271 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

It kind of does though. We see evidence of this in its ineffectiveness against good players, or hell even competent players. I am not that good and play an awful lot. Getting killed by lurms is rare for me, and when it does happen in the vast majority of cases either I am the last man left and the entire team is killing me or I have done something incredibly stupid.

That is the point I made earlier, almost always when someone is killed by lurms it is their fault and not anything to do with the skill of the lurmer. Now as far as skill goes, there are those who can be much more effective than others with a bad weapon, but it really has very little to do with being skilled with the weapon and I contend it is rather directly related to exceptional positioning and situational awareness to be able to succeed with a terrible weapon. So the actual skill is divorced from the weapon unlike PPFLD where there are aspects of both.

While it seems you find it contentious, it is why it always comes back to why comp teams or organised units are not using lurms in any serious manner. Why they are not used by the people who are the best in the game. Simply they are just not a good choice other than in quick play where the level of play is so low, you can get away with almost anything.

Which really has nothing to do with skill ceilings, and everything to do with ease of use, for reward. Meta is ALWAYS about maximum reward for the minimum effort. Which may be related to, but is not, the same as skill ceilings. I can use a black powder rifle to hit a target at 1000m. Or I can use a .50 scoped Barrett semi auto rifle. The 50 cal is obviously the meta choice, the more efficient choice. The black powder rifle, the worse choice. But it is also undeniable that in that instance to actually hit the gong at 1000m with said black powder rifle, takes more inherent skill than through the scoped 50 cal... despite BOTH requiring a fair bit of skill, and the 50 being the markedly better choice.

But the modern gaming scene would never even consider using the black powder gun. Because it's a lot harder to be effective with it, and it will never be as effective as the 50.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 25 March 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

Gauss Rifles and IS ACs are PPFLD.

Gauss Rifles and IS ACs generally create low heat, to the point of none at all for some (Gauss and AC/5).

Weapons that don't heat you up don't suffer heat penalties.

And are usually heavy enough to be their own penalties. Also, it's amazing how warm my RFL can get with 2x AC10 and 2x MLs. Aside from Gauss, the other weapons make enough heat, or fire fast enough to impact your heat scale. And most times are paired with other, hot weapons. As for Gauss.... 15 tons and explodes when you sneeze on it, plus charge up?

Just because ballistics are not AS impacted by a real heat scale, is not the same as a free lunch, as that was always part and parcel to battletech, before.

[Albino Boo]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

Which really has nothing to do with skill ceilings, and everything to do with ease of use, for reward. Meta is ALWAYS about maximum reward for the minimum effort. Which may be related to, but is not, the same as skill ceilings. I can use a black powder rifle to hit a target at 1000m. Or I can use a .50 scoped Barrett semi auto rifle. The 50 cal is obviously the meta choice, the more efficient choice. The black powder rifle, the worse choice. But it is also undeniable that in that instance to actually hit the gong at 1000m with said black powder rifle, takes more inherent skill than through the scoped 50 cal... despite BOTH requiring a fair bit of skill, and the 50 being the markedly better choice.

But the modern gaming scene would never even consider using the black powder gun. Because it's a lot harder to be effective with it, and it will never be as effective as the 50.

Err the Martini Henry rifle had a max range of 1,700m. A reasonable shot from the prone position could hit a static target at 1000m. A black powder musket would be a better analogy.

Also tell the to all those bolt action rifle freaks playing Red Orchestra I and 2.

Edited by Albino Boo, 25 March 2017 - 12:07 PM.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

Which really has nothing to do with skill ceilings, and everything to do with ease of use, for reward. Meta is ALWAYS about maximum reward for the minimum effort. Which may be related to, but is not, the same as skill ceilings. I can use a black powder rifle to hit a target at 1000m. Or I can use a .50 scoped Barrett semi auto rifle. The 50 cal is obviously the meta choice, the more efficient choice. The black powder rifle, the worse choice. But it is also undeniable that in that instance to actually hit the gong at 1000m with said black powder rifle, takes more inherent skill than through the scoped 50 cal... despite BOTH requiring a fair bit of skill, and the 50 being the markedly better choice.

But the modern gaming scene would never even consider using the black powder gun. Because it's a lot harder to be effective with it, and it will never be as effective as the 50.

Hohestly though, we wouldn't bring it back because those who might have to use it against the other guy would die.

Different situation here because while you and I seemingly agree based on your analogy, lrms are about a good of a choice as a black powder rifle. Now your same analogy is also applicable when you are talking about that skill ceiling. Why? Because you can train a sniper to be proficient at both weapons and each have trasferable skills. The BFG however is something you can teach a skilled sniper to reliably hit a target one mile out and exceptionally talented marksmen have hit target over 2000 yards away. The limitations of the musket however preclude it from being able to achieve the same results.

The other big issue here, is that there are not a ton of people heading out to war and insisting that the black powder rifle is actually a great choice... Yet in MWO, well, it is difficult to try and convince pugs not to drop into FW with them and then we deal with people crying on the forums about drop spawning and elite teams wiping the floor with them. Also the modern gun is actually easier to use in many ways, while since you for the most part are taking aiming out of the equation it is much easier to functionally operate lurms than it is to use PPFLD. It is also harder to position without over exposing and so on and so on.

It is also ridiculous to say that lasers are easy mode and it is lurms that are hard...which is how our interaction kicked off. Sure without support I can imagine, hell I know that lrms can be difficult to use and can require finess. However they can also be used behind a rock while not getting shot at. They don't require a steady hand to hold onto one component. Generally do not require the same situational awareness but obviously benefit from players with it. Just the numbers seen used by new player is a strong indication that lurms are easier to pick up and use.

Now as far as PPFLD being the low risk, high reward, that is kind of the point. To make it work this way a player has to have a good skill set. I am not a great player but I constently see really stupid mistakes from guys trying to use meta. Poptarting way, way too high being chief among them. Poking from the same spot over and over. Going out to the island on Crimson alone and getting wiped out by a light mech. Some of the same stuff bad lurmers do actually. The crux of it though is that the PPFLD done well by a skilled guy, causes a bunch of damage quickly without the opponent able to return fire. That is not easy street, it is a good formula to kill the bad guys better than they can kill you.

[MischiefSC]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

On Polar LRMs are just as viable in competitive play as direct fire, which is proven already by several A/B division teams winning MRBC and SL drops using LRM decks. Its not only about balancing weapons but also about creating proper maps, i.e. creating different flavoured maps instead of "balanced" ones that are all the same and lead to the same meta that completely excludes something like a brawler Atlas or an LRM boat. Old River and Frozen were good because they were small maps with little to no open spaces where brawlers and coordinated fast push dominated gameplay. Same way Alpine and Polar are good because there is not enough cover for the peek-a-boo alphamech gameplay and coordinated team moves and focused fire decide the outcome.

Season 8? NA, EU or AP? I'm pretty familiar with the matches in MRBC and aside from 1 match that was not Div A or B where one team had 1 Archer in a Polar conquest match I couldn't find any examples of what you're talking about. The only thing that surprised me there was an SJR/Emp matchup where Aresye brought a Kitfox (and kicked ***).

Even without cover direct fire beats LRMs because damage to single location > scattered damage and full damage to one location in 1/10th of a second > scattered damage 5 seconds after you pull the trigger.

You want to talk about ways to make LRMs useful? Sure! All over it. I want more weapons to be balanced and viable. You want to talk about more map design? Always a fan of that. There's a lot of discussions I'm a big fan of.

However arguing that LRMs are good or really even viable as anything but 'for giggles' or that good teams consistently and routinely beat opponents that bring LRMs isn't a real discussion. That ship has sailed. The mechanics of why LRMs are inferior is something that's been gone over a million times. The mechanics of why an indirect fire weapon is bad for the game experience has also been gone over, functionally explaining why LRMs are designed to be bad in MWO.

We're never going to get anything useful out of discussions on LRMs though while people are saying 'you just have to use them right!' Sure, because 'use them right' means 'only take them against bad players or even good players making bad choices'. That's not the basis of a rational discussion.

[Bishop Steiner]

Albino Boo, on 25 March 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

Err the Martini Henry rifle had a max range of 1,700m. A reasonable shot from the prone position could hit a static target at 1000m. A black powder musket would be a better analogy.

Also tell the to all those bolt action rifle freaks playing Red Orchestra I and 2.

And that was for volley fire. With a musket it's luck, not skill to hit at 1000m. And I invite anyone here to visit their local blackpowder shooting competitions, pick up a martini, sharps, rolling block, etc, with globe sights, and have at it. It takes tremendous skill and practice to hit that going at that range.

And even when you get it down? It's still a vastly inferior choice to the modern rifle. But being inferior doesn't mean that it takes less Skill to master, which seems to be the misconception worth LRMs. Easy to use poorly, difficult to use effectively. Because they're inferior, mechanically, and so many counters to them.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 25 March 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

MischiefSC, on 25 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Even without cover direct fire beats LRMs because damage to single location > scattered damage and full damage to one location in 1/10th of a second > scattered damage 5 seconds after you pull the trigger.

Be honest now, unless you are playing against complete potatoes you will spread direct fire damage all the same, lasers, ballistics and gauss/ppc as well. LRMs while spreading damage the most also have a very high sustained DPS and make returning accurate fire rather difficult, thus in a situation when two mechs are trading in the open at a sufficient distance ~800m lurms are quite on par with pretty much every other weapon that is capable of hitting at that range.

MischiefSC, on 25 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

You want to talk about ways to make LRMs useful? Sure! All over it. I want more weapons to be balanced and viable. You want to talk about more map design? Always a fan of that. There's a lot of discussions I'm a big fan of.

As I've said, LRMs are perfectly useful as is. Make more maps like Polar, and more maps with no open spaces at all - this is all you need to completely diversify the meta and make all weapons useful in their current state.

MischiefSC, on 25 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

However arguing that LRMs are good or really even viable as anything but 'for giggles' or that good teams consistently and routinely beat opponents that bring LRMs isn't a real discussion.

And what if all the competitive matches were on Polar? ... My whole point was exactly how it greatly depends on the played map. Weapon balancing being done around the "average" map is going to completely fubar lots of weapons on not so average ones.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 25 March 2017 - 01:07 PM.

[MischiefSC]

All weapons in the game take skill. The positioning skill involved in LRMs isn't somehow more difficult than the positioning skill with direct fire. The question is how much relative skill is involved (and can you even bring to point) in just getting a lock vs leading a moving target to hit a specific location and the positioning skill difference between 'is there cover between him and me' and 'how can I get a shot on this guy while exposing myself to as little return fire as possible', combined with twisting off return fire.

Saying LRMs take less skill than direct fire isn't some attempt to insult anyone it's pointing out the relative differences in the amount of skill and number of skills used between them.

[MischiefSC]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 March 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

Be honest now, unless you are playing against complete potatoes you will spread direct fire damage all the same, lasers, ballistics and gauss/ppc as well. LRMs while spreading damage the most also have a very high sustained DPS and make returning accurate fire rather difficult, thus in a situation when two mechs are trading in the open at a sufficient distance ~800m lurms are quite on par with pretty much every other weapon that is capable of hitting at that range.



As I've said, LRMs are perfectly useful as is. Make more maps like Polar, and more maps with no open spaces at all - this is all you need to completely diversify the meta and make all weapons useful in their current state.



And what if all the competitive matches were on Polar? ... My whole point was exactly how it greatly depends on the played map. Weapon balancing being done around the "average" map is going to completely fubar lots of weapons on not so average ones.

Do you want to go to a lobby and stand in the open on Polar at 800m, me with ERLLs/ERPPCs/whatever and you with LRMs and see who wins? You can even pick the tonnage.

They're not even close to 'on par'. I'll literally be doing a second alpha to you before your first shot even hits me. What if I bring ECM? AMS? Or are we saying no counters? Fine either way but the argument you're trying to make flat out isn't rational. At any range Hitscan or PPFLD > slow delivery of scattered damage. Sure, anyone can twist damage to a degree but twisting LRMs or just walking along spreads them over your whole mech. Twisting off PPFLD is still going to get you the full payload in 1 location each time and with lasers it's not too far off that.

So are you saying the correct balance in the game for LRMs is.... eliminating cover? Do you understand that just ensures that the guy with better aim and longer range will win every time?

