271 replies to this topic

[Dee Eight]

My opinion on LRMs, and I own mechs with them... is that there are some mechs well suited to them as a primary weapon system... but then there are a LOT which aren't...and worse still...all the people who then leave off any sort of secondary weapon even on the ones well suited to them (let alone the ones not at all suited to them). Plus not helped by PGI giving LRM specific quirks to certain mechs... and then we get players wasting good hardpoints by just boating out the LRMs (like the Mauler 1R...which for a net total 15% LRM15 cooldown... isn't as good at LRM15s as the AWS-8R at 30% cooldown).

[Bishop Steiner]

Albino Boo, on 25 March 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

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

Martini Henry was a single shot falling block action, originally loaded with blackpowder (an explosive), and later with smokeless powders (a propellant) which changed nothing of the difficulty of landing a shot at extreme range with a rainbow trajectory, especially with iron sights. The velocity, trajectory and accuracy of it was no different than from a muzzle loader with the same powder charge and size of projectile. All the cartridge did, in this instance was make it faster to load, and more reliable.

The listed max range on those weapons was fire use for volley fire. A few marksman used them for sharp shooting, but that was not the actual intent off those ranges. And it didn't make it any easier. Range is a simple matter of velocity, mass, size, sectional density, etc. Whether done with smokeless or blackpowder, single shot, magazine fed or muzzle loaded is irrelevant to that.

The point of the illustration, was quite simply that the combination of modern cartridge design, bullet, higher velocity and sectional density, combined with modern magnified sights, and a multi shot magazine, all make it a superior choice, and yes, easier to hit at long range, than the blackpowder rifle, which is prone to many more variables ( including moving it off target to reload, non magnified sights) make it much more difficult to make those shots at long, with repeatable accuracy.

As a side note I've been doing blackpowder long range shooting for quite some time, and have owned and used martini Henry's, among others. And once shot modern scoped rifles quite a bit, too.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

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.

One would think that by making the statement...

"you're confusing easy with effective" (your words here not mine) That you were under the impression that easy and effective were exclusive.

Or were you by intent attempting to discredit an opposing opinion with a direct falsehood?

It's either one or the other you were either unaware that you were incorrect or you were directly engaged in a deception.

As to respecting sources of definitions I am essentially lazy so I used google. I know to you this may be an unreliable source but...what is done is done.

As to you respecting me. Sorry I don't need validation from you I'm just making it clear to others that you are either wrong or intentionally attempting a deception. I made no judgments on which of the two motives were in action just that those are the only two clearly decernable motives.

Ignorance or deception.

Now I could now present a very compelling argument as to why laser boating is both easy and effective but why should I?

Clearly you are so willfully obtuse as to ignore me saying water is wet even after dumping a bucket of it over your head.

in the intrests of clearity

Obtuse: adj. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

Not an obtuse angle more than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 March 2017 - 03:17 PM.

[Tarogato]

lol, the people who are arguing that lasers are ezmode haven't watched the average player using lasers.

I'm not saying lasers are hard to use, but you do have to actually aim them, and most people who play this game are impressively lacking in that skill. LRMs and Streaks you just have to wave your crosshair in the general vicinity to get a lock, your crosshair doesn't even have to be on the mech. There's a massive difference between a weapon you have to aim, and one you not only don't have to aim, but can't aim.

[FupDup]

Tarogato, on 25 March 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

lol, the people who are arguing that lasers are ezmode haven't watched the average player using lasers.

I'm not saying lasers are hard to use, but you do have to actually aim them, and most people who play this game are impressively lacking in that skill. LRMs and Streaks you just have to wave your crosshair in the general vicinity to get a lock, your crosshair doesn't even have to be on the mech. There's a massive difference between a weapon you have to aim, and one you not only don't have to aim, but can't aim.

In greater detail, lasers could be described as having a relatively low skill floor yet a decently high skill ceiling.

Being hitscan (instant hit) means that almost anyone can get decent numbers with lazors, and yet there is a very large gap between a player who can focus the entire beam into a single hitbox (especially long beams like CERLL) versus a player who "lightsabers" their beam across the whole target (like me ).

Lasers are probably the most "skill balanced" weapon in the game.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

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.

Absolutely nothing you are saying here is relevant to the match itself. You are making a bunch of assumptions with no information.

Just to point out why I will add some information for you so that you can appreciate how off base you are.

Like I had mentioned it was on Terra and it was a skirmish match. We spawned on the 9 line. Most of my team set up across F8ish while I snuck across and found a pocket in F7. The enemy was set up in G7 which is a choke point and an inherent disadvantage. I was in a sr6+a, 2med laser Shadow Cat. I provided my team with almost all of their locks. I know this to be true because when I would back up to type in chat asking the team to move in and finish them, the rain would stop. Then I would move forward and anyone in my sight got melted.

I was actively helping my team. Not only that, I profited from it as when the enemy made a last ditch push in I jumped on them, and since they were banged up badly and I literally had zero damage, I ended up with five kills while doing only 290 damage (ie the lurmers got all the kmdd's I just mopped up do to proximity).

So everything you wrote was meaningless and not applicable to the above match. What you did was carry on a conversation from another thread and make assumptions based not only on something unrelated, but theory and not actual behaviour.

So far there has been nothing positive or beneficial from interactions with you. Not sure what you feel there is to gain from it, but you will find I have very little tolerance for this kind of stuff and really don't need another guy on these forums that follows my posts to try and refute what I am saying with half facts and gobbledygook. If you have some sort of issue with me I suggest you find someone other than me to talk to about it.

[Lykaon]

Dee Eight, on 25 March 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

My opinion on LRMs, and I own mechs with them... is that there are some mechs well suited to them as a primary weapon system... but then there are a LOT which aren't...and worse still...all the people who then leave off any sort of secondary weapon even on the ones well suited to them (let alone the ones not at all suited to them). Plus not helped by PGI giving LRM specific quirks to certain mechs... and then we get players wasting good hardpoints by just boating out the LRMs (like the Mauler 1R...which for a net total 15% LRM15 cooldown... isn't as good at LRM15s as the AWS-8R at 30% cooldown).

Much of these issues stem from a lack of experience or resources and a few from incompitence.

Lack of experience may lead a player to use what they see as a "safe" tactic of LURMing from the rear off friendly locks. This is just going to happen. The low initial skill cap for basic LRM use will lend it's self to this tactic.

Lack of resources may lead to LRMs being place on non optimized chassis. They have a Mauler 1R but don't have the Awesome 8R. Sure the Awesome would be a better choice but it wasn't available to that player at that time and the Mauler does have possitive LRM quirks so it's not like putting LRMs on an SRM quirked chassis.

I am of the opinion that Inner Sphere assault mechs should not be used for LRM support. Clan chassis have the capacity to mount threatening levels of LRMs and retain effective direct fire weapons so it's not as much of an issue.

I do make acceptions to my general opinion for I.S. assault mechs like the Awesome 8R. It's quirks justify it's deployment as an LRM platform but an Atlas DDC? a Kingcrab? nope just a poor use of the chassis.

However if/when I get a drop with a LURMtatter in an Atlas LRM boat I will take into consideration that LRMs are a present asset and will NOT withhold locks.I will make an effort to improve the effectivness of an already subpar build.

Doing otherwise just looks like shooting my team in both feet.

1 foot for the LURM atlas.
2nd foot me refusing to make use of the LURMs.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

One would think that by making the statement...

"you're confusing easy with effective" (your words here not mine) That you were under the impression that easy and effective were exclusive.

Or were you by intent attempting to discredit an opposing opinion with a direct falsehood?

It's either one or the other you were either unaware that you were incorrect or you were directly engaged in a deception.

As to respecting sources of definitions I am essentially lazy so I used google. I know to you this may be an unreliable source but...what is done is done.

As to you respecting me. Sorry I don't need validation from you I'm just making it clear to others that you are either wrong or intentionally attempting a deception. I made no judgments on which of the two motives were in action just that those are the only two clearly decernable motives.

Ignorance or deception.

Now I could now present a very compelling argument as to why laser boating is both easy and effective but why should I?

Clearly you are so willfully obtuse as to ignore me saying water is wet even after dumping a bucket of it over your head.

in the intrests of clearity

Obtuse: adj. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

Not an obtuse angle more than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.

LOL. If you are saying that you took the sentence "you're confusing easy with effective" in the context that I framed it, which was for clarity that they are effective and not easy, then it is you that needs help with his language skills.

How you could misinterpret my meaning is hard to quantify.

What you are doing here is picking a fight or argument and a waste of my time.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Absolutely nothing you are saying here is relevant to the match itself. You are making a bunch of assumptions with no information.

Just to point out why I will add some information for you so that you can appreciate how off base you are.

Like I had mentioned it was on Terra and it was a skirmish match. We spawned on the 9 line. Most of my team set up across F8ish while I snuck across and found a pocket in F7. The enemy was set up in G7 which is a choke point and an inherent disadvantage. I was in a sr6+a, 2med laser Shadow Cat. I provided my team with almost all of their locks. I know this to be true because when I would back up to type in chat asking the team to move in and finish them, the rain would stop. Then I would move forward and anyone in my sight got melted.

I was actively helping my team. Not only that, I profited from it as when the enemy made a last ditch push in I jumped on them, and since they were banged up badly and I literally had zero damage, I ended up with five kills while doing only 290 damage (ie the lurmers got all the kmdd's I just mopped up do to proximity).

So everything you wrote was meaningless and not applicable to the above match. What you did was carry on a conversation from another thread and make assumptions based not only on something unrelated, but theory and not actual behaviour.

So far there has been nothing positive or beneficial from interactions with you. Not sure what you feel there is to gain from it, but you will find I have very little tolerance for this kind of stuff and really don't need another guy on these forums that follows my posts to try and refute what I am saying with half facts and gobbledygook. If you have some sort of issue with me I suggest you find someone other than me to talk to about it.

I think you are having difficulty comprehending your own thread of postings.

Initially you said that there was a match you played recently that had a high volume of LRMs. You said you disliked it.

Am I following you thus far?

I then state that players dislike having to adjust their tactics to to cope with the presence of high volumes of LRMs.

Are you following me now?

You now go on to state that you did adjust tactics to suit the situation but didn't retract the previous statement of disliking the match.

So how am I wrong if the apparent chain of events are.

1) a post about not liking lots of LRMs in a match

2) a reply stating a probable reason (dislike for adjusting tactics and a break from routine)

3) a reply to the former stating that an adjustment in tactics was made without a retraction on disliking the match.

If anything you have supported my argument.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

LOL. If you are saying that you took the sentence "you're confusing easy with effective" in the context that I framed it, which was for clarity that they are effective and not easy, then it is you that needs help with his language skills.

How you could misinterpret my meaning is hard to quantify.

What you are doing here is picking a fight or argument and a waste of my time.

Nope your intention was deflection not an argument supported with a well thought out framework.

There was no framework just a statement without a supporting argument.

Sorry but just because MacClearly thinks so isn't a good enough reason to take it as gospel.

I would argue that lasers are both effective AND easy but why? I could support an argument here with loads of data including statistics lifted from MWo's own site detailing the hit percentages of laser weapons compared to other weapon systems. Then cross referance that with average damage dealt by comparative weapon systems and provide you with concrete data supporting my argument but...

You will just willfully ignore it anyhow so go do it yourself.

Quantify: verb. express a measure of quantity of.

Are you wondering how many misinterpretations I may have made?

In this context I would say one. So not all that difficult.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 March 2017 - 04:20 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

I think you are having difficulty comprehending your own thread of postings.

Initially you said that there was a match you played recently that had a high volume of LRMs. You said you disliked it.

Am I following you thus far?

