213 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

arcana75, on 01 October 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

Well if you guys are done cockfighting...

Question, how many tons of LRM ammo should I carry? Running a HBK-4J with 2xLRM10 and 5 tons ammo and totally unskilled I fired off all my ammo really quickly. I do have 5 ML as backup tho with an XL275 heat management isn't so good. Should I drop the MLs and switch to smalls for more ammo?

I would say 1 ton per 5 tubes so an LRM5 would get a minimum of 1 ton an LRM10 2 tons etc.

This is where you should start. The bigger and slower the mech the more you need to go "all in" and boat large launchers and pack more ammo.

This is is because the slower your mech is the fewer your opertunities to get locks will be. Your windows of opertunity will be narrower due to relying on friendlies for locks more often than a faster mech would.

Because of this lack of direct control you will have more failed salvos from slipped locks or firing on targets in deep cover (that can not be hit) because you your self can't confirm their possitions.

To compensate you need much more ammo.

But, for faster more agile support platforms I find 1 ton per 5 tubes is about right.


For a HBK-4J I would do

2 non artemis LRM10s w/ 6 tons ammo
5 medium lasers
TAG
12 DHS
275 XL
endo steel
light ferro

Armor is near max with legs set to 40 each

Edited by Lykaon, 02 October 2017 - 09:38 PM.

[Lykaon]

Cathy, on 02 October 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Hunchback-4H

On a side note...

The 4H is actually a decent Heavy PPC mech

-20% energy cooldown
-15% energy heat

[InvictusLee]

Lykaon, on 02 October 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

On a side note...

The 4H is actually a decent Heavy PPC mech

-20% energy cooldown
-15% energy heat

Sounds pretty sexy actually.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Lykaon, on 02 October 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

For a HBK-4J I would do

2 non artemis LRM10s w/ 6 tons ammo
5 medium lasers
TAG
12 DHS
275 XL
endo steel
light ferro

Armor is near max with legs set to 40 each

No BAP? What madness is this?!

[arcana75]

Jay Leon Hart, on 03 October 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

No BAP? What madness is this?!

Seems over-rated. I dropped the BAP to put in more armour and 5 ML, seems better overall.

[Jay Leon Hart]

arcana75, on 03 October 2017 - 05:56 AM, said:

Seems over-rated. I dropped the BAP to put in more armour and 5 ML, seems better overall.

Fair enough, I find that an ECM Light always finds me if I try to run LRMs without an Active Probe

[Lykaon]

Jay Leon Hart, on 03 October 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

Fair enough, I find that an ECM Light always finds me if I try to run LRMs without an Active Probe

Would you rather have 1.5 tons of brawling weapons and armor or a BAP under those circumstances?

[Jay Leon Hart]

Lykaon, on 03 October 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

Would you rather have 1.5 tons of brawling weapons and armor or a BAP under those circumstances?

BAP, always BAP. A 5th ML probably won't save me, at least I can still fire at their teammates.

[Trenchbird]

I mean, I don't really run LRM boats and consider Huntsman LRMboats high treason, but it is a decent platform for it. I'd rather use a quad LRM-10/15A Hunchie IIC though, so you don't have to stuff ammo where it should not go.

[Lykaon]

Jay Leon Hart, on 03 October 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

BAP, always BAP. A 5th ML probably won't save me, at least I can still fire at their teammates.

You may be over estimating the value of the BAP in a situation where you are under attack in CQ by an ECM mech.

Sure you can get a couple more salvos off before you get KO'ed. Butyou will get a great deal more out of surviving and continuing to fire for the rest of the match.

Also I am leaning towards seeing BAP as less neccissary now than it once was. Let's really look at what BAP does for you on an LRM mech.

You get some more sensor range, but LRM max range is reduced to 900m now and with some basic sensor skill nodes (that you want anyhow to get target retention) your innate sensors are already equal or greater than you missile range. And of course a large portion of the time you will be using assisted locking using a friendlies sensor range to your target where a BAP on your mech doesn't do anything.

ECM has had it's range reduced to 90m (half it's former levels) This means that a hostile ECM will have to be within 90m of you to prevent your lock ons. If you are their target you should probably defend yourself in close quarters because not doing so makes you a casualty at the very least you will need to rapidly repossition to get help and holding a lock and firing on a distant target will probably not be your primary objective. Keeping your mech alive is.