Also still looking for the match in MRBC you're talking about. I sorted through 20 pages and only saw 1 match with 1 LRM mech in it and it wasn't a div A or B and I don't think you can watch the match and argue reasonably that the team that won did it because they had an LRM Archer on their team.

If all competitive matches were on polar they would play similarly just with easier heat management to matches on Canyon. You might see more fast brawlers, at least based on how the scrims played out.

[Lightfoot]

Take what you want, have fun. I wouldn't take all LRMs because they are situational and the more you take the more ammo you will need. LRMs are very heavily nerfed in MWO especially Clan versions. To get a good damage hit your target mech must be facing you, likely shooting you. Otherwise the LRMs splatter across the mech.

But ignore the whiners who say you shouldn't take LRMs, they work very well on some maps. PGI doesn't realize how much more engaging MechWarrior is when you know the map before Mechlab or they would be racing to include that option. It's like night and day when players know what to bring. Much greater depth.

[Kargush]

Anjian, on 24 March 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

LRMs is the game's cancer mechanics. Many games have a cancer mechanic of their own, for example, in World of Tanks, its Artillery, and in World of Warships, its Carriers.

Balancing a cancer mechanic, even to the point its underpowered, never changes that its still a cancer mechanic.

I hear a baby crying. Who brought a baby in here?

[Tarogato]

Because LRMs are cancer. They're not fair.

Why is it that I work so hard on my position, predictive, and aiming skills, when you can sit behind a hill and just hold left mouse button when somebody else locks a mech for you?

LRMs track mechs on their own. You don't have to aim them. No skill.

LRMs are effective with indirect fire. You don't need to even see the enemy you're shooting at. No skill.

Sort of like Streaks, LRMs are basically anti-fun guns. You can't make interesting and risky plays if there are LRM boats on the enemy team, because even if one mech locks on to you, you'll have volley after volley of LRM coming after you. You can't dodge LRMs - you have to hide from them. "But they're defenseless if you rush at them with brawl weapons!" Hahaha, not in solo queue! You're on your own. No organised group to decide "hey, it will take the four of us to rush these scrubs and kick their nads in." You just have to accept the fact that those LRM scrubs are hiding with the rest of their team, and picking a fight with one of them means picking a fight with multiple mechs, and they'll just continue to sit there mindlessly pressing left mouse button and profiting.

"But positioning with LRMs takes skill." lol, and positioning with any other weapon doesn't? Tell me more about this l33t deduction skill of "are they cowering under a piece of cover or not."

"But LRMs are actually bad and have many hard counters, y u so angry?" Yes, they are bad. That actually makes it worse. Because I know the weapon system as a whole is shіt, and gets crushed by literally anything else in organised play. But on those rare occasions where the stars align, usually in solo queue, LRMs get to crutch on the fact that they are no-skill lock-on don't-even-have-to-see-the-enemy anti-fun noobtubes. There's nothing more imbalanced than that - an inconsistent weapon that's useless most of the time, but overpowered in certain situations. I shouldn't have to equip AMS and god knows what else to counter LRMs. LRMs shouldn't have a hard counter. They should deal more consistent and more skill based damage that can be reduced by equipment without rendering the entire weapon useless. Their direct fire should be more effective, and their indirect fire needs to be more reliant on specific equipment like TAG and Narc. I would even say C3, but MWO's maps don't even seem big enough to justify C3.

Oh, and no more of the immortal Narc business. You throw a buttload of LRMs at a Narc'd mech, it should knock the Narc off the mech. Narc should be good for a set amount of damage, after which it gets blasted off of the mech. Re-Narcing targets should actually require some careful and calculated play, not just a Raven 3L that can crest one ridge for a split second, Narc a mech, and everybody gets free Narc for the next 45 seconds. I don't care if the Narc lasts forever, so long as it gets knocked off after the carrying mech takes x amount of damage.

[Albino Boo]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

And that was for volley fire. With a musket it's luck, not skill to hit at 1000m. And I invite anyone here to visit their local blackpowder shooting competitions, pick up a martini, sharps, rolling block, etc, with globe sights, and have at it. It takes tremendous skill and practice to hit that going at that range.

And even when you get it down? It's still a vastly inferior choice to the modern rifle. But being inferior doesn't mean that it takes less Skill to master, which seems to be the misconception worth LRMs. Easy to use poorly, difficult to use effectively. Because they're inferior, mechanically, and so many counters to them.

Err no the Martini Henry rifle was a breach loading rifle firing a cartridge from a magazine. The fast burn of the black powder caused the round to have a slower muzzle velocity than more modern weapons but far better than the single shot muzzle loaders of the Napoleonic era. Even the Pattern 1853 Enfield had a max range of 1,140m

​Using an obsolete weapon does not make you skillful it just makes you dead

Edited by Albino Boo, 25 March 2017 - 01:28 PM.

[Dogstar]

I notice it's only IS LRM boats that get hated on, clan LRM boats are fine...

Usual story, nothing to see...

[Willard Phule]

It isn't the weapon system that pisses me off, it's the overuse of them....primarily by people learning how to play the game, since the whole "lock and fire" system is by far the easiest to figure out.

2 or 3 LRM boats on a team of 12 isn't bad. But when it's 10 or 11...and that's FREQUENT in Clan PUG matches...it's ridiculous.

We need a volunteer to run in front of everyone about 600 meters or so and facetank damage so we can have something to shoot at. Any volunteers? Anyone?

[Lykaon]

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? ...

Well if we are talking about battletech table top rules...

No you didn't need a C3 network for indirect fire you only needed a friendly unit that had LOS to the target...

Ya know kinda like how it works in MWo.

However IF the C3 network was present you would base the target number to hit the target off the most favorable range calculated from the closest friendly with LOS. The LRMs would still be capable of indirect fire with or without the C3 network.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

You're confusing easy with effective.

Easy and effective are not mutually exclusive properties.

Easy: adj. achieved without great effort or difficulty.

Effective: adj. successful at producing a desired or intended result.

Laser boating is both easy and effective.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 March 2017 - 02:39 PM.

[MacClearly]

Willard Phule, on 25 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

It isn't the weapon system that pisses me off, it's the overuse of them....primarily by people learning how to play the game, since the whole "lock and fire" system is by far the easiest to figure out.

2 or 3 LRM boats on a team of 12 isn't bad. But when it's 10 or 11...and that's FREQUENT in Clan PUG matches...it's ridiculous.

We need a volunteer to run in front of everyone about 600 meters or so and facetank damage so we can have something to shoot at. Any volunteers? Anyone?

I was in a match yesterday where my team had ten 'individuals' firing lurms and the opponents had eight. It was on Terra and lasted twelve painful minutes. We 'won' the match technically, but no one really won that. It was disgusting to watch. There should be a limit of 2 lrm carriers pers side in a match in my opinion.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

Easy and effective are not mutually exclusive properties.

Easy: adj. achieved without great effort or difficulty.

Effective: adj. successful at producing a desired or intended result.

Laser boating is both easy and effective.

No they are not mutually exclusive. I am familiar with language and you are not someone I would look to or respect any definition or explanation from.

Quoting a dictionary or the meaning of words does not prove laser boating is easy and effective. It only provides definitions for the words and makes zero point to either support or disprove the position that laser boating is easy and effective.

Being condescending doesn't prove a point.

To support my argument regarding this statement please reread first two paragraphs.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

I was in a match yesterday where my team had ten 'individuals' firing lurms and the opponents had eight. It was on Terra and lasted twelve painful minutes. We 'won' the match technically, but no one really won that. It was disgusting to watch. There should be a limit of 2 lrm carriers pers side in a match in my opinion.

Because having to vary your tactics to handle different situations is such a drag and nobody should ever have to break formula of move to engagment range...find cover...peek and shoot...repeat until win/loss occurs.

Part of the issue with LRM hate is there is a need to change tactics when a high volume of LRM fire is present. The standard dig in and trade from cover isn't optimal (against LRMs) but it is what a lot of players have become very comfortable with.

If you are attacking and have a high number of LRMs on your team you will be outright foolish not to adjust tactics to make use of the weapons you have. Griping over what weapons you wanted will not do ANY damage to the enemy.

Holding locks will.

If you are attacking against a high volume of LRM fire griping about how LRMs are OP/suck or whatever will not serve any purpose in defeating the enemy.

A switch in tactics to mitigate the range/indirect fire advantage will.