271 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Barantor, on 27 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

They used a variety of weapons from a Martini Henry, to Enfields, to Mosins, AK/SKS to those manpads the CIA gave them to combat the helos.

There was a guy with a Broadsword in WW2, but just because a weapon has statistics doesn't mean you use them on their absolute max at all times.

I doubt very seriously that most folks could see the target at some of the distances that were listed for rifles intended for volley fire pre 1950 production.

They can't but I guess just like we have ForumWarriors the Intrawebz haz graced us with WikipediaWarriors, too?

In which case if they are going to go by the intrawebz, I wish they would subscribe to the various shooting channels on Youtube and get some "IRL" perspective. Even better would be to join a local shooting club/association. I've found the various Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting groups to be very inviting to new shooters, and a great experience.

I've been meaning to see if there are any here in Mexico, but too little time, since moving here (and my free time is blowing up robots or spearfishing!), and am not sure the laws on muzzle loaders. I know with enough legal paperwork I can import various of my guns down here, but it's more hassle than it's worth.

Still as someone who's been actively shooting, hunting and competing with all sorts of firearms, and a total single shot enthusiast (not to mention shooting and shooting history buff), sometimes the statements made on various game forums make me cringe. Some of the crap people believe is Hollywood level silly.

Thing is, even with modern optics and firearms, reliably hitting out past a few hundred yards is no given... or the ammo expenditure in Irag and Afganistan would be a lot lower.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 March 2017 - 01:49 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

are these the magical magazine fed martini henrys? Oh and go make a video of you picking off people at 1000 meters with these magical martinis. Show me how easy it is to hit things at that range with them. That'd make a real cool story.


Sure, if they are dumb. Plenty of low channels to flank without getting spotted, and certainly without exposing yourself to a 12 man.

While I would never suggest LRMs are going to become meta any time soon... maybe they'd be a bit stronger if folks learned the art of spotting? (patience, not getting spotted yourself... which is why NARC is vastly better for this than TAG...since NARC doesn't give away your spotter's location.)

I can give classes on how to spot without getting focused by 12 mans, if you need one?

I get the logic. The problem however is the math that the spotters create. It's 1-3 people trying to get LoS on 12 people. The spotters are likely lights, the 12 people likely heavies/assaults.

Beyond which the spotters become irrelevant so long as the attackers stay on the move.

The logic behind an LRM team is self-defeating. Only having part of your team exposed to fire just causes your team to be destroyed in detail. If the LRM boats hiding and raining on spotters were using direct fire in a rolling firing line of 12 they'd spread the damage they take more and focus the damage they do more.

Good players can still use LRMs and get results. There's a KCom player who takes an LRM King Crab on Alpine often and does great. Not everyone needs to be full carry all the time and if someone is good they can do alright with just about anything. However that doesn't mean LRMs are good; it just means that good players can get at least moderate results from anything.

My big complaint in these threads isn't acknowledging that LRMs can be used to kill people - it's the constant undercurrent of false ideas saying that 'LRMs are totally competitive if you use them right'. No, no they're not. Nor are LBX 2s or CERLLs or SSRM2s or most other bad weapons. The worst facet of LRMs is the part that attracts so many to them - shooting at someone who can't see you. People not understanding why that's bad is a big part of what makes most people hate most LRM players.

Edited to remove a bunch of anecdotal examples and math that will just make people try to argue their own anecdotal examples and try to argue bad math vs good math.

Edited by MischiefSC, 27 March 2017 - 02:58 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 27 March 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

I get the logic. The problem however is the math that the spotters create. It's 1-3 people trying to get LoS on 12 people. The spotters are likely lights, the 12 people likely heavies/assaults.

Beyond which the spotters become irrelevant so long as the attackers stay on the move.

The logic behind an LRM team is self-defeating. Only having part of your team exposed to fire just causes your team to be destroyed in detail. If the LRM boats hiding and raining on spotters were using direct fire in a rolling firing line of 12 they'd spread the damage they take more and focus the damage they do more.

Good players can still use LRMs and get results. There's a KCom player who takes an LRM King Crab on Alpine often and does great. Not everyone needs to be full carry all the time and if someone is good they can do alright with just about anything. However that doesn't mean LRMs are good; it just means that good players can get at least moderate results from anything.

My big complaint in these threads isn't acknowledging that LRMs can be used to kill people - it's the constant undercurrent of false ideas saying that 'LRMs are totally competitive if you use them right'. No, no they're not. Nor are LBX 2s or CERLLs or SSRM2s or most other bad weapons. The worst facet of LRMs is the part that attracts so many to them - shooting at someone who can't see you. People not understanding why that's bad is a big part of what makes most people hate most LRM players.

Edited to remove a bunch of anecdotal examples and math that will just make people try to argue their own anecdotal examples and try to argue bad math vs good math.

Whelp show me where I ever said they competitive and I guess we would be on to something. Hell, I don't think they are particularly good. I just find it funny the disconnect we see with Competitive Players, and maybe some concern that people are throwing shade at their twitch skill epeen.... but....

If a weapon is NOT good, and is unanimously considered inferior to direct fire... yet someone like Jman5 can use them (even if not as well as direct fire).... that by it's very nature...no, does not say LRMs are competitive.. but that yes, there is a very high skill ceiling to them, or they would never be able to be used even remotely competitively, by even top tier players.

You take an inferior weapon, and compete at a high level with it.... it doesn't make the weapon better, but it inherently implies a significant amount of skill was required to make that weapon perform.

And whether it's pigheadedness, rank ignorance, fear to even admit a lock on weapon CAN take skill,whatever...it's just damn ludicrous to see the mental gymnastics some folks on here have gone to to denigrate anyone who uses LRMs for any reason, as being "unskilled players".

Meh.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Whelp show me where I ever said they competitive and I guess we would be on to something. Hell, I don't think they are particularly good. I just find it funny the disconnect we see with Competitive Players, and maybe some concern that people are throwing shade at their twitch skill epeen.... but....

If a weapon is NOT good, and is unanimously considered inferior to direct fire... yet someone like Jman5 can use them (even if not as well as direct fire).... that by it's very nature...no, does not say LRMs are competitive.. but that yes, there is a very high skill ceiling to them, or they would never be able to be used even remotely competitively, by even top tier players.

You take an inferior weapon, and compete at a high level with it.... it doesn't make the weapon better, but it inherently implies a significant amount of skill was required to make that weapon perform.

And whether it's pigheadedness, rank ignorance, fear to even admit a lock on weapon CAN take skill,whatever...it's just damn ludicrous to see the mental gymnastics some folks on here have gone to to denigrate anyone who uses LRMs for any reason, as being "unskilled players".

Meh.

So two carpenters are each building a table.

One uses his regular tools, the other one uses a rock.

You don't look at the guy using a rock and say 'wow, he's an amazing carpenter'. You ask why he's being a nitwit and not using the right tools because he's never going to build as nice a table as the guy using correct tools.

Jman5 can kill you better with PPCs than he can with LRMs. He's an excellent player. On some maps in some situations he takes LRMs and does great with them. He's got a personal affection for LRMs though, so he uses them anyway. As I said before - Aresye used a Kit Fox in an MRBC match and did solid with it.

This doesn't make either extra virtuous for using them, it's just a personal quirk. If someone is as good as JMan5 or Aresye and they want to take LRMs or a Kit Fox or WTF ever, well, good on them. Nobody is going to say ****.

If however you're NOT someone of that caliber and you bring bad weapons/mechs, then of course people will say something. Because you and I in an LRM hunchie are not going to carry like JMan5 in an LRM hunchie.

And that's totally, absolutely okay. We can bring an LRM hunchie if we want. It's a big stompy robot game and it's all pretendy fun times. However the people complaining when we don't carry as well? They're allowed. We're the ones who decided to sandbag.

As to skill level, sure using LRMs takes skill. So does using anything else in the game. There's a higher skill ceiling however to using direct fire than using LRMs. That's not an insult, just an observation. Leading a target vs getting a lock, positioning to deal with return fire vs positioning to avoid obstructions, etc.

What people are really saying is 'bad players need to not bring LRMs'. However you can't say that because the bad players, especially, will think that doesn't mean them because that one time in band camp they had that one match were they didn't suck. Oh and they'd have gotten out of T5 over the last 3,000 matches if their team would just support them better.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 27 March 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

So two carpenters are each building a table.

One uses his regular tools, the other one uses a rock.

You don't look at the guy using a rock and say 'wow, he's an amazing carpenter'. You ask why he's being a nitwit and not using the right tools because he's never going to build as nice a table as the guy using correct tools.

