307 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 10 January 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

In isolation - maybe. But combined with better AMS and/or less LRM ammo per boat it may work very well. This particular change is supposed to make them more effective against ECM and radar deprivation so equipping LRM won't be considered a wasted tonnage in higher tiers.

I don't think that equalising sniping weapons and LRM is a good idea. The whole point of LRM is the ability to hit a target behind almighty cover. Removing it is detrimental to the variety of gameplay regardless of how effective it might become.
Besides, if LRM-boater sits in the back lines because of safety then no amount of frontline power can nudge him forward.

Less ammo per ton for LRMs would not discourage boating, but instead encourage it. I have some mechs that take a single LRM10 with 1 or 2 tons of ammo. If you made that half ammo, suddenly I need 2 to 4 tons of ammo, which if I'm committing that much weight to LRMs, I might as well pile on more LRMs, and make that 10 launcher into a 20 launcher with 8 to 10 tons of ammo... Less ammo per ton would make having back up weapons more needed, but you suddenly would not have the weight or room to add them in. Thus, forcing LRMs to be a boat or go home weapon.

Better AMS would render LRMs more useless, especially if combined with less ammo per ton for LRMs. Even if LRMs became a "fire and forget" weapon, it would not be helpful to balance.

Van Tuz, on 10 January 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

1) I'm not denying that map knowledge helps but it's not required. Unlike flankers, LRM player can perform well even on unfamiliar map.
...
Just like anyone else.
...
I would say that LRM boat is the easiest class to "master" compared to other roles. Not saying that this is inherently a bad thing though, so i don't see much of a reason arguing about it any longer. Everyone has its own truth.

2) Basically learning to "poke and hide", right? I would say that i have a disagreement with cover being the best answer for all questions.

(To keep order in the post, I'll number these back.)
1. Map knowledge benefits an LRM user even more from what I've experienced. LRMs can perform well without any skills in the game (but not as well as they can work), but they do see improvement when used with skill. Sadly, there is a huge gap between the two and the results of skillful play with LRMs doesn't produce such drastic improvements to their play as a "lucky" "Spray and pray" match can get. This is due to how they home in currently in the game and their travel speeds. However, this isn't to say that they can't be used more effectively, if you know how.

As for mastering LRM use... Have you ever tried to blind/dumb fire LRMs at a target? When you can hit reliably with them in that fashion, then you have mastered them. Thus, they are one of the most difficult weapons to truly master to use, but one of the easiest to get "good damage scores", if you aren't picky and shoot at every lock...

2. Cover is important in this game. Be it just to run through to throw LRMs off, to sneak up to the enemy undetected to go right into range of your short range weapons, avoid damage, to take time to cool off after a few alphas, etc.

Of course, the use of cover is just one skill of many that players need to learn. Just yesterday I was talking to someone about the importance of twisting their torso to redirect damage, and in the middle of a match I told him to show his destroyed side torso to the enemy to save his nearly destroyed other side torso (Clan XL mech). He wondered why I was saying that, but after the match I told him why. Did you know that, if damage transfers from one component to another in this game, that it reduces the damage down by something like 60% for each component it goes through? This is why it is important to know how to twist damage around to hit other locations. If you can get someone to hit a destroyed arm hit box, instead of your good CT (and say, you've lost that side torso already), the damage heading to your CT would be reduced by 60% and then an additional 60%, meaning only a fraction of the damage would be going to your CT.

These are some of the many skills new players need to learn. Map awareness is just one of the basic ones, and everyone benefits from it. However, LRM users benefit most from it and they have the most to learn for map awareness, as they have to learn about what may be above in places, and not just in front, behind and to the sides. (AKA: LRM users technically need to know the 3D of the map, where as direct shooters need to learn just the 2D aspects (more or less).)

Van Tuz, on 10 January 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

Also, i think that you are overestimating AMS capabilities.

Shooting down 3 missiles out of 20-30 in a volley (we're talking about newbies with no access to modules) isn't really helping to reduce neither damage nor view shake (fun fact: LRM have more impulse than AC/20).

I think you underestimate and don't know what AMS can really do...

AMS effectiveness is dependent greatly upon it's positing to the path of the LRMs, as they have an affect within a spherical area. If you are the exact target of LRMs (for example), than you only benefit from a fraction of your AMS's true capability, because the LRMs only drop through a small piece of it's sphere of influence. This leads to them shooting down (it's a bit of a random number) 3-5 LRMs.

However, if they are in a better place to support a team, say, directly between the LRM mech and it's target, than the LRMs have to cross through the entire sphere of affect of the AMS. In this case, I have literally seen a single AMS shoot down 10 LRMs without any issue. I have tested this fairly well, as I actually have some mechs with literally just a single LRM10 system on it (with plenty of other weapons, for the record). I've had many times where a single AMS shut down my LRM launcher, because they were placed in the correct location.

AMS is more effective at helping the team with missiles, than the mech that has it actually equipped at protecting itself. So, the more people on your team with it on and in the path of the LRMs, the more LRMs that get shot down. The more that the LRM path is in that sphere of affect, the more LRMs that individual system can take down.

Considering what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if (given optimal positioning and situation) a single AMS could actually take down close to 15 LRMs in a whack. These would not be your average results though.

AKA: If you are looking for defense for yourself, you are correct. They wont help you, specifically, as much as you'd probably like. If you are looking to defend yourself and your teammates, than you'd be surprised at what a single AMS is actually capable off if it's positioned well. (Another skill to learn maybe?)

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 10 January 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

-Stuff- (trying to reduce post size)

So in short, my opinion is that for lrms to be improved and their effectiveness increased, an element of further skill somehow needs to be applied to them. My reasoning is that if it isn't done this way, they may or may not be effective in upper tiers, but certainly would become too powerful in the lower ones which may ruin the game for some players especially if they are new.

I would like to add that I do appreciate your time and effort in not only responding to myself but others as well, especially considering how long some of the replies have been. While I may disagree with you in some aspects I certainly have come to respect you and your opinion, so thank you.

Whoa there! I'm the only one able to make novels as a post!
Joking aside...

So, you wouldn't be able to recall the days before ECM, back when it was 8v8. Explains some things. Just realize (and no, I'm not trying to "show off" here) that I've been here since 2012 (technically should be beginning of 2013, as I started around December 2012). All this really means is I've experience certain aspects of this game you haven't, because it's been altered since I started. (I did miss the LRMagadon where Artemis was first introduced, and beheaded all opponents! Drats!) I've been a fairly regular player here since I started, so I've seen a lot of whats gone on over the years here. (No, this doesn't invalidate anything you've said, just making sure we each have our barrings about us and our differences of experiences.)

I've been here before ECM even did anything (besides being a 1.5 ton paperweight that did literally nothing). Back then, LRMs where a lot easier to use, but they didn't seem to be top weapon in games. Though, I did see them a lot more often. LRMs back then also had far more of a "flat" flight path (cover was even more effective against them), move even slower, and could literally be dodged by walking parallel to their incoming flight path... AMS wasn't even needed because of how easy LRMs where to dodge (and I'm not joking). Artemis also worked 100% of the time, rather you had line of sight or not (which was a known bug back then).


As for LRM effectiveness, don't you think that all weapons should be effective at all levels of play? At least, I would think that should be the goal. How to go about it, I can't begin to say. But each weapon and equipment should have some distinct use that can be good, no matter what level of play it should be used at.

I personally, when talking about LRM balance for direct and indirect, would love to see indirect fire be even more spread, and direct fire being rewarded with less spread. Then, probably faster travel speeds and flatter arcs when in direct line of sight. This would permit LRMs to still do indirect fire (their unique trait) as kind of a carpet bombing, but leave direct fire (something that should be more skillful) more effective. You could then possibly direct fire them better, even without a lock (you can then kinda aim at components). Either that, or maybe even leave LRMs as they are, and just get MRMs into the game (which would then probably render SRMs less useful)...

There are a lot of things that could be altered. Rather it would be good or not... Can't say. Most any suggestion would need testing first. Something we kinda can't do.


As for my PSR position, do recall that I've been in a establish account. When PSR first came out, they put players in a position based on their actions in the game with 6 months of data, back when Elo was in affect. Elo tended to place everyone with anyone, so I was basically fighting all tiers. Even those who "refuses to get locks for LRM snobs". (You have read that tale of mine, right?) LRMs have such a bad reputation, that some people actively go out of their way to may any user who uses LRMs as ineffective as possible. I'm not afraid to get my own locks, but when the entire team refuses to get any locks at all because I mentioned "I have LRMs"... it doesn't help anyone on the team.

I also love to experiment, which does hit my PSR. I'm always trying something new, just to see if it works. Also, I was "established" at the time PSR was released, so I basically had more work to do to get out of T4 and into T3. I did quickly move up to T3 though. I do believe I had a bit of a boost when PSR first came out, and that got me about 1/3 of the way through T3 after it started me at the bottom of T4. (I had friends whom say I play better than them and they where at T1 when PSR came out. So... This "preseeding" seemed a little wonky at points. In this case, I probably should have started in T3, as that seems to be where my skills belonged at that time.)

I will also say, I don't use strictly LRMs. I have used and experimented with all the weapons in the game. This means that, yes, I have tried flammers and MGs, as well as LBx, etc. Most of them before they were even "improved". This also possibly might explain my stance on the PSR tier. I will say I'm so close to T2, I can taste it. (But I don't know if I exactly wish to be there once I get there...)

Overall, I feel that PSR is just a reskined Elo from before, with a few minor changes (which are improvements). In the end, it is mostly a W/L rating, which is more dependent upon the 23 other players in the match, rather than the 1 that comprises yourself. True PSR may take winning into account, but should rate match scores and in game actions more than a win. (A single person can only "carry" so much so far.) I will also admit, I'm probably not the best player every. Far from it. I'm a reasonably decent player. As I've said on the forums before (which is why I wont display my PSR tier), I know more than my skills show. I have the technical knowledge on how to do something, but not the skills to necessarily pull off that knowledge.


I'd like to say that LRMs do require skill to use effectively as it is right now. However, I also wouldn't mind if they got revamped a bit and maybe required a bit "more" skill to use overall. But, then again, what exactly could do this for a weapon designed and intended for utility (instead of just direct fire)... I have no idea. I have some concepts, but that doesn't mean it would work if introduced...

And for the record, that is the thing. It's an opinion. Everyone has one. We all have different experiences with the game, and those form our opinions. If I'm talking about how a Gauss rifle feels, and someone else had different results (or just never used it), we could have completely different opinions on the same weapon. Same goes for LRMs, or anything really. We can only work off what we've experienced.

Having differences of opinion and experience are alright.

MacClearly, on 10 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

The Griffin I could see a case for although it isn't something I would do and I think the either the Hunchie 4J or the Kintaro would make more sense.

The Oxide however is a different story. You are taking one of the best flanking, striking, hunting, harassing, mechs out of the picture and loading it up with the weapon that is currently the worst in the game. It would be like putting a ford engine in a Ferrari....sure you could make it work, but boy is it ever a $tupid thing to do.

I actually find it funny you should mention this. Just a few matches today, I saw an LRM Jenner (IIC I think, or Oxide. Wasn't sure). Let me just say... ouch. That person was using it very well, and pestered and poked my entire team. I would not call that a waste in that match. He stung a lot. Could he have done better with (S)SRMs or S(P)Ls or something? Don't know. Possibly. But man, he rocked that LRM Jenner. (And this was in Group queue for the record.)

There is a reason I advocate that people experiment and play what they enjoy. You never know what results you may get till you've at least tried it out. Sometimes, things can surprise you.

(And FYI, I've just taken all day to get this post up. Lots of distractions while trying. So if things are a little... disjointed... It's because my focus got pulled away from this... A lot. )

[Van Tuz]

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Less ammo per ton for LRMs would not discourage boating, but instead encourage it.

I severely doubt it. Personally i find 1 ton of LRM ammo on my King Crab sufficient for all the harassment before direct engagements. It won't be a big deal to free 1 ton to keep the ammo count. If you build a brawler and put LRM as a secondary weapon then you're more likely to throw out LRM first instead of turning it into a LRM boat. But if we make even a single pack of LRM truly effective (even against high-skill players with all the modules) then reduced ammo density won't be a problem.

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

I think you underestimate and don't know what AMS can really do...
... directly between the LRM mech and it's target,...seen a single AMS shoot down 10 LRMs without any issue.

Oh, yes, sterile lab conditions. Tell me, how often do you see AMS equipped mech 120m in front of a target? How often do you see AMS equipped mech 120m in front of a pushing assault mech? I have never seen something like that, therefore i admit that this is possible but happens so rarely in game environment that it's barely worth considering.
--------------

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Better AMS would render LRMs more useless, especially if combined with less ammo per ton for LRMs. Even if LRMs became a "fire and forget" weapon, it would not be helpful to balance.

You're wrong here. Current AMS implementation is much more punishing against low count of missiles compared to what i suggested to the point that it may not be worth using LRM anywhere but in LRM boats.
Example: let's say that each AMS is shooting down 5 missiles out of each volley.
1AMS, 5 LRM Loss rate - 100%
1AMS, 10 LRM Loss rate - 50%
1AMS, 15 LRM Loss rate - 33%
1AMS, 20 LRM Loss rate - 25%
1AMS, 40 LRM Loss rate - 12%

2AMS, 10 LRM Loss rate - 100%
2AMS, 15 LRM Loss rate - 66%
2AMS, 20 LRM Loss rate - 50%
2AMS, 40 LRM Loss rate - 25%
As you can see, equipping single LRM 5 is not worth it in the majority of situations. And if we have a tight mech pack with 2 AMS or more then only LRM boats can hope of inflicting any noticeable damage. So i would say that AMS is too effective against LRM as a secondary weapon and not effective enough against LRM boats.

What i suggest:
1 AMS - 30% loss rate.
2 AMS - 51% loss rate.
3 AMS - 66% loss rate.
regardless of missile count. If anything, it would only promote using LRM as a secondary weapon.

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Cover is important in this game. Be it just to run through to throw LRMs off, to sneak up to the enemy undetected to go right into range of your short range weapons, avoid damage, to take time to cool off after a few alphas, etc.

Oh quit your preaching please. Call me a heretic but the first thing that comes to my mind when people say that a piece of scaffolding provides better protection than 20 tons of armor is "that's not metal". I know how powerful cover is but i don't want it to be omnipotent. There should be ways to deliver pain even behind cover. In the absence of Arrow IV artillery system LRM is the best candidate for this role.

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

As for LRM effectiveness, don't you think that all weapons should be effective at all levels of play? At least, I would think that should be the goal. How to go about it, I can't begin to say. But each weapon and equipment should have some distinct use that can be good, no matter what level of play it should be used at.

I agree with that. However, making LRM more of a dumbfire weapon in order to add more "skill" is not a good solution. It can only make its unique features obsolete. I think that adding skill trough teamwork is much better solution.

[Old-dirty B]

I think less hate towards LRM's would be present if they require more skill for both the user to hit a target and for the target to avoid getting hit without cover.

Perhaps not conform battle tech but i would like to see LRM's behave in the two following manners, the first mode is used when the user has no line of sight on the target and has no lock by himself. The second mode is used when the user has line of sight a lock is not required.

1. "Carpet" mode, big spread, high arced trajectory, high velocity missiles - suited to "bomb" general location of a mech. Missiles will auto track to the position of the target at the time of firing / will not track to the current position (when the user has no line of sight but a lock from some one else). The non tracking characteristic allows targets to dodge or avoid missiles but have to leave cover / move evasive.

2. "Guided" mode, tighter spread, low arced trajectory, low velocity missiles - suited to "steer" missiles towards target much like the ATGM or TOW missiles of today. You guide the missiles by mouse, joystick or keyboard manually to your target, they go where you point them to. The low velocity characteristic allows targets to dodge or avoid missiles but have to move into cover / move evasive.

I think these features make using LRM's more interesting, it requires more skill to use the guided mode but more interesting things can be done once mastered, the non guided mode is easy to use but also easy to avoid (useful as an areal deny weapon).

Edited by B3R3ND, 11 January 2017 - 02:57 AM.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 10 January 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

Whoa there! I'm the only one able to make novels as a post!
Joking aside...

So, you wouldn't be able to recall the days before ECM, back when it was 8v8. Explains some things. Just realize (and no, I'm not trying to "show off" here) that I've been here since 2012 (technically should be beginning of 2013, as I started around December 2012). All this really means is I've experience certain aspects of this game you haven't, because it's been altered since I started. (I did miss the LRMagadon where Artemis was first introduced, and beheaded all opponents! Drats!) I've been a fairly regular player here since I started, so I've seen a lot of whats gone on over the years here. (No, this doesn't invalidate anything you've said, just making sure we each have our barrings about us and our differences of experiences.)

I've been here before ECM even did anything (besides being a 1.5 ton paperweight that did literally nothing). Back then, LRMs where a lot easier to use, but they didn't seem to be top weapon in games. Though, I did see them a lot more often. LRMs back then also had far more of a "flat" flight path (cover was even more effective against them), move even slower, and could literally be dodged by walking parallel to their incoming flight path... AMS wasn't even needed because of how easy LRMs where to dodge (and I'm not joking). Artemis also worked 100% of the time, rather you had line of sight or not (which was a known bug back then).


As for LRM effectiveness, don't you think that all weapons should be effective at all levels of play? At least, I would think that should be the goal. How to go about it, I can't begin to say. But each weapon and equipment should have some distinct use that can be good, no matter what level of play it should be used at.

I personally, when talking about LRM balance for direct and indirect, would love to see indirect fire be even more spread, and direct fire being rewarded with less spread. Then, probably faster travel speeds and flatter arcs when in direct line of sight. This would permit LRMs to still do indirect fire (their unique trait) as kind of a carpet bombing, but leave direct fire (something that should be more skillful) more effective. You could then possibly direct fire them better, even without a lock (you can then kinda aim at components). Either that, or maybe even leave LRMs as they are, and just get MRMs into the game (which would then probably render SRMs less useful)...

There are a lot of things that could be altered. Rather it would be good or not... Can't say. Most any suggestion would need testing first. Something we kinda can't do.


As for my PSR position, do recall that I've been in a establish account. When PSR first came out, they put players in a position based on their actions in the game with 6 months of data, back when Elo was in affect. Elo tended to place everyone with anyone, so I was basically fighting all tiers. Even those who "refuses to get locks for LRM snobs". (You have read that tale of mine, right?) LRMs have such a bad reputation, that some people actively go out of their way to may any user who uses LRMs as ineffective as possible. I'm not afraid to get my own locks, but when the entire team refuses to get any locks at all because I mentioned "I have LRMs"... it doesn't help anyone on the team.

I also love to experiment, which does hit my PSR. I'm always trying something new, just to see if it works. Also, I was "established" at the time PSR was released, so I basically had more work to do to get out of T4 and into T3. I did quickly move up to T3 though. I do believe I had a bit of a boost when PSR first came out, and that got me about 1/3 of the way through T3 after it started me at the bottom of T4. (I had friends whom say I play better than them and they where at T1 when PSR came out. So... This "preseeding" seemed a little wonky at points. In this case, I probably should have started in T3, as that seems to be where my skills belonged at that time.)

I will also say, I don't use strictly LRMs. I have used and experimented with all the weapons in the game. This means that, yes, I have tried flammers and MGs, as well as LBx, etc. Most of them before they were even "improved". This also possibly might explain my stance on the PSR tier. I will say I'm so close to T2, I can taste it. (But I don't know if I exactly wish to be there once I get there...)

Overall, I feel that PSR is just a reskined Elo from before, with a few minor changes (which are improvements). In the end, it is mostly a W/L rating, which is more dependent upon the 23 other players in the match, rather than the 1 that comprises yourself. True PSR may take winning into account, but should rate match scores and in game actions more than a win. (A single person can only "carry" so much so far.) I will also admit, I'm probably not the best player every. Far from it. I'm a reasonably decent player. As I've said on the forums before (which is why I wont display my PSR tier), I know more than my skills show. I have the technical knowledge on how to do something, but not the skills to necessarily pull off that knowledge.


I'd like to say that LRMs do require skill to use effectively as it is right now. However, I also wouldn't mind if they got revamped a bit and maybe required a bit "more" skill to use overall. But, then again, what exactly could do this for a weapon designed and intended for utility (instead of just direct fire)... I have no idea. I have some concepts, but that doesn't mean it would work if introduced...

And for the record, that is the thing. It's an opinion. Everyone has one. We all have different experiences with the game, and those form our opinions. If I'm talking about how a Gauss rifle feels, and someone else had different results (or just never used it), we could have completely different opinions on the same weapon. Same goes for LRMs, or anything really. We can only work off what we've experienced.

Having differences of opinion and experience are alright.



I actually find it funny you should mention this. Just a few matches today, I saw an LRM Jenner (IIC I think, or Oxide. Wasn't sure). Let me just say... ouch. That person was using it very well, and pestered and poked my entire team. I would not call that a waste in that match. He stung a lot. Could he have done better with (S)SRMs or S(P)Ls or something? Don't know. Possibly. But man, he rocked that LRM Jenner. (And this was in Group queue for the record.)

There is a reason I advocate that people experiment and play what they enjoy. You never know what results you may get till you've at least tried it out. Sometimes, things can surprise you.

(And FYI, I've just taken all day to get this post up. Lots of distractions while trying. So if things are a little... disjointed... It's because my focus got pulled away from this... A lot. )

No worries I definitely appreciate your experience and especially your explaining how it has shaped your views. It is why I went into detail about my experience so that you could have a idea of where I am coming from and perhaps a little of the why.

Do I want all weapons to be effective?; Yes and no. Recently I have enjoyed the mg buffs on the Viper and a Linebacker variant I have. I don't however want machine guns to be as powerful or on the same level as a guass rifle. Currently the most powerful missile in the game is the srm. I love to use them and the Oxide is one of my most piloted mechs. I only loved the Jester more and was my second favourite mech hands down until the evil that was the re-scalening... So there is a variety of missile that is quite powerful as well as two other classes that are role specific or situational. I am personally fine with that. Like I have said for lrms to get any more buffs they would need something to make them harder to use to be on the same level as an ac/20 or ppc. I have also said that I would absolutely be in favour of what you suggest for los usage.

A quick admission. I am a player who has intentionally not held locks. If you were a couple hundred metres behind me in the fight multiplying my firepower, this wouldn't apply to you. That kinda guy which I think we have established that you and OldBob are, are working with me. I use Q and the minimap as well as checking B an awful lot in this game. So the guy mindlessly firing from the back somewhere....you know the guy who hasn't really left the spawn point on HPG or Canyon. If I notice that guy, I will intentionally cycle locks. Not to mention I am a guy who is primarily a brawler who has been working very hard to make guass and ppc work. More often than not I do not lock targets when I am trying to be stealthy and fire at an enemy from within 600 metres or so.; Dead lurmers have freaked out at me over comms for this and have actually had one resentful ******* give my position over all chat because of it.

That brings us to the current culture. Ah the old us versus them. My first real money purchase in this game was to get MC so I could buy two mastery bundles. I proudly and quite excitedly bought the Catapult and Jenner mastery bundles. The Catapult is my most favourite mech in the game.; This stems from my love of MW4 Mercs and Vengeance. Right now I own all of em and a couple A1's, and K2's. The decision to get the 'Pults was entirely my love for them while the Jenner's was due to the forums and getting the Oxide. If not for the forums I would have got the Raven instead. So while in the forums I stumbled across a terrible guide about how to be a pro lurmer by a guy/girl who is positively dreadful at this game. Not that I was aware of this at the time. However some gems include advocating going all or nothing and what I think right now is a mistake in the current climate to announce to your team that you are a lurmer. First if you are all lrm and not running with backup weapons while not with a friend or unit to support you, you have made a big mistake. Second I don't know how asking folks to hold locks ever became a thing but it clearly annoys more people than its value to inform others. Add to this I think it is pretty safe anyone in tier 3 or above can tell by chassis who is carrying lurms on the team. So while the guide has been added to by users who have corrected the erroneous and terrible advice, a new impatient user might miss it burried way in the back pages. Wish there was a way to have the guide forcibly removed and replaced with something that would be more palatable while also explaining perhaps some edicate on how to be a curteous and effective lrm user. If you thought of it from the perspective of my announcing in my ppc Shadow Cat; 'hidy sniper build here, don't follow me and blow my position', you would get the insane push, brawl all the time crowd in a huff at you to start off the game. Think about it, as there is definitely some hate for the trade from a distance sniper guys in this game. So the culture in the game definitely has some issues here.

Finally I struggle with the lrm Jenner anecdote. I have seem them more than once. There is a forum regular who is in one a lot. Nine out of ten times it is useless. This on a mech that can easily and consistently get 500+ damage a game when other lights on average will perform signigicantly poorer. So to me the real point is not if you can get one decent game here or there, but it you are ultimately squeezing the most you can out of a chassis (no that doesn't have to be meta). To say that lrm's can achieve that is something we won't agree on. Funny too since I saw a streak 2 Oxide yesterday who was tearing it up in one match and I kind of chuckled.

[ShadowbaneX]

I don't mind LRMs. I've used them on a variety of mechs (well, not lights). Hunchbacks, Catapults, Battlemasters & Maulers. They've got their place and if you do it right, you can give the enemies a bad day. That said, I can understand where some people come from. I saw a Victor-9K on the battlefield tonight. Rare by itself, but for some reason it was loaded with a pair of LRM10s, 3 Small Pulse Lasers and a Machine Gun. At least 8 tons of ammo for the LRMs, a ton of ammo for the MG.

Oddly, he seemed to do ok...but really? You can manage that loadout on a Hunchback or a Trebuchet. Why would you take an 80 ton mech for that? If you're just trying to get the mech done, well, I pity you for doing Victors at this time, but really, please try something, anything else.

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 11 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

I severely doubt it. Personally i find 1 ton of LRM ammo on my King Crab sufficient for all the harassment before direct engagements. It won't be a big deal to free 1 ton to keep the ammo count. If you build a brawler and put LRM as a secondary weapon then you're more likely to throw out LRM first instead of turning it into a LRM boat. But if we make even a single pack of LRM truly effective (even against high-skill players with all the modules) then reduced ammo density won't be a problem.

Exactly. LRMs will become an "all or nothing" weapon, only promoting boating it, and discouraging mixing it in as a support aspect of a mech design if you halved the ammo count per ton. You suddenly would need to commit more tonnage (and crit slots) into the weapon system, making it less worth it as a whole, less worth trying to squeeze in as a support weapon.

The average ammo to tube count tends to be one ton of ammo per 5 tubes of LRMs. If you halved ammo counts, than that formula would change to 2 tons of ammo per every 5 tube count. This formula would not change, as this is seen as the average ammo used per tube count in a standard match (with fine tuning to the user's preference).

As of current, I see no way reduced ammo count per ton could be any form of balancing. Not without some drastic improvements to LRMs, and even then...

Van Tuz, on 11 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

Oh, yes, sterile lab conditions. Tell me, how often do you see AMS equipped mech 120m in front of a target? How often do you see AMS equipped mech 120m in front of a pushing assault mech? I have never seen something like that, therefore i admit that this is possible but happens so rarely in game environment that it's barely worth considering.
--------------

Not so sterile. I've tested this in live combat conditions. I have a Battlemaster with a single LRM10 launcher (and two tons of ammo I believe) for that indirect fire support when I don't have line of sight at the moment. I've had a single AMS equipped mech between me and my intended target. They were in a ravine so I could not see them, nor get a lock on them. However, I did have a lock on an enemy well behind them. Not a single one of my LRMs made it through the AMS. A single AMS system repeatedly knocked out all my LRMs before they could get to the target (but I kinda didn't care, as it wasted their ammo too, and I had more weapons to spare). This continued until I found that opponent, and killed them.

With the number of assault mech pilots that have been loading up on long range weapons, you'd be surprised at how often this situation comes up. At least in the matches I play. Maybe it's different for you.

Van Tuz, on 11 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

You're wrong here. Current AMS implementation is much more punishing against low count of missiles compared to what i suggested to the point that it may not be worth using LRM anywhere but in LRM boats.
Example: let's say that each AMS is shooting down 5 missiles out of each volley.
1AMS, 5 LRM Loss rate - 100%
1AMS, 10 LRM Loss rate - 50%
1AMS, 15 LRM Loss rate - 33%
1AMS, 20 LRM Loss rate - 25%
1AMS, 40 LRM Loss rate - 12%

2AMS, 10 LRM Loss rate - 100%
2AMS, 15 LRM Loss rate - 66%
2AMS, 20 LRM Loss rate - 50%
2AMS, 40 LRM Loss rate - 25%
As you can see, equipping single LRM 5 is not worth it in the majority of situations. And if we have a tight mech pack with 2 AMS or more then only LRM boats can hope of inflicting any noticeable damage. So i would say that AMS is too effective against LRM as a secondary weapon and not effective enough against LRM boats.

What i suggest:
1 AMS - 30% loss rate.
2 AMS - 51% loss rate.
3 AMS - 66% loss rate.
regardless of missile count. If anything, it would only promote using LRM as a secondary weapon.

My question to you is, how can you explain AMS shooting down a set percentage of any number of LRMs incoming? A single AMS should be able to be overwhelmed with LRMs. There is only so much shooting it can do and only so fast. Though I agree that AMS can be rather effective against support LRMs on a build, but should it stop more LRMs just because more are coming in...?

Sure. Maybe as a pure game balance mechanic, but it just doesn't make any sense to me to change it to that. This game has been described as a "mech simulator", with first person shooter "tendencies".

I will comment that I kinda miss the days when you could trick AMS by shooting a small volley of LRMs out for the AMS to chew on, and then send in a larger second wave of LRMs shortly afterwards and have all/most of those hit because AMS was too distracted with the first wave (and didn't change targets between volleys fast enough). But at the same time, that really needed to be corrected...

Van Tuz, on 11 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

Oh quit your preaching please. Call me a heretic but the first thing that comes to my mind when people say that a piece of scaffolding provides better protection than 20 tons of armor is "that's not metal". I know how powerful cover is but i don't want it to be omnipotent. There should be ways to deliver pain even behind cover. In the absence of Arrow IV artillery system LRM is the best candidate for this role.

Using cover is an important skill to learn. You should be rewarded when using cover effectively, compared to just standing still out in the open. Though LRMs should be a bit more effective when countering cover (and is if no modules or ECM is included), cover should still be important and effective enough to provide shelter from most weapons. If used properly, it should even be effective against LRM attacks. Otherwise, it really would just encourage players to "sit out back and let their team get all the locks for them", a behavior that we all seem to wish to discourage.

Van Tuz, on 11 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

I agree with that. However, making LRM more of a dumbfire weapon in order to add more "skill" is not a good solution. It can only make its unique features obsolete. I think that adding skill trough teamwork is much better solution.

It would let LRMs still shoot indirectly, but reward more skillful use of LRMs as a more direct fire weapon. Then, it becomes a measure of effectiveness vs helping teammates out. Then, there is an added cost to it's utility features, keeping it from becoming "best weapon ever".

Of course, I only theorize on some of these features I propose (and in this thread, I've only briefly touched what I feel could use some changes). What actually could use to be done... I'm not certain. There is a reason I discuss possible alternative mechanics. If PGI reads what I type and go "that's a good idea", all for them. If they never implement them, that's fine to. They are only theories and suggestions.

I do agree that adding more skillful play is always a good concept. It's a matter of how to add in that skill, what skill(s) are we wishing to link it to, and how will that interact with game balance and other weapons/skills already in the game.

B3R3ND, on 11 January 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

2. "Guided" mode, tighter spread, low arced trajectory, low velocity missiles - suited to "steer" missiles towards target much like the ATGM or TOW missiles of today. You guide the missiles by mouse, joystick or keyboard manually to your target, they go where you point them to. The low velocity characteristic allows targets to dodge or avoid missiles but have to move into cover / move evasive.

I don't mind the "carpet bombing" concept, as it kinda aligns somewhat with my "large spread for indirect fire" concepts. However, the guided direct fire mode confuses me.

How would you be able to guide those missiles? Why do they move slower (they are the same ammo type after all)? In what manner would we be manually able to move the missile(s), and still be able to move our mechs? How could this be abused (LRM scouting, guiding it over a building and zoning in on unsuspecting unlocked prey, etc)?

I think your guided mode missiles just wouldn't work very well. However, a more forward arced missiles for direct fire could be possible (helping with blind fire mode), as well as maybe a more Streak like mechanic instead of "zone in on the CT" have a cluster of 5 LRMs home in on a specific "bone" of the mech. (This has actually been a requested feature for LRMs for some time by many people.) The Streak like locking could even be more for direct line of sight even...?

Edited by Tesunie, 11 January 2017 - 08:39 PM.

[Van Tuz]

B3R3ND, on 11 January 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

1. "Carpet" mode, big spread, high arced trajectory, high velocity missiles - suited to "bomb" general location of a mech.

2. "Guided" mode, tighter spread, low arced trajectory, low velocity missiles

1) There's a better candidate for this role in battletech universe: Arrow IV artillery system with cluster munitions.
2) If you mean laser guidance of some sorts then it's not a good idea as it requires a target to be in line of sight negating the second-line fire support capabilities of LRM. If you mean direct control of missiles then it's also not a good idea because it completely prevents usage of LRM as a secondary weapon. Players won't have time to guide LRM if they need to drive their mech and shoot other weapons. So it's an LRM-boat only solution.

Tesunie, on 11 January 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

As of current, I see no way reduced ammo count per ton could be any form of balancing. Not without some drastic improvements to LRMs, and even then...

Well guess what: drastic improvements to LRMs are in pack with reduced ammo density. Or countering radar deprivation and reduced impact of AMS on small packs of LRM is not "drastic" enough?

Tesunie, on 11 January 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

My question to you is, how can you explain AMS shooting down a set percentage of any number of LRMs incoming? A single AMS should be able to be overwhelmed with LRMs. There is only so much shooting it can do and only so fast. Though I agree that AMS can be rather effective against support LRMs on a build, but should it stop more LRMs just because more are coming in...?

Sure. Maybe as a pure game balance mechanic, but it just doesn't make any sense to me to change it to that. This game has been described as a "mech simulator", with first person shooter "tendencies".

Flak.
Besides, if we start to put "real-life logic" in front of the game balance logic then we should throw the whole "battlemech" idea in the garbage bin. It has been proven enough times that realistic giant robots have no place on the battlefield. That's why we should not let "realistic" interfere with "cool" and "fun".

Tesunie, on 11 January 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Using cover is an important skill to learn. You should be rewarded when using cover effectively, compared to just standing still out in the open. ... Otherwise, it really would just encourage players to "sit out back and let their team get all the locks for them", a behavior that we all seem to wish to discourage.

As do i. But do you know what else i want to see less in the game? Assault brawlers hiding the whole game behind rocks because there's no way to push against multitude of snipers and LRM boats in cover. It's not quite in line with the main topic here but reducing the effectiveness of "poke and hide" trough partial cover negation ability for LRM could be a nice first step.

[Danjo San]

Evil Goof, on 05 December 2016 - 11:20 PM, said:

You can argue all you like about meta and boring builds. You can also argue that the sky is purple. You will not be right in either case. If you for a second think that you can effectively with a couple other guys lurm against some of the top players in the game I have an advance copy of MW5 Mercs to sell you...

Funny how perception changes when you decide do go full Lurm, with a Narc Spotter and you have a Top Tier Team on the other side that gets reckd to shards... You have a valid weapon and a valid tactic that leads to victory. and yet... you are accused once again of being a lurm noob. Not by members of your team of course but by the reckd enemy.
Done it in Quickplay, done it on the classic "Invasion Maps", did it on quickplay maps in 4.1.
There is a place for LRMs, you need to be in sync with your team however.

Narrow minded pilots only see the "push to win" strategy as being effective.
You can also "lock enemy behind cover" making no forward movement, spreading out, creating angles and punishing the enemy for every poke he makes.
You can use flanks to hold enemies behind cover while your main force advances through a critical chokepoint.
You can have a harasser behind enemy lines creating confusion among the enemy while your main force sets up a half-moon around them... locking the enemy in place...
Not to forget the beloved Nascar Strategy... upon which not LRMs are the Problem, it's the people that stop to shoot and lose contact with the movement, they get left behind and get NASCARed to death themselves ... A Hunchback 4J can easily run with the pack and Lurm at 200-350m, being highly effective in all regards.

Push is not always the best option. especially not if you are calling your team to push through a choke point into the wide open firing line of the waiting enemies. You need to read the signs and adapt your strategy, sometimes a tactical retreat is a valid option. especially now with respawns in 4.1 skirmish. If your up on kills, why wait to lose that advantage in a close match? Pull back, let them come, you are closer to your base you are closer to reinforcements, also making them come to you often leads the enemy through a choke where you can set up and wait for them... And guess what... Lurms can help there too... OMG!

[MacClearly]

Danjo San, on 12 January 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

Funny how perception changes when you decide do go full Lurm, with a Narc Spotter and you have a Top Tier Team on the other side that gets reckd to shards... You have a valid weapon and a valid tactic that leads to victory. and yet... you are accused once again of being a lurm noob. Not by members of your team of course but by the reckd enemy.
Done it in Quickplay, done it on the classic "Invasion Maps", did it on quickplay maps in 4.1.
There is a place for LRMs, you need to be in sync with your team however.

Narrow minded pilots only see the "push to win" strategy as being effective.
You can also "lock enemy behind cover" making no forward movement, spreading out, creating angles and punishing the enemy for every poke he makes.
You can use flanks to hold enemies behind cover while your main force advances through a critical chokepoint.
You can have a harasser behind enemy lines creating confusion among the enemy while your main force sets up a half-moon around them... locking the enemy in place...
Not to forget the beloved Nascar Strategy... upon which not LRMs are the Problem, it's the people that stop to shoot and lose contact with the movement, they get left behind and get NASCARed to death themselves ... A Hunchback 4J can easily run with the pack and Lurm at 200-350m, being highly effective in all regards.

Push is not always the best option. especially not if you are calling your team to push through a choke point into the wide open firing line of the waiting enemies. You need to read the signs and adapt your strategy, sometimes a tactical retreat is a valid option. especially now with respawns in 4.1 skirmish. If your up on kills, why wait to lose that advantage in a close match? Pull back, let them come, you are closer to your base you are closer to reinforcements, also making them come to you often leads the enemy through a choke where you can set up and wait for them... And guess what... Lurms can help there too... OMG!

For clarity Evil Goof and I are the same person.

While you do make some decent points, my assertion is that you will not be successful as an organised lurm team up against even a competent equally organised unit. I have seen youtube videos where guys from very recognizable units, catch people off guard in group queue or faction and destroy the enemy team. Most familiar with FW know that one place 3 to 4 lurmers with a narcer or two can be highly effective is Boreal Vault. My unit has been caught off guard by a team who are very lurm focused on Sulfereous Rift.

I am not one of those guys who thinks the only way to win is brawling and charging head first into the enemy. I do like brawling and along with hit and run skirmishing, it is probably what I am best at. However most of my time lately when not leveling mechs in quick play has been focused on getting better with ppc and guass.

My point? Simply that, successful lurming is highly situational. You need the right map and you need the right circumstances such as opponents who are not organised. Even on Boreal, my unit when on attack is usually successful. Lurmers are generally easy to counter and are inferior to ppc and erlarge lasers.

As far as FW 4.1, it is still always better to not have lurmers on the quick play maps than it is to have them. You either hope that your pugging lurmers are balanced out by the opposing teams pugging lurmers, or that they are at least not entirely lrm dependent and that their other mechs contribute some. When dropping pure pug vs. pug, then again it usually balances itself out between the two teams.

[Burke IV]

At the start of the game, so called good or bad LRM mechs are entirely equal. If you cycle your locks you do 2 things, firstly waste your team mates ammo, secondly you teach them that they cant trust team locks. Really and truthfully if you as a scout zoom out of spawn to get eyes on the enemy team and then you deliberately cause your teams LRMs to miss you are not only living in your own little world you are also a bad player and a greifer. Measuring your own skill by how well you can hinder your own team and put down "noobs" just makes you a richard.

as sombody already said, if LRMs are so bad and you are all so good, lets put them back how they used to be with speed and damage

Edited by Burke IV, 12 January 2017 - 06:24 AM.

[MacClearly]

Burke IV, on 12 January 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

At the start of the game, so called good or bad LRM mechs are entirely equal. If you cycle your locks you do 2 things, firstly waste your team mates ammo, secondly you teach them that they cant trust team locks. Really and truthfully if you as a scout zoom out of spawn to get eyes on the enemy team and then you deliberately cause your teams LRMs to miss you are not only living in your own little world you are also a bad player and a greifer. Measuring your own skill by how well you can hinder your own team and put down "noobs" just makes you a richard.

as sombody already said, if LRMs are so bad and you are all so good, lets put them back how they used to be with speed and damage

It's unfortunate that so many people such as yourself do not understand what griefing is. Being selfish or even being a bad player or poor teammate is not griefing. PGI is not going to hand out bans or warnings for not holding locks. There is a big difference in not helping a player and behaviour that is intentionally trying to defeat or disrupt what a player is doing. In this case, a guy running lurms can just peek out and get his own locks.

If someone was to insist that not sharing their locks was in fact griefing, you could easily than rebut it by saying the the lurmer hiding behind a rock is griefing for not sharing his armour. Both arguments are however ridiculous. Just as I may not like the guy spamming missiles from 800 metres behind cover, and he may not like me for not helping him continue that behaviour, neither of us can force the other to change.

So who is right in this situation? Honestly if you really look at it, both behaviours are wrong. However from a social engineering perspective, often people in the majority will do things such as ignore or other behaviours that make people holding onto attitudes or actions uncomfortable. An example might be if someone said something racist or homophobic, and those around turned and yelled and used profanity. Society would generally agree that the more egregious offense would not be using inappropriate language to call out really bad behaviour. Admittedly this analogy is not completely analogous due to it being on the extreme. We do however seem to have a majority of players who understand things such as not bringing lrms to FW unless you are in a group or unit that will help support or use strategy specifically designed to make that a viable choice. Doing so in FW pug matches against the grain however can be a huge handicap and discouraging that kind of behaviour will continue.

[Burke IV]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

It's unfortunate that so many people such as yourself do not understand what griefing is. Being selfish or even being a bad player or poor teammate is not griefing. PGI is not going to hand out bans or warnings for not holding locks. There is a big difference in not helping a player and behaviour that is intentionally trying to defeat or disrupt what a player is doing. In this case, a guy running lurms can just peek out and get his own locks.

PGI dont police this game full stop, let alone small things. As for "not heping the player" its the team you arnt helping. Next time you see a LRMer at 800m hold the lock, guide his missiles home, whats the problem? if you drop that lock, turn around and watch the LRMs, and when they get close get that lock back for him, thats teamplay.

[Roughneck45]

Burke IV, on 12 January 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

If you cycle your locks you do 2 things, firstly waste your team mates ammo, secondly you teach them that they cant trust team locks. Really and truthfully if you as a scout zoom out of spawn to get eyes on the enemy team and then you deliberately cause your teams LRMs to miss you are not only living in your own little world you are also a bad player and a greifer. Measuring your own skill by how well you can hinder your own team and put down "noobs" just makes you a richard.

You are showing your team where the death ball is when you cycle locks.

The LRM pilots need to learn to not fire at every lock that shows up. Too many battlefield variables to just assume that a lock 800m out behind cover is going to be held. People that complain about holding locks generally have no idea what they are doing.

The best LRM boats are the ones with enough speed to keep their own locks

Burke IV, on 12 January 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

PGI dont police this game full stop, let alone small things. As for "not heping the player" its the team you arnt helping. Next time you see a LRMer at 800m hold the lock, guide his missiles home, whats the problem? if you drop that lock, turn around and watch the LRMs, and when they get close get that lock back for him, thats teamplay.

Sure, if you can, you want to do that.

But usually you cant, because they have ECM, or you'd be exposing yourself to return fire. The problem is that one person is doing the hard work while the other reaps the rewards hahaha.

Edited by Roughneck45, 12 January 2017 - 07:32 AM.

[Burke IV]

Stalker 5M quirked and modulated can get its LRMs out to 1200m i think. PGI put the tools in the game so you can be lobbing LRMs rigth from the start. If your not supposed to use LRMs in this way why is the module and specialised mech in the game? You can see how people might be confused.

[Roughneck45]

Burke IV, on 12 January 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

Stalker 5M quirked and modulated can get its LRMs out to 1200m i think. PGI put the tools in the game so you can be lobbing LRMs rigth from the start. If your not supposed to use LRMs in this way why is the module and specialised mech in the game? You can see how people might be confused.

You can do that, its just not the best way to use LRMs. If you have a dedicated spotter that is calling your locks, go for it.

[no one]

Roughneck45, on 12 January 2017 - 07:32 AM, said:

You are showing your team where the death ball is when you cycle locks.

The LRM pilots need to learn to not fire at every lock that shows up. Too many battlefield variables to just assume that a lock 800m out behind cover is going to be held. People that complain about holding locks generally have no idea what they are doing.

The best LRM boats are the ones with enough speed to keep their own locks

This. Also, if you're lobbing LRMs from outside 600m you're doing a number of things -

1 - Giving the enemy ages to react to that missile warning by breaking lock or getting cover.
2 - Committing more tonnage of ammo to the air, leading to greater frustration when locks are lost.

Those are the two primary ways in which LRM ammo gets wasted.

Also LRM boats that rely too heavily on others to get locks tend to not have the best awareness. When I'm behaving as a spotter I may intentionally break a lock if I notice wave after wave of LRM fire crashing into cover uselessly.

[MacClearly]

Burke IV, on 12 January 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

PGI dont police this game full stop, let alone small things. As for "not heping the player" its the team you arnt helping. Next time you see a LRMer at 800m hold the lock, guide his missiles home, whats the problem? if you drop that lock, turn around and watch the LRMs, and when they get close get that lock back for him, thats teamplay.

Full stop huh?

PGI does police the game for disruptive behaviour and intentional griefing. Good for you if you have never been warned or done anything to warrant a suspension.

So what is the problem. It has been gone over ad nauseum. Obviously you don't agree and you clearly have a different idea of what comprises good teamplay.

So no I will not be holding locks for the guy in the back.

[Burning2nd]

i REAL boat pilot... doesn't ask for locks...

i sure as hell dont want your half *** locks that will drop off when i got 200 rounds air born


hell i dont even want your tag

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 12 January 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

1) There's a better candidate for this role in battletech universe: Arrow IV artillery system with cluster munitions.

You are presuming that Arrow would be able to take alternative ammo types to launch. If this is the case, than so should LRMs and LBx... I don't think it would be likely to get into the game with that special ammo. However, a single missile that can deal 20 damage... AMS would be effective against it, but that would be a heavy hitter if it connects...

Personally, if we are talking about wish lists, I'd love to have Thunder LRM ammo. Think about it. Any LRMs that miss and hit the ground, BAM! Instant minefield. Move and blow up, stand still and blow up! Make your choice! (Yes, I joke a little here.)

Van Tuz, on 12 January 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Well guess what: drastic improvements to LRMs are in pack with reduced ammo density. Or countering radar deprivation and reduced impact of AMS on small packs of LRM is not "drastic" enough?

For reducing damage per ton from 180 to 90... No. At that low of damage (potential) per ton invested, the only improvements that would save LRMs at that point would be if every missile launcher was guaranteed to hit and deal damage. And even then...

Here is a comparison for you:
- AC20 has 7 shots per ton of ammo. That's 140 damage potential per ton of ammo.
- AC10 has 20 shots, leading to 200 damage per ton of ammo.
- LB10x has 20 shots, leading to 200 damage (spread).
- AC5 and UAC5 has 30 shots, being 150 damage.
- AC2 has 75 shots, being 150 damage.
- SRMs have 100 rounds, standing at 200 damage (spread).
- MGs have 2,000 bullets, making it 200 (spreadish) damage.

Notice something here? Reducing LRM ammo to 90 rounds per ton would effectively make it the weakest damage potential per ton of ammo invested. This would reduce LRMs being used as a secondary weapon system, and would improve it's stance as a primary weapon (if even that). Not to mention the spread, the needed locks, slow travel times... You'd have to make them some mega impressive weapon system to cut their ammo damage potential in half, which would also be about half the potential of all other ammo based weapons in the game...


So, I'd like for you to explain to me how exactly you can believe that cutting ammo count per ton for LRMs would be helpful in encouraging it as a support system and not as a boated system? (Not that boating it is an issue, as people will do what they will, and kinda as they should as this is a game.) What improvements are you going to give LRMs that are going to make them worth having the worst damage potential per ton of ammo?

Van Tuz, on 12 January 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Flak.
Besides, if we start to put "real-life logic" in front of the game balance logic then we should throw the whole "battlemech" idea in the garbage bin. It has been proven enough times that realistic giant robots have no place on the battlefield. That's why we should not let "realistic" interfere with "cool" and "fun".

I don't know enough about AMS in TT to be able to reference those rules, and seen as Sarna tends to be adjusted depending upon who wants to win an argument as of late... I can't exactly go referencing there.

However, in this game they are described as a MG on an automated turret that shoots down missiles. In lore, I know they can be used manually to be used like a MG, but it's not often. (It's also hard tech to come by, so not many mechs used them.)

I just can't see how or why they should be more effective against larger numbers of LRMs, and less effective against fewer LRMs. Maybe if you considered a "cascade" effect, where once a single missile is shot down, more get caught in it's explosion and also go down... Maybe?

I'm not certain of how this would impact the game. It probably would encourage boating large numbers of smaller launchers even more, which already is a meta for LRMs at the moment. Only defense against boated LRM5s (besides breaking lock, cover, ECM, etc) is the AMS. It counters the smaller launchers (which in this game have far less spread and faster refire), but has more trouble against larger launchers (which have greater spread and slower refire)...

Van Tuz, on 12 January 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

As do i. But do you know what else i want to see less in the game? Assault brawlers hiding the whole game behind rocks because there's no way to push against multitude of snipers and LRM boats in cover. It's not quite in line with the main topic here but reducing the effectiveness of "poke and hide" trough partial cover negation ability for LRM could be a nice first step.

LRMs... Kinda can already do that. It's just a matter of getting and keeping a lock long enough. One of the better ways of solving this was to raise the speed LRMs travel, but last time that happened... Oh the whine.

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

While you do make some decent points, my assertion is that you will not be successful as an organised lurm team up against even a competent equally organised unit.

My question here would be... How heavy on the LRMs is that team being? A mech or two boating LRMs? Not a problem and can be a boon if utilized correctly. A whole lance or more of nothing but LRM boats? You probably are in trouble... A bunch of people with only a small bit of LRMs, may work fine depending upon how the team works together and what they expect the LRMs to be doing...

With LRMs, there is such a thing as too many of them on a team. Get too many LRMs on the team, and you have a large weakness to anything counter LRMs (such as ECM, Radar Dep, if a team brought in AMS, them getting too close, etc).

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

It's unfortunate that so many people such as yourself do not understand what griefing is.

The thing is, intentionally being disruptive and hindering your team and your teammates is a form of Griefing. So, in some aspects flickering your locks "all the time" can be a minor form of it, especially if you are doing it to prevent your LRM teammate(s) from being able to help. All that is leading to is them not helping you to kill the target as well as not helping the team by giving them solid information.

However, flickering your locks as an indicator of where the enemy is can be helpful. The trick is to do it once, maybe twice max. Then, hold a lock (well, as much as you can). I say this for several reasons, first is it helps any LRM users be able to help deal some damage to said target. The second reason is that it's easier for people to see and follow a set lock, rather than a bunch of flickers all over the place.

This is why it's a "it can be a form of griefing". If you are doing it just to literally keep LRMs from hitting than yes. You are griefing to some extent. You wont be punished for it (because how can they prove what your intentions are) because it is such a minor thing.

Overall, if you can, hold a lock. If you need to inform "lots over here", than by all means cycle through the enemy targets you can a little. (It also gives you those scouting bonuses.)

As a final note on this, I don't ever expect a teammate to die to hold a lock. Do what you must to play the game, just don't intentionally go out of your way to hinder another player is all, basically.