If you are not the target slipping outside of 90m ECM range is fairly easy.


So essentially BAP in that particular situation is only of real use if you are 100% possitive your team will kill your attacker before they get you and you are afforded the luxury of not dropping your LRM target to have to engage in close quarters.

So, it's not really that usefull that often.

[Kalimaster]

Mad Dog for Clans

The Locust 1-M for fun...(they never suspect this one)

Stalker as an assult, but it takes some fiddling with to get it right.

[MW222]

MischiefSC, on 02 October 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Hey, you had some great QP matches! That's nifty.

So come play in a group with average or better players and see how that works. I've got a stack of LBX+MG matches with 800+ damage in my Jag I took pics of, because anything can do well in QP.

Which is why we want to test it. So you up for actually helping in a test? We're creeping up on 8 people for the LRM team.

It's been done more then once.
















Been there done that mostly with LRMs and an AS7-D-DC.

[MischiefSC]

MW222, on 03 October 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

It's been done more then once.
















Been there done that mostly with LRMs and an AS7-D-DC.

You keep showing one off pug games that went well for you and the odd group queue match with mixed teams that went well for you.

That's great, I'm glad you have good matches sometimes. It's not a real test of LRM teams vs direct fire teams. In that context I would say toy should consider what you play overall because you lose a lot more than you win. Statistically those matches you won are the no parity of the matches you play.

At this point I've had over 50 matches and I'm only playing non-meta Marauder 5R, 5D and BH2 builds and only in QP, 3 matches in group queue, won 2 lost 1. They're all direct fire and one is MRM based. If I showed videos of me winning it would actually be a more useful anecdotal statement because I'm winning about 65% of my matches and you're historically averaging about 39%.

Play what you want and have fun, that's great. Stats certainly aren't everything. However they do show success rates. Hence wanting to do a reasonable, controlled test. You may feel like LRMs work consistently foe you but when we look at the actual data it doesn't seem like it.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 02 October 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Hey, you had some great QP matches! That's nifty.

So come play in a group with average or better players and see how that works. I've got a stack of LBX+MG matches with 800+ damage in my Jag I took pics of, because anything can do well in QP.

Which is why we want to test it. So you up for actually helping in a test? We're creeping up on 8 people for the LRM team.

I had a very frustrating night in the quick play group queue Monday night. There was an 8 player premade kicking around and for most of the evening my group was only 3 (meaning we were never on the 8 player group's team due to math 8+3=11 not 12)

The thing is they were frequently running loads of LRM/ATM platforms. And of course for what ever reason getting more than one group on your own team to follow a simple suggestion such as CLOSE to nullify LRMs and beat the crap out of them in close quarters was ignored in favor of cower in cover until we lose half the team.

So even in group queue LRMs can be effective because people won't listen.

But against a large well coordinated team...yeah LRMs are not the choice weapons if you want to do anything significant.

[Jingseng]

Lykaon, on 03 October 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

I had a very frustrating night in the quick play group queue Monday night. There was an 8 player premade kicking around and for most of the evening my group was only 3 (meaning we were never on the 8 player group's team due to math 8+3=11 not 12)

The thing is they were frequently running loads of LRM/ATM platforms. And of course for what ever reason getting more than one group on your own team to follow a simple suggestion such as CLOSE to nullify LRMs and beat the crap out of them in close quarters was ignored in favor of cower in cover until we lose half the team.

So even in group queue LRMs can be effective because people won't listen.

But against a large well coordinated team...yeah LRMs are not the choice weapons if you want to do anything significant.

Well, the point to realize there is:

it wasn't that the lrms were especially effective. It was that the teammates were ineffective. That is what lrms rely on - their targets being terrible.

Direct fire weapons do not. They rely on their shooters being skilled.

Unskilled direct fire is ineffective. Lrms are indifferent to shooter skill. (which is not really a compliment for lrm users if you care to think long and hard on it).

Direct fire is equally effective versus skilled and unskilled targets (it is consistent). Lrms are ineffective versus skilled targets.

Put it this way: Would you want to go into a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by the dealer being good or bad? Or a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by YOU being good or bad (and not the dealer)?