Jman5 can kill you better with PPCs than he can with LRMs. He's an excellent player. On some maps in some situations he takes LRMs and does great with them. He's got a personal affection for LRMs though, so he uses them anyway. As I said before - Aresye used a Kit Fox in an MRBC match and did solid with it.

This doesn't make either extra virtuous for using them, it's just a personal quirk. If someone is as good as JMan5 or Aresye and they want to take LRMs or a Kit Fox or WTF ever, well, good on them. Nobody is going to say ****.

If however you're NOT someone of that caliber and you bring bad weapons/mechs, then of course people will say something. Because you and I in an LRM hunchie are not going to carry like JMan5 in an LRM hunchie.

And that's totally, absolutely okay. We can bring an LRM hunchie if we want. It's a big stompy robot game and it's all pretendy fun times. However the people complaining when we don't carry as well? They're allowed. We're the ones who decided to sandbag.

As to skill level, sure using LRMs takes skill. So does using anything else in the game. There's a higher skill ceiling however to using direct fire than using LRMs. That's not an insult, just an observation. Leading a target vs getting a lock, positioning to deal with return fire vs positioning to avoid obstructions, etc.

What people are really saying is 'bad players need to not bring LRMs'. However you can't say that because the bad players, especially, will think that doesn't mean them because that one time in band camp they had that one match were they didn't suck. Oh and they'd have gotten out of T5 over the last 3,000 matches if their team would just support them better.

Now let's take a less stupid example of your carpenters.

One with modern 3d computer controlled milling equipment, and all the latest tools.
And an Amish one, using wooden dowels in place of nails, hands tools, etc.

Both construct furniture.
One is faster, more economical and repeatable.
Yet no one says the Amish carpenter is an idiot, and in fat people marvel at his skill, and in fact fear that many of his techniques may be lost to future generations.

Also, to use your idiotic hyperbole? (Because it's staining logic so extremely in a desperate effort to somehow make some sort of point.... Yet loses all credulity because of its patent absurdity. But thank you for proving my point about mentally gymnastics. I just didn't think you'd do it Special Olympics style) if a person were to take a rock and somehow make a decent piece of furniture?

He'd be an overnight YouTube sensation.

So any other ludicrous extremes you care to reach for?/ Which is doubly funny since last I checked, you're just another tier 2 schlub like me. Yet I guess if you regurgitate enough epeen posturing, maybe you're hoping some will rub off on you?

IDK, whatever floats your little wannabe tryhard boat.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 March 2017 - 04:20 PM.

[SQW]

1. When killing a LRM boat, lrm is useless.
2. When killed by LRM boat, lrm takes no skill.
3. When killing with LRM boat, lrm is noob tube.
4. When killed piloting LRM boat, lrm is useless.
5. When team mate in LRM boat dies, lrm is useless.
6. When team mate in LRM boat kills, they could do better with direct fire weapons.

That's pretty much the line of thoughts for LRM haters. They don't see all the missed laser shots in their sniping duel. They don't see how the enemy team isn't marching up their corner hugging arses because they know there's a LRM boat waiting for them to move in the open. They don't see half of the enemy hiding around the corner because the lrm is keeping them in one spot for the brawlers to get into position. They don't see the lrms helping them take off those crucial armor way beyond LOS in the beginning so the brawlers can one shot the weakened target.

A good LRM player is not common. Then again, so is finding a brawler who can resist walking his slow arse into a bad spot and get focused down. Or a sniper who hill hugs and trade badly with 3 other bigger mechs who are just waiting for him to poke out from the same spot for the third time.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

Now let's take a less stupid example of your carpenters.

One with modern 3d computer controlled milling equipment, and all the latest tools.
And an Amish one, using wooden dowels in place of nails, hands tools, etc.

Both construct furniture.
One is faster, more economical and repeatable.
Yet no one says the Amish carpenter is an idiot, and in fat people marvel at his skill, and in fact fear that many of his techniques may be lost to future generations.

Also, to use your idiotic hyperbole? (Because it's staining logic so extremely in a desperate effort to somehow make some sort of point.... Yet loses all credulity because of its patent absurdity. But thank you for proving my point about mentally gymnastics. I just didn't think you'd do it Special Olympics style) if a person were to take a rock and somehow make a decent piece of furniture?

He'd be an overnight YouTube sensation.

So any other ludicrous extremes you care to reach for?/ Which is doubly funny since last I checked, you're just another tier 2 schlub like me. Yet I guess if you regurgitate enough epeen posturing, maybe you're hoping some will rub off on you?

IDK, whatever floats your little wannabe tryhard boat.

Why are you trying to make this a matter of personal insults? As I've said, repeatedly, this has nothing to do with anecdotal experiences or trying to imply some moral imperative to comp play vs pug play or anything like that.

Comp play is a better gauge for viability of mechs/weapons because it does the best possible job of removing disparity in player skill from the equation - everyone involved is reasonably close to one another in performance. Also they play repeatedly against each other which, again, is better for sampling. There's no moral relativity to it.

Taking LRMs doesn't make you an amish craftsman. Two generic craftsman, one takes good tools one takes bad ones. I get that you want to portray taking bad weapons makes you somehow more of an artist than taking good ones but, well, that doesn't carry out in the game.

You keep trying to both make caring if you take a good mech or loadout an insult, like that's some sort of moral choice and conversely say that taking a bad loadout makes you a better player.

None of that plays out. It's irrelevant. Not going to get into trading insults with you, they're irrelevant. Take what you want - play, have fun. If someone takes a bad build (like LRMs or whatever) of course people will complain. LRMs get called out more often because of all the bad weapon options (and the game has plenty) it's got the most bad players drawn to it and taking them and trying to say they're good.

If you had 6 people per match taking 1xLBX5, 2xStreak 2 novas with 10 tons of ammo you'd have people raging on that too.

Quit trying to make this some moral thing or that caring if you win or lose is some bad habit or moral failing. LRMs are bad compared to direct fire and especially in the hands of bad players they drive bad habits. That's not a surprise.

[Pixel Hunter]

I don't really care about LRM's being competitive or not. it's about risk/reward and currently there isn't that much risk to sit behind a hill a throw auto targeting missiles 1k or so

LRM boats can never be bad IMO because it's the only weapon that can be fire IN COVER

no one else can do this. it's a giant advantage

Edited by Gimpy117, 27 March 2017 - 06:26 PM.

[SQW]

Gimpy117, on 27 March 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

I don't really care about LRM's being competitive or not. it's about risk/reward and currently there isn't that much risk to sit behind a hill a throw auto targeting missiles 1k or so

LRM boats can never be bad IMO because it's the only weapon that can be fire IN COVER

no one else can do this. it's a giant advantage

The reward for lobbing LRMs at 1k behind cover is also pretty slim.

Nowadays, even the greenest LRM boat knows to move with the group if only to prevent getting a ACH up his arse.

[Steel Claws]

My problem with LRMs is when my team is loaded with assault missile boats because they just can't come to grips that this is a waste of a good assault mech.

[Ted Wayz]

MischiefSC, on 27 March 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

My big complaint in these threads isn't acknowledging that LRMs can be used to kill people -

With each nerf this gets harder and harder. My assist totals are going through the roof but the "LRMs can't kill" is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. It used to be Artemis was optional but not as much now. Just sad for a weapon with a 30-40% strike rate.

Steel Claws, on 27 March 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

My problem with LRMs is when my team is loaded with assault missile boats because they just can't come to grips that this is a waste of a good assault mech.

A good assault mech is one that helps you win. I will take an agressive Lurm boat over a gauss/erppc I think I am a shadowcat assault.

[SQW]

Ted Wayz, on 27 March 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

With each nerf this gets harder and harder. My assist totals are going through the roof but the "LRMs can't kill" is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. It used to be Artemis was optional but not as much now. Just sad for a weapon with a 30-40% strike rate.


A good assault mech is one that helps you win. I will take an agressive Lurm boat over a gauss/erppc I think I am a shadowcat assault.

Funny how when people realize their assaults are running LRM, they still insist on brawling/sniping. It's almost like these 'lrm sucks' people are incapable of grasping tactic other than get within 100m and alpha everything.

[Erronius]

Albino Boo, on 27 March 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Tell that to the Russians killed by Afghans in the 1980s using Martini Henry copies. Their ghosts will go cool story bro

Earlier you said that the MH had a 'max range' of 1700m. Then you said the MH was mag fed. Now you're talking about 'copies', which makes it sounds like you're moving the goalposts. So what are we talking about then? A MH chambered in .444? 45/70?

All of this together sounds like someone just pulled some stuff off of the MH Wiki page .

Hitting anything at 1700m with a .444 or .45/70 is questionable, and will take more ammo to get a hit than it's probably worth. And those are both probably more reliable than trying to lob a .577/450 that far. I don't even know what the MOA would be at that distance, but with no scope you would need a spotter to help walk you onto the target, and probably 5-10 rounds before you even got close. Bear in mind that 1700m is just a hair over a mile. And the problem with a lot of these old large bore, heavy weight, round nosed cartridges is that at extreme range you're fighting both excessive drop and severe drift as the round is slowing down.

I'm pretty certain that the ranges for rifles of that era were based on data gathered at the time...but bear in mind that this was a post Civil War era where most/all colonial powers were studying the battles fought in the US with great interest. These nations were looking into how best to conduct trench warfare before we even saw it on the scale used in WW1. The reason this is important...is because they were wanting to find a balance between extreme range and weight to better pierce trench defenses (such as wood planking) when firing across the inevitable no-man's land, as well as using massed infantry fire to suppress enemy formations 1-2 miles distant.

Point being...they were intended to be used en masse for plunging fire with little intended accuracy and potentially no Line Of Sight...EXACTLY LIKE BISHOP STEINER TRIED TELLING YOU. Anyone who thinks that the mujaheddin were sniping Soviets with Martini Henry (copies?) at 1700m doesn't know what they're talking about. Even 700m is a stretch under real-world conditions with any of the cartridges I've mentioned.

.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879

Note that the target used here was 12' x 12'. Unfortunately they didn't spend the time testing at 1500yds that they did at longer ranges...but shooting at a target literally the dimensions of a barn door should give people a clue. And at 2500yds they only hit a 44' x 22' target once out of 80 rounds fired, so I'd be willing to guess that the accuracy at 1700m would be SLIGHTLY substandard as a sniping platform. (I'm still laughing at 1700m)





...but excellent derail, regardless. 10/10

[Lykaon]

Gimpy117, on 27 March 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

I don't really care about LRM's being competitive or not. it's about risk/reward and currently there isn't that much risk to sit behind a hill a throw auto targeting missiles 1k or so

LRM boats can never be bad IMO because it's the only weapon that can be fire IN COVER

no one else can do this. it's a giant advantage

Well in your example there isn't much reward for this either seeing how I would be suprised if a stationary LRM boat nearly 1km away using only friendly locks has an accuracy level above 30%.

And I may add if they are successful at doing this it takes one or two things (sometimes both) to occur.

1: an aggressive team that retains long periods of LOS while holding locks and not getting shot to bits doing it. Indicative of an effective brawling team.

2: Someone is allowing this isolated LRM boat to get away with it because if you can not exploit the weaknesses a weapon system that has 180m min range with a dedicated close range fast moving brawler then you did something wrong. And it's a rare group that doesn't have at least one fast moving well armed mech maybe even with ECM (Locust,Arctic Cheetah etc)



What I find almost always lacking in the anti LRM argument is an understanding on what unique properties LRM provide that make them still a viable choice when they are obviously not competative by the numbers with many direct fire options.

And the unique properties do not stop at indirect fire and being able to shoot from a position of relative safety.

The players who have evolved LRM use have grasped the application of these unique properties. When you stop thinking about direct comparesons of this gun vs that gun that DPS or range or pinpoint damage or whatever and start to think about what the LRM does that nothing else can.

LRMs magnify frontage because you can fire over mechs ahead of you.In a situation where by limitations of terrain there is choke point and limited fire lanes are present direct fire weapons are limited by their need to have clear flat trajectory path to their intended targets. How often does this occur? In my experiences often enough to merit having this option available.

LRM project a zone of supporting fire around the LRM armed mech that is limited by two factors. Range and ability to retain locks. It is not limited by LOS or the need for flat trajectories. An LRM armed mech can lend supporting fire onto any targets they can conceivably reach.

LRMs are also uniquely suited to project a zone of control by retaining the capacity to lay down suppression fire in a similar manner to the capabilities to lend supporting fire.

If you start to think of LRMs as functioning like a form of classic MMORPG abilities then try to think about crowd control and DoT effects. Classicly crowd control isn't about dealing damage to the target directly it's function is the prevention of enemy damage or allowing damage to be done to them from another source.

The LRMs don't deal damage as efficently as many direct fire weapons but due to the ability to project such a wide zone of control without many of the normal limitations of direct fire the LRM user can hamper enemy movements. If the enemy is pushed back into cover you have exerted movement control on them. If they remain pinned and in cover they can not mount effective attacks against approaching brawlers that can with LRM covering fire get into their desired range.

The common link to DoTs (damage over time) is when LRMs are being used in a supporting fire role. A team mate is engaged and has an enemy in sight the additional damage applied by the supporting fire tips the scales to a more favorable conclusion of the combat.

The difficulty with non LRM users arguing against LRM use is simply put they don't get it. To them it's about "laboratory" conditions. The numbers and stats. They can not see how their skillsets apply to LRM use thus LRMs require no skills.

Edited by Lykaon, 27 March 2017 - 09:24 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Erronius, on 27 March 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

Earlier you said that the MH had a 'max range' of 1700m. Then you said the MH was mag fed. Now you're talking about 'copies', which makes it sounds like you're moving the goalposts. So what are we talking about then? A MH chambered in .444? 45/70?

All of this together sounds like someone just pulled some stuff off of the MH Wiki page .

Hitting anything at 1700m with a .444 or .45/70 is questionable, and will take more ammo to get a hit than it's probably worth. And those are both probably more reliable than trying to lob a .577/450 that far. I don't even know what the MOA would be at that distance, but with no scope you would need a spotter to help walk you onto the target, and probably 5-10 rounds before you even got close. Bear in mind that 1700m is just a hair over a mile. And the problem with a lot of these old large bore, heavy weight, round nosed cartridges is that at extreme range you're fighting both excessive drop and severe drift as the round is slowing down.

I'm pretty certain that the ranges for rifles of that era were based on data gathered at the time...but bear in mind that this was a post Civil War era where most/all colonial powers were studying the battles fought in the US with great interest. These nations were looking into how best to conduct trench warfare before we even saw it on the scale used in WW1. The reason this is important...is because they were wanting to find a balance between extreme range and weight to better pierce trench defenses (such as wood planking) when firing across the inevitable no-man's land, as well as using massed infantry fire to suppress enemy formations 1-2 miles distant.

Point being...they were intended to be used en masse for plunging fire with little intended accuracy and potentially no Line Of Sight...EXACTLY LIKE BISHOP STEINER TRIED TELLING YOU. Anyone who thinks that the mujaheddin were sniping Soviets with Martini Henry (copies?) at 1700m doesn't know what they're talking about. Even 700m is a stretch under real-world conditions with any of the cartridges I've mentioned.

.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879

Note that the target used here was 12' x 12'. Unfortunately they didn't spend the time testing at 1500yds that they did at longer ranges...but shooting at a target literally the dimensions of a barn door should give people a clue. And at 2500yds they only hit a 44' x 22' target once out of 80 rounds fired, so I'd be willing to guess that the accuracy at 1700m would be SLIGHTLY substandard as a sniping platform. (I'm still laughing at 1700m)





...but excellent derail, regardless. 10/10

Yeah, I was smelling BS at 1700,though it's been a decade since I shot a Martini (and it was in 303... bloody 577/450 costs a mint, even if you hand roll), so TBH I don't know what the max range on the volley sights are, but few if any service rifles were beyond 1000, and those were generally considered wildly optimistic by anyone who's tried to shoot them.

Iraqveteran8888 has a fun video on his, shooting at a known distance (600m) and range they use regularly. And TBH, their accuracy with Irons is impressive for slinging a fat pill like that, at that range.

Then he said magazine... and I just pretty much figured out due was clueless.

And a little Wiki History for the heck of it
The rifle remained a popular competition rifle at National Rifle Association meetings, at Bisley, Surrey, and (NRA) Civilian and Service Rifle matches from 1872–1904, where it was used up to 1,000 yards using the standard military service ammunition of the day. By the 1880s the .577/.450 Boxer Henry round was recognised by the NRA as a 900-yard cartridge, as shooting the Martini out to 1,000 yards or (3/4 of a mile) was difficult, and took great skill to assess the correct amount of windage to drop the 485 grain bullet on the target. But by 1904 more target shooters were using the new .303 cal cartridge, which was found to be much more accurate, and thus interest in the .577/450 fell away, to the point that by 1909 they were rarely used at Bisley matches, with shooters favouring the later Lee–Enfield bolt action magazine rifles.[5]
In 1879, however, it was generally found that in average hands the .577/450 Martini–Henry Mk2, although the most accurate of the Martinis in that calibre ever produced for service life, was really only capable of hitting a man-size target out to 400 yards. This was due to the bullet going subsonic after 300 yards and gradually losing speed thereafter, which in turn affected consistency and accuracy of the bullet in flight. The 415-grain Martini Carbine load introduced in 1878 shot better out to longer ranges and had less recoil when it was fired in the rifles, with its reduced charge of only 75 grains of Curtis & Harvey's. It was found that, while the rifle with its 485 grain bullet shot point of aim to 100 yards, the carbine load when fired in the rifles shot 12 inches high at the same range, but then made up for this by shooting spot-on out to 500 yards.[6] These early lessons enabled tactics to be evolved to work around the limitations of this large, slow, and heavy calibre during the Zulu War. During most of the key battles, such as Rorke's Drift and the battle of Ulundi, the order to volley fire was not given until the Zulus were at or within 400 yards.

Methinks the lad is maybe a little too enamored of Battlefield 1?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 March 2017 - 10:03 PM.

[OrmsbyGore]

I don't think people hate lrms, they just hate the way some pilots use them. Too many people sit back at 900m and lob volley after volley into walls, or just end up missing b/c 900m affords the target a lot of reaction time. the optimal range is between200-400m. Also, I personally hate it when someone uses an assault for a long range only loadout. you can get the same (or similar) damage output if you drop 1 weight class, and you'll get a bonus to speed. mean while, the team can use that assault slot on a mech more geared towards frontline combat.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with have a long range weapon or two on an assault, but trading at long distances is just foolish. Assaults are the biggest, slowest targets on the battlefield, which consequently makes them easy to hit. A raven 3L absolutely eats an atlas alive in a sniping contest, and the raven can reposition WAY faster than the atlas. and I really hope I son't have to explain why you shouldn't take an xL engine on most assaults (though the CT on the cyclopes sticks out so much and can be hit from almost any angle, so there's no real added danger to running xLs with them. battlemasters tend to want them for some of their higher damage output builds too)

[PhoenixFire55]

MischiefSC, on 27 March 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

Except the TAG/NARC/spotters are getting focused by 12 mechs.

Competitive scene (if we are talking about it) hasn't seen 12v12 matches for like 3+ years now. And regardless, clan narc has effective range of 750m, you can focus an Arctic Cheezer or a SHC peeking/jumping from different spots 750m away all you want, you won't be able to kill it right away, and it only needs 2-3 narc hits to decimate your team.

[Larsh]

LRM boating is not really a problem, especially in an organized group or unit. A bigger issue is when you have a PUG match and you have 4 - 5 LRM boats that don't coordinate in VOIP or Chat. Then, you have a lot of wasted tonnage and ammo. Also, I haven't seen this as much in Tiers 1 and 2, but Tiers 4 and 5 I would see this more often.

This was the main focus why I pushed for my 3 AMS Nova build to be a trial mech.

[Shifty McSwift]

Abisha, on 25 March 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

Phontons do not have mass, they only carry momentum (tiny bit). a laser in MWO i take 1 damage is comparable to 10 MW laser the recoil of a Large Laser would be like a micro meter or less on a mech that's have the mass of 100 ton not including gravity pull.

so no lasers have no recoil no matter how much energy it delivers.

Agreed but that doesn't mean there can't be ways of managing accuracy like that with differing weapon types, say if while firing laser while super hot produced a screen shake effect, while at close range this would make minimal impact, but for long range sniping it would be a case of needing to manage your heat or get wildly inaccurate.

I am not saying it needs to or should happen, but it can be done in a way that makes some semblance of logical sense.

[Dirus Nigh]

PhoenixFire55, on 24 March 2017 - 01:43 AM, said:

Since their mechs weren't sporting C3 networks their LRMs were direct fire only. So, whats your point? ...

OK, you dont know what you are talking about. There is nothing in MWO that represents a C3 network. Target data sharing is part of the basic L1 rules. Spotting for indirect fire is part of the L1 rules. Please explain how any thing in MWO makes your weapons more accurate because a team mate is closer to the target than you.