I then state that players dislike having to adjust their tactics to to cope with the presence of high volumes of LRMs.

Are you following me now?

You now go on to state that you did adjust tactics to suit the situation but didn't retract the previous statement of disliking the match.

So how am I wrong if the apparent chain of events are.

1) a post about not liking lots of LRMs in a match

2) a reply stating a probable reason (dislike for adjusting tactics and a break from routine)

3) a reply to the former stating that an adjustment in tactics was made without a retraction on disliking the match.

If anything you have supported my argument.

No the difficulty is all on your end. First you seem to be going out of your way to be insulting. Second you make a lot of assumptions.

As far as my statements about not liking the match I tried to spell in terms that you would possibly be able to grasp but it seems that your personal issue and disire to continue to be insulting is getting in the way of that.

It does make me giggle that you think because I said that I did not enjoy the match, and then when I outlined how I played it effectively that I should retract not liking it. Now to parrot you, me playing the match for what it was and not enjoying it, are not mutually exclusive...you follow so far???

So as far as your argument goes, you don't have one here. You are attacking and not very well. It doesn't make sense to make baseless assumptions and stand by them when the details were filled in.

To reiterate. I did not enjoy winning that way. Watching people remain static and hammering away with lurms was completely uninteresting and extremely low skill was displayed in this particular match, not only by the enemy but by my team as well.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 25 March 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

In greater detail, lasers could be described as having a relatively low skill floor yet a decently high skill ceiling.

Being hitscan (instant hit) means that almost anyone can get decent numbers with lazors, and yet there is a very large gap between a player who can focus the entire beam into a single hitbox (especially long beams like CERLL) versus a player who "lightsabers" their beam across the whole target (like me ).

Lasers are probably the most "skill balanced" weapon in the game.

The recognition of what hitboxes are on what mech too. It's not just holding on target, it's knowing how to CT a TBR/EBJ/CDA/Whatever even when it's turned completely away from you and to habitually and reflexively shoot that point instead of center mass of whatever is facing you.

In countering someones claim that LRMs were used effectively in an MRBC Div A/B match on Polar I went back through literally hundreds (about 20 pages) of videos of matches, picking out the ones with a snow background and skimmed through them to see what mechs were brought and if it looked good, watched it. I probably skimmed 50 matches and watched over 20. Never found such a match btw.

Many of the top tier matches were less than 7 minutes long. The ones involving only mechs 55 tons or lighter were rarely even 5 full minutes long. The variety of mechs involved was much bigger than most people think and matches were absolutely NOT exchanges between hiding poptarts. MLs, SRMs, brawling weapons were as represented as sniping weapons even on maps like Frozen City, Polar and Tourmaline. It really seemed like it was mostly based around trying to kill 1 or 2 specific targets, then pushing or recognizing an opening and exploiting it immediately.

Actual accuracy? With the exception of 1 to 3 people on each team who were very good at picking out specific points on specific targets, nothing you don't see in decent QP or FW matches. The biggest difference was the level of aggression. The top tier matches are fast and furious. You get into the lower division matches and you have slower, more hiding based gameplay. LRMs are a weapon for passive players to use against passive targets.

We talk about all the effective counters to LRMs. The best one is the 'w' key. However direct fire still puts damage on target more effectively at long or short range.

Edited by MischiefSC, 25 March 2017 - 04:17 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

Nope your intention was deflection not an argument supported with a well thought out framework.

I would argue that lasers are both effective AND easy but why? I could support an argument here with loads of data including statistics lifted from MWo's own site detailing the hit percentages of laser weapons compared to other weapon systems. Then cross referance that with average damage dealt by comparative weapon systems and provide you with concrete data supporting my argument but...

You will just willfully ignore it anyhow so go do it yourself.

Quantify: verb. express a measure of quantity of.

Are you wondering how many misinterpretations I may have made?

In this context I would say one. So not all that difficult.

Actually you don't get to decide my intent.

I stated something very simple when a player was saying lurms were hard to use and laser vomit was easy.

My statement was that he was confusing easy with effective. In this context, it is you who seem to be the one failing to follow or willfully misinterpret.

Also you are not being constructive and being insulting. This can be considered nothing other than trying to pick a fight.

Edited by MacClearly, 25 March 2017 - 04:21 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tarogato, on 25 March 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

lol, the people who are arguing that lasers are ezmode haven't watched the average player using lasers.

I'm not saying lasers are hard to use, but you do have to actually aim them, and most people who play this game are impressively lacking in that skill. LRMs and Streaks you just have to wave your crosshair in the general vicinity to get a lock, your crosshair doesn't even have to be on the mech. There's a massive difference between a weapon you have to aim, and one you not only don't have to aim, but can't aim.

except they are easy to use. But like all the weapons here, using them WELL is a different story. But those Lightsaber jockey sin their ERLL ravens? Would be making clean misses with a Gauss or PPC... at least with Lasers they can lightsaber about like a drunk, blind squirrel and still occasionally splash a nut.

[Skanderborg]

I've seen some mediums and light heavies do amazing things with LRMs , since they were able to reposition to get good firing angles and provide there own locks.

Then i've seen LRM boats do absolutely nothing.

I think in the right hands and the right machine anything can be done well in this game.

Edited by Skanderborg, 25 March 2017 - 04:59 PM.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

except they are easy to use.  But like all the weapons here, using them WELL is a different story.  But those Lightsaber jockey sin their ERLL ravens?  Would be making clean misses with a Gauss or PPC... at least with Lasers they can lightsaber about like a drunk, blind squirrel and still occasionally splash a nut.

Sin? I can not only understand why people run a 3L that way I do it myself time to time. It's not a good build and it is the best narcer in the game, but it's fun. It is just like you describe playing lurms as being something hard to do well. I also practise with the two erll Shadow Cat. It is not easy to do well and holding/tracking the laser on a component is like following a rabid raccoon with a flashlight. I easily do better with a couple ppc's straped on there but I can't tell you the kick I get when my target goes down at the end of my burn.

[FireStoat]

I've discovered that in quick play on a Saturday, whichever side has the LEAST LRM's has a decided edge and will probably win.
Someone give me a compelling argument why this is false - after playing 6 straight matches of quick play, on a Saturday (mid day NA hours).

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

Sin? I can not only understand why people run a 3L that way I do it myself time to time. It's not a good build and it is the best narcer in the game, but it's fun. It is just like you describe playing lurms as being something hard to do well. I also practise with the two erll Shadow Cat. It is not easy to do well and holding/tracking the laser on a component is like following a rabid raccoon with a flashlight. I easily do better with a couple ppc's straped on there but I can't tell you the kick I get when my target goes down at the end of my burn.

sin, yes the s from one word ended up at the beginning of the next. Happens a fair bit with my dyslexia, typing ain't my forte.

I highly look forward to adding 2x L-PPCs to my RVN-3L this summer. Should be a very fun sniper.

[Ted Wayz]

Cadoazreal, on 24 March 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

I didn't know enemy pilots could Force me to stand in the open

You can make me not twist my arms towards incoming missiles and always face my CT towards them ? wow.......

As I said, for three missile boats to fall to one pilot...they would have to be pretty bad. Even if they were all piloting IS mechs.

But it was obvious you didn't see that I was referring to the three scrubs, not you.

FireStoat, on 25 March 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

I've discovered that in quick play on a Saturday, whichever side has the LEAST LRM's has a decided edge and will probably win.
Someone give me a compelling argument why this is false - after playing 6 straight matches of quick play, on a Saturday (mid day NA hours).

Please show much the statistics. otherwise your observation is an opinion.

I have noticed on Saturday's the team with the most LRM's win. Am I doing it right?

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

sin, yes the s from one word ended up at the beginning of the next. Happens a fair bit with my dyslexia, typing ain't my forte.

I highly look forward to adding 2x L-PPCs to my RVN-3L this summer. Should be a very fun sniper.

Ok so I misunderstood you my apologies.