271 replies to this topic

[Erronius]

Khobai, on 24 March 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

except when you use direct lrms youre getting your own locks. only indirect lrms require someone else taking risks for you.

which is why I suggested buffing direct lrms and making indirect lrms require a tag/narc. in addition to changing the nature of ecm so it no longer gives blanket stealth.

that rewards you more for getting your own locks, makes indirect fire and exploiting other people's risks less rewarding, but still allows LRMs to indirect fire as part of a consolidated team effort using TAG/NARC.

I've been playing around with purposely trying to find and hold targets for people in a Pirate's Bane lately. It was definitely more of a challenge than I expected, in regards to staying alive, staying undetected, and holding locks for long enough period that they're 'super effective' (cough).

I don't mind taking the risk, if I can pull it off, and if the team actually has more than a single LRM 5. And I get the reasoning behind not wanting to enable people standing back 800m-1km. The flip side of that coin, though, is all the people that WILL NEVER change their behavior no matter what you do. Short of removing the ability to indirect fire completely, a lot of these players will still take obscene amounts of lurms with few in any backup weapons, no TAG of their own, beg every time they drop for locks, constantly stand in a completely different zip code from the rest of their team, fire at ranges where their lurms do nothing, fire at targets in hard cover (because they have no LOS and can't see them), and then ***** and moan about how bad their team is when they get soloed by a light or the rest of the team gets rolled while they're busy bouncing their own missiles off the building they're hiding behind...

I don't know what you mean by changing how ECM works...but I will tell you this: if it makes it more difficult to play as a dedicated spotter, then I don't know if I'd even bother trying and I'd likely just play dedicated DPS harassment lights instead. I already dislike using non-ECM variants to try spotting with, and depending on how ECM were to be nerfed...that would just entirely kill what little appeal there currently is. It's much the same reason why I've resisted replacing a single ML with a TAG on my PB: the loss of 1/4 of my weapons is a high price to pay for the occasional benefit of helping someone in an LRM 80 Spirit Bear or Scorch.

But you're right...that would totally change the indirect spotting paradigm. But it would also make the game (IMHO) even more one-dimensional than it already is. Light mechs would also become even more one dimensional as well...which, if I'm being honest, would be shockingly impressive, given the state of the entire light mech category right now.

[Koniving]

BabyCakes666, on 24 March 2017 - 01:04 AM, said:

but im shore theirs a way to stop all the LRM hate

is there away to make a good LRM build that no one will ***** abut ?

The issue overall isn't how good or bad LRMs are or their users.

It's not even about how they got changed to look like absolute **** and killed the immersion of having low cost, low payload, poorly tracking missiles by the dozen to throw at people.

It's about what it feels like on the receiving end.

And it freaking sucks.

The issue overall is the lack of counter play.

[Lykaon]

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.

I will give you a few points on why I would say laser weapons are relativley easy.

one: Instantaneous damage application. You do not need to adjust aim over range or to account for target/source movement.Anyone with basic motor skills and eyesight can place a reticule over a target and hit a key.

It is easier to just point and click than extrapolate where to point and click in order for target and projectile to collide. This should be universally evident to pretty much everyone.

Two: beam duration allows for corrective fire. A single projectile that doesn't connect will not have an oppertunity to be corrected because it has already missed. A laser can be drawn across a target to at least apply some damage.

Three: no ammo dependency means players will be far more willing to take risky shots will low chances of success since the penalty for failure is..well nothing but expended heat. More attempts equates to more potential hits.


Now a comparing LRMs to lasers is not a situation where direct pairity occurs. The skill sets for LRMs are not on precision aiming or learning how to lead targets it's more about target selection range to targets and time on target locks.

Will this volley land before the lock is slipped? will the target evade the volley even if the lock is retained? Is the target the best target at this time? Am I to vulnerable to counter fire while I wait for the very slow moving missiles to land since I need to retain my locks? Is my path to target unobstructed? When using a friendly locks for indirect fire ,will my team mate be capable of retaining the lock?

You need to be pretty good at a wide array of situational and map awareness skills to be successful with LRMs.

Direct fire weapons require fine motor skill and for non laser weapons an ability to lead a target. These skills are not used for LRMs an entirely different set of proficency is used.

The common thread in many comparative discussions on LRMs vs (insert weapon here) is an assumption that since skills used for the compared weapon do not apply to LRM use then LRMs do not require skills to use.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 04:12 PM, said:

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.

Insult: verb. Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

Hypocrisy: noun. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs one's own behavior does not conform to.


And yet again you missed the point.

You disliked a match and the stated reason was a heavy LRM use. But what was the issue with the LRM use that made your experience less enjoyable?

Was it you don't like the sound effects of LRMs and this reduced your capacity for enjoyment?

Was it that you don't like other players using LRMs?

Was it the need to change your tactics to adjust to the new situation?

or was it that you feel your rewards for contribution was not reflected by the rewards received ?

I did make an assumption I will admit that.

I assumed that the reason for your dislike of the match was it wasn't a typical match played in a typical way. I assumed your dislike was based upon the need to play in a different way than is typical for you.

I assumed that your issue was based upon the situation making demands of your play style you are not typicaly accustomed to.

I admit it I could have assumed incorrectly. My argument was flawed.

Unless I assumed correctly.

Edited by Lykaon, 26 March 2017 - 01:26 AM.

[Lykaon]

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.

I agree. While it is fairly easy to get some effective damage out of lasers (Most players when reviewing their stats will see that lasers are probably their most accurate weapons used) Getting precision damage requires fine motor skill and predictive cognition (guessing how the target is going to move to retain the beam on target).

The more practiced a player is the better their results become. So overall a good mix of ease of use with rewards for gaining proficiency.

[Shifty McSwift]

Koniving, on 25 March 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

That was actually pretty mild, I experience much worse frequently. And I run AMS.

But yeah look at that screen shake even when only one or 2 are actually hitting at a time, crazy over the top considering other shake rates IMO.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 26 March 2017 - 04:40 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Escef, on 24 March 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:

To be fair, there are plenty of experienced players that get killed by LRMs because they get sloppy and don't take proper defensive precautions. And that happens because they've convinced themselves of how bad LRMs are and that no one should use them. And while LRMs are sub-par, they can still wreck you if you get sloppy like that.

Pretty much this all the way.

Experienced players want to blame LRM's for their lack of ability to play with them, and as P.G.I won't remove them, they rage against the people that continue to use them.

This is magnified by the match maker, which still continues to place inexperienced and virtually new people again competition quality T1's

[BabyCakes666]

all this input is great

and it nice to not have this thread get derailed

alot of this input is valid from what im reading

[Xetelian]

People say "But there are more counters for this weapon with ECM and AMS than any other weapon"
People say "But it takes skill to determine the best position and trigger discipline for the right targets"

ECM isn't available for EVERY mech so that is a very soft counter and after the major bubble size nerf its not able to help unless your team brings 4 or 5 of them to cover the other 7 or 8.

A simple UAV can counter all the ECM on the field and acts like a free tag for an huge area so ECM is barely even a soft counter.

AMS doesn't stop very many when someone has 4 LRM20s on an NTG or two people with two 15s. To see any real difference the entire team needs to have them and their needs to be 3 on each Kitfox or other support mech builds.

Radar Deprivation is barely a factor and completely canceled by advanced target decay.

The screen shake is crippling. An LRM 5 boat can keep up a constant barrage that will blind someone as they stream all over the front of their mech.



In my opinion it does take some skill or at least a little trigger discipline to take the best advantage of the weapon, but it is so simple to use that even the lowest of the low can pack in 4000 missiles and if 30% of them hit they're still doing over 500 damage and getting kills.

Yes, it can be easy to not get hit by LRM missiles if you stay in cover and move from cover to cover but on maps like Polar Highlands and Alpine one UAV can wreck multiple people if they can't shoot it down fast enough.The area denial is punishing when there isn't much cover and when pushing, even as a large group, is going to cost you 3 mechs in the process.


Then there is TAG and NARC, for the 'counters' to the long ranged missile weapons there are also benefactors that can eliminate the ECM counter.






I can't count how many times I've been on the losing side because we had too many LRM boats hiding in the back and not enough front to mid ranged pushers. When you allocate 70%-90% of your weaponry to LRMs but you're an Assault mech you are taking away from the collective armor sharing that a team does to win.

Yes it can deny advancement by the enemy but every second spent waiting for them to move while people peak alpha at each other at maximum range is a second the brawlers have to stand around in a stalemate.

Yes, you can lock someone up with screen shake and that has its advantages but when a murder ball pushes it doesn't matter because the people spotting for you are going to be dead while you sit in the rear mess up 1 guy.




Ultimately take whatever you feel pleased with, I'll still complain when I see an LRM 60 Spirit Bear or Atlas-S. When we lose I'll just look forward to the next match where hopefully I'll have the support I need from the front lines.

[Lykaon]

Xetelian, on 26 March 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

People say "But there are more counters for this weapon with ECM and AMS than any other weapon"
People say "But it takes skill to determine the best position and trigger discipline for the right targets"

ECM isn't available for EVERY mech so that is a very soft counter and after the major bubble size nerf its not able to help unless your team brings 4 or 5 of them to cover the other 7 or 8.

A simple UAV can counter all the ECM on the field and acts like a free tag for an huge area so ECM is barely even a soft counter.

AMS doesn't stop very many when someone has 4 LRM20s on an NTG or two people with two 15s. To see any real difference the entire team needs to have them and their needs to be 3 on each Kitfox or other support mech builds.

Radar Deprivation is barely a factor and completely canceled by advanced target decay.

The screen shake is crippling. An LRM 5 boat can keep up a constant barrage that will blind someone as they stream all over the front of their mech.



In my opinion it does take some skill or at least a little trigger discipline to take the best advantage of the weapon, but it is so simple to use that even the lowest of the low can pack in 4000 missiles and if 30% of them hit they're still doing over 500 damage and getting kills.

Yes, it can be easy to not get hit by LRM missiles if you stay in cover and move from cover to cover but on maps like Polar Highlands and Alpine one UAV can wreck multiple people if they can't shoot it down fast enough.The area denial is punishing when there isn't much cover and when pushing, even as a large group, is going to cost you 3 mechs in the process.


Then there is TAG and NARC, for the 'counters' to the long ranged missile weapons there are also benefactors that can eliminate the ECM counter.






I can't count how many times I've been on the losing side because we had too many LRM boats hiding in the back and not enough front to mid ranged pushers. When you allocate 70%-90% of your weaponry to LRMs but you're an Assault mech you are taking away from the collective armor sharing that a team does to win.

Yes it can deny advancement by the enemy but every second spent waiting for them to move while people peak alpha at each other at maximum range is a second the brawlers have to stand around in a stalemate.

Yes, you can lock someone up with screen shake and that has its advantages but when a murder ball pushes it doesn't matter because the people spotting for you are going to be dead while you sit in the rear mess up 1 guy.




Ultimately take whatever you feel pleased with, I'll still complain when I see an LRM 60 Spirit Bear or Atlas-S. When we lose I'll just look forward to the next match where hopefully I'll have the support I need from the front lines.

FOUR THOUSAND! 22 tons of ammo? you must be joking.

That would be the biggest bomb with feet I have ever seen. And better yet the king potato of LURMtaters.

I am envisioning an Atlas AS7 S with 4 LRM 15s 2 medium lasers and 22 tons of ammo with a standard 250 engine.

As for counters if taken individually each seems minor but they do combine a mech can be in and out of ECM cover and under multiple AMS. Using a target retention module to counter a target deprivation module is a module slot to counter a module equiped by the enemy and ultimatley a slot not used for your own radar derper or seismic or whatever.

Overall the sheer number of countermeasures for LRM locks combined with the general state of LRM performance leads to a case of performance "tax" levied on LRMs.

So you want to use LRM15s eh? well ya gonna need Artemis to speed up those locks and tighten the groupings. Oh and then there's the ECM ya gotta have a TAG on there, Oh and then if some ECM gets close to ya ya gonna need an active probe 'cause ECM jams ya TAG up close. Now don't forget yer LRMs are useless at 180m or closer so ya gonna need some back up weapons.

Meanwhile..hey a Gauss rifle what do I need for this to work?

ammo.

As for the skillset for using LRMs...

to get basic functionality you need very little. Target selection,general map awareness and trigger dicipline.

Advanced nuanced use from LRMs is another thing all together. Once someone fully gets LRM use and figures out those nuances and how to exploit the unique properties of LRMs that is where there is telling difference between hey I can do damage with LRMs wippie ! and I can keep half the enemy team supressed while my team's brawler take possition to club them in close quarters.

Most of the gripe about LRMs is actually gripe about low skill use of LRMs and honestly how is this any different from a guy in a gauss jager that can't hit the broad side of a barn? that guy is just as useless as a terrible LRM boat.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 26 March 2017 - 01:07 AM, said:

Insult: verb. Speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

Hypocrisy:  noun. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs one's own behavior does not conform to.


And yet again you missed the point.

You disliked a match and the stated reason was a heavy LRM use. But what was the issue with the LRM use that made your experience less enjoyable?

Was it you don't like the sound effects of LRMs and this reduced your capacity for enjoyment?

Was it that you don't like other players using LRMs?

Was it the need to change your tactics to adjust to the new situation?

or was it that you feel your rewards for contribution was not reflected by the rewards received ?

I did make an assumption I will admit that.

I assumed that the reason for your dislike of the match was it wasn't a typical match played in a typical way. I assumed your dislike was based upon the need to play in a different way than is typical for you.

I assumed that your issue was based upon the situation making demands of your play style you are not typicaly accustomed to.

I admit it I could have assumed incorrectly. My argument was flawed.

Unless I assumed correctly.

No, I  did not miss the point. You yet again failed to have one. I actually alluded to why I didn't enjoy the match but you missed it or rather didn't pick up on it. Maybe you can Google allude? Oh, and I don't have to explain to you why. Remember that you interjected into a response to another person. Then while making assumptions you continued to be insulting all while being a complete failure at making a point. Now I am going to assume that when people don't agree with you because despite your incredible Google skills you are incredibly bad at reason, logic and basic comprehension, you default to insults.  I say assume but your responses strongly indicate that the this is the case.

Edited by MacClearly, 26 March 2017 - 08:25 AM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 26 March 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

I will give you a few points on why I would say laser weapons are relativley easy.

one: Instantaneous damage application. You do not need to adjust aim over range or to account for target/source movement.Anyone with basic motor skills and eyesight can place a reticule over a target and hit a key.

It is easier to just point and click than extrapolate where to point and click in order for target and projectile to collide. This should be universally evident to pretty much everyone.

Two: beam duration allows for corrective fire. A single projectile that doesn't connect will not have an oppertunity to be corrected because it has already missed. A laser can be drawn across a target to at least apply some damage.

Three: no ammo dependency means players will be far more willing to take risky shots will low chances of success since the penalty for failure is..well nothing but expended heat. More attempts equates to more potential hits.


Now a comparing LRMs to lasers is not a situation where direct pairity occurs. The skill sets for LRMs are not on precision aiming  or learning how to lead targets it's more about target selection range to targets and time on target locks.

Will this volley land before the lock is slipped? will the target evade the volley even if the lock is retained? Is the target the best target at this time? Am I to vulnerable to counter fire while I wait for the very slow moving missiles to land since I need to retain my locks? Is my path to target unobstructed? When using a friendly locks for indirect fire ,will my team mate be capable of retaining the lock?

You need to be pretty good at a wide array of situational and map awareness skills to be successful with LRMs.

Direct fire weapons require fine motor skill and for non laser weapons an ability to lead a target. These skills are not used for LRMs an entirely different set of proficency is used.

The common thread in many comparative discussions on LRMs vs (insert weapon here) is an assumption that since skills used for the compared weapon do not apply to LRM use then LRMs do not require skills to use.

It is really amusing that a person can be to put it generously, so deluded. It is nice of you to don the big floppy shoes and funny nose though. Very entertaining. Luckily people who actually understand this game would never think aiming and using lasers is easier is easier than using lrms. No one anybody could ever take seriously thinks this.

[HGAK47]

I am no one special but I have seen LRM boats do exceptionally well when they have someone at the front lines tagging or narcing.
I built a 5 narc SCR-D hoping that I would get a match with lurm boaters but as of yet everytime I pull out the Narc-Crow I get a team of brawlers lol. Switch back to a regular build and "oh look! My team brought the lurms!".

I cant win! lol

[Weeny Machine]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

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.

Please tell the whole truth...

1. You needed a dedicated spotter. Correct me if I am wrong, but he wasn't allowed to do anything besides that
2. All negative multiplies of the spotter applied also to the LRM boat

A C3 slave unit worked quite differently.

So, please do not compare it to the TT because MWO is still much closer to being a C3 network

[HGAK47]

Oh by the way it always amazes me that people seemingly overlook Lurms biggest advantage - Firing from concealed positions to enemy targets as well as being able to damage enemies behind light / not full cover.

It seems to me like this could be really useful for a proper team, no?

[Weeny Machine]

HGAK47, on 26 March 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Oh by the way it always amazes me that people seemingly overlook Lurms biggest advantage - Firing from concealed positions to enemy targets as well as being able to damage enemies behind light / not full cover.

It seems to me like this could be really useful for a proper team, no?

Plus supporting a friendly unit despite being out of LoS. And that's the main problem

[Bishop Steiner]

Bush Hopper, on 26 March 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

Plus supporting a friendly unit despite being out of LoS. And that's the main problem

IDK if I call it the main problem, but it can be a good way to use them. Especially, especially when you are in something slow, and trying to bail out a teammate.

[Dee Eight]

The LRM5 spread change hasn't decreased the effectiveness. My ARC-5W just got a 4 kill 7 assist 707 damage 9 components destroyed polar domination win chain firing its 5 LRM5s. Didn't even need to expend any of the SRM ammo.

[Trenchbird]

HGAK47, on 26 March 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

I am no one special but I have seen LRM boats do exceptionally well when they have someone at the front lines tagging or narcing.
I built a 5 narc SCR-D hoping that I would get a match with lurm boaters but as of yet everytime I pull out the Narc-Crow I get a team of brawlers lol. Switch back to a regular build and "oh look! My team brought the lurms!".

I cant win! lol

... You only need one NARC. Never five.

[MacClearly]

Catten Hart, on 26 March 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

... You only need one NARC. Never five.

No way man, if one is good, five is better!!! Just like laser vomit only narc vomit.... You can fire them all and not worry about ghost heat too.