[MW222]

MischiefSC, on 03 October 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

You keep showing one off pug games that went well for you and the odd group queue match with mixed teams that went well for you.

That's great, I'm glad you have good matches sometimes. It's not a real test of LRM teams vs direct fire teams. In that context I would say toy should consider what you play overall because you lose a lot more than you win. Statistically those matches you won are the no parity of the matches you play.

At this point I've had over 50 matches and I'm only playing non-meta Marauder 5R, 5D and BH2 builds and only in QP, 3 matches in group queue, won 2 lost 1. They're all direct fire and one is MRM based. If I showed videos of me winning it would actually be a more useful anecdotal statement because I'm winning about 65% of my matches and you're historically averaging about 39%.

Play what you want and have fun, that's great. Stats certainly aren't everything. However they do show success rates. Hence wanting to do a reasonable, controlled test. You may feel like LRMs work consistently foe you but when we look at the actual data it doesn't seem like it.

RIGHT!

[arcana75]

Jingseng, on 03 October 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

Well, the point to realize there is:

it wasn't that the lrms were especially effective. It was that the teammates were ineffective. That is what lrms rely on - their targets being terrible.

Direct fire weapons do not. They rely on their shooters being skilled.

Unskilled direct fire is ineffective. Lrms are indifferent to shooter skill. (which is not really a compliment for lrm users if you care to think long and hard on it).

Direct fire is equally effective versus skilled and unskilled targets (it is consistent). Lrms are ineffective versus skilled targets.

Put it this way: Would you want to go into a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by the dealer being good or bad? Or a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by YOU being good or bad (and not the dealer)?

So I figured I'd try a cheap LRM mech using c-bills cuz I'm not flush with cbills, so I went with the hunchback 4J, 2xLRM10a, 5ML. I find it kinda boring, and the damage is kinda low. Also, if I'm either rushed, or last mech standing, I'm pretty much toast. I am definitely support, not even 2nd line, maybe 4th. Waiting for the thing to lock, fire and see it hit a wall, is meh.

Guess I'm more of a brawler get in there and mess things up kinda player. I also hate sniping and trading.

[Cloves]

arcana75, on 04 October 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

So I figured I'd try a cheap LRM mech using c-bills cuz I'm not flush with cbills, so I went with the hunchback 4J, 2xLRM10a, 5ML. I find it kinda boring, and the damage is kinda low. Also, if I'm either rushed, or last mech standing, I'm pretty much toast. I am definitely support, not even 2nd line, maybe 4th. Waiting for the thing to lock, fire and see it hit a wall, is meh.

Guess I'm more of a brawler get in there and mess things up kinda player. I also hate sniping and trading.

Problem is that for most new players, you have a LRM play style and a direct fire play style. This strongly encourages a go big or go home approach to LRMing. If you want to give LRMing a fair shot at tier 4, get a mad dog or catapult and throw at least 60 tubes at a time (well break them into sets of 2 to avoid ghost heat, or use chainfire for suppression)

[Lykaon]

Jingseng, on 03 October 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

Well, the point to realize there is:

it wasn't that the lrms were especially effective. It was that the teammates were ineffective. That is what lrms rely on - their targets being terrible.

Direct fire weapons do not. They rely on their shooters being skilled.

Unskilled direct fire is ineffective. Lrms are indifferent to shooter skill. (which is not really a compliment for lrm users if you care to think long and hard on it).

Direct fire is equally effective versus skilled and unskilled targets (it is consistent). Lrms are ineffective versus skilled targets.

Put it this way: Would you want to go into a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by the dealer being good or bad? Or a casino where your chances of winning are determined entirely by YOU being good or bad (and not the dealer)?

The point to realize is it doesn't matter how terrible LRMs are if they worked for match after match after match because the teams are bad. They just worked because nobody had the resolve to use the sure fire counter tactic to nullify the LRMs.

So in this case LRMs were very effective since no amount of begging or pleading or barking commands prevented a team using primarily LRMs from continuoulsy winning.

If it worked it just worked.

If it continues to work in quick play both solo and groups then people need to start accepting that LRMs will work because the targets that are needed to make LRMs work are NOT IN SHORT SUPPLY.

Also...
LRMