.

[MischiefSC]

Wolfways, on 21 November 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

There's the problem. Most people seem to believe that being on the side with the lower tech means dying. It doesn't if you play well.
It's just the same as saying we're going to be redshirts because the other team has more mechs. It doesn't if you play well.

Imo players who believe in "redshirts" are not team players because all that matters is their own performance. I.e.They must use the better tech.

So you've got two sides. One side can lose more people, one side kills more people. That's their relative balance mechanic.

The side that can lose more people is the redshirt side.

This is where I point out that the only people ever who talk about how good a balance system this would be (it wouldn't, it would be an abject failure as pointed out elsewhere - even by the Battletech franchise which abandoned the idea and went back to 1 to 1 balance) are always dedicated Clan players.

Then you follow it up with 'oh but I play IS all the time, I'd totally play IS in that situation.'

Okay.

Teamwork is a red herring in this argument. Teamwork is 100% just as vital for the smaller team as the bigger team, just as vital in any situation. It's irrelevant to tech balance. Tech balance impacts how that population imbalance is applied - one side has teamwork based around being individually weaker but more numerous, their weakness ostensibly offset by their ability to lose more people. The other side has their teamwork based around their ability to do more and take more damage, move more quickly and 1 to 1 out perform their enemy which is offset by their enemies being more numerous.

This is represented often in single player games where the player kills the numerous AI. This doesn't exist in FPS because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it would mean the player base can not mix Clan/IS on each side, that the majority of players want to play the side that dies more often and that you would somehow get an equal skill distribution on each side. Reality says that the experienced players and dedicated munchkins would all go Clans and farm the new players and that there's no way most people would opt to play IS all the time.

Fortunately this has already been identified as an utter failure both in BT, which abandoned it after nuking the gameworld via Jihad to start over 1 to 1 balance and by PGI, who's said it'll never happen.

[Brain Cancer]

Tabletop still isn't even remotely close to 1:1 balance.

They just made the game more and more mixtech. The sad thing is, one truly stupid idea has left the franchise stuck with incompatible tech trees, and refused to engage in honest power creep otherwise.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 21 November 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

Tabletop still isn't even remotely close to 1:1 balance.

They just made the game more and more mixtech. The sad thing is, one truly stupid idea has left the franchise stuck with incompatible tech trees, and refused to engage in honest power creep otherwise.

It's 1 to 1 because it's dedicated mixed tech. You get a CERPPC that's made by every IS faction. It's technically a 'Clan ERPPC' but they're made in the IS by IS factions. Same with all the other tech.

It's not so much 'mixed tech' as it is 'everyone has everything, except a handful of unique things to each faction'.

[Wolfways]

MischiefSC, on 21 November 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

So you've got two sides. One side can lose more people, one side kills more people. That's their relative balance mechanic.

No. You're assuming bad teamwork on the IS side.
That side has more mechs to flank and/or pour firepower into the other side.

Quote

The side that can lose more people is the redshirt side.

This is where I point out that the only people ever who talk about how good a balance system this would be (it wouldn't, it would be an abject failure as pointed out elsewhere - even by the Battletech franchise which abandoned the idea and went back to 1 to 1 balance) are always dedicated Clan players.

Then you follow it up with 'oh but I play IS all the time, I'd totally play IS in that situation.'

Okay.

I do and would. So what?

Quote

Teamwork is a red herring in this argument. Teamwork is 100% just as vital for the smaller team as the bigger team, just as vital in any situation. It's irrelevant to tech balance. Tech balance impacts how that population imbalance is applied - one side has teamwork based around being individually weaker but more numerous,

Yes

Quote

their weakness ostensibly offset by their ability to lose more people.

No

Quote

The other side has their teamwork based around their ability to do more and take more damage, move more quickly and 1 to 1 out perform their enemy which is offset by their enemies being more numerous.

This is represented often in single player games where the player kills the numerous AI. This doesn't exist in FPS because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it would mean the player base can not mix Clan/IS on each side, that the majority of players want to play the side that dies more often and that you would somehow get an equal skill distribution on each side. Reality says that the experienced players and dedicated munchkins would all go Clans and farm the new players and that there's no way most people would opt to play IS all the time.

That's what I said. Most players are "me" players.

Quote

Fortunately this has already been identified as an utter failure both in BT, which abandoned it after nuking the gameworld via Jihad to start over 1 to 1 balance and by PGI, who's said it'll never happen.

I'd love to see some official explanation as to why something that works in every wargame ever did not work in Battletech because it sounds so ridiculous. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have screwed up the battle values in which case it would have been easier to adjust them instead of changing the whole game.

Also, pgi say a lot of things.

[Wolfways]

MischiefSC, on 21 November 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

It's 1 to 1 because it's dedicated mixed tech. You get a CERPPC that's made by every IS faction. It's technically a 'Clan ERPPC' but they're made in the IS by IS factions. Same with all the other tech.

It's not so much 'mixed tech' as it is 'everyone has everything, except a handful of unique things to each faction'.

So pgi should do that then instead of just nerfing clans. Honestly I don't give a crap about the power of individual mechs. All my mechs have stock weapons and most of my IS mechs vastly outperform my clan mechs, especially my JM6-S which is very powerful and my go-to mech if I can't be bothered to try hard or I want to boost my match rewards.
I play my clan mechs more because I prefer how they look to the majority of IS mechs.

Btw, seeing as we're talking about balance there are seemingly completely different experiences in game..
I've been in three FW matches lately, all IS pugs.We beat clan every time, even the one against a mostly one unit clan side, and after the match is over the IS players have been laughing about how the clan mechs are so nerfed now and IS mechs are so superior now.
Sadly, I have to agree with them based on my experiences with both sides.

[MischiefSC]

Wolfways, on 21 November 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

So pgi should do that then instead of just nerfing clans. Honestly I don't give a crap about the power of individual mechs. All my mechs have stock weapons and most of my IS mechs vastly outperform my clan mechs, especially my JM6-S which is very powerful and my go-to mech if I can't be bothered to try hard or I want to boost my match rewards.
I play my clan mechs more because I prefer how they look to the majority of IS mechs.

Btw, seeing as we're talking about balance there are seemingly completely different experiences in game..
I've been in three FW matches lately, all IS pugs.We beat clan every time, even the one against a mostly one unit clan side, and after the match is over the IS players have been laughing about how the clan mechs are so nerfed now and IS mechs are so superior now.
Sadly, I have to agree with them based on my experiences with both sides.

Your anecdotal experience literally has the exact same value as a new players anecdotal experience, which is exactly the same value as my anecdotal experience, which is in total worth slightly less than a bag full of nothing. Because that at least has the value of the bag.

Nobody who's even moderately good at this game anywhere is saying that IS is better than Clans. Nobody. If you're playing with people who are so bad at the game, so bad at basic math and have such a total and completely lack of understanding of how the games mechanics work then it would explain why you've got such a skewed perspective on what balance is.

Mixed tech means eliminating any real difference between IS and Clans. It means everything just switches to Clan tech, except possibly some ballistic builds in narrow roles and the odd just for giggles match with MRMs.

Otherwise will you please go get some of these people and just go dominate the crap out of the best players in the game? FW, group queue, comp play, doesn't matter. Anywhere, any facet of the game, go take IS mechs and roll them.

Because that's not happening. Ever. At any point. Anywhere. Just bad players getting lucky sometimes or finding people even worse than they are and mistaking that for game balance.

I would put up all the math for you, again, on exactly why balance is bad and strongly in favor of Clans but it's been posted for you a dozen times in a dozen threads and you just ignore it so I'm going to save the internet the extra wasted electrons. You can look it up.

Until then, please go take IS mechs and win 2 out of 3 matches in QP or more and kill 2-6 mechs for every time you die. Go get a group of buddies in IS mechs and go roflstomp good teams in Clan mechs. Go get your IS buddies together and lead a team in FW to a 8+ w/l. Because none of that is happening. Just bads being bad and in the nature of bads, mistaking one-off anecdotal experiences for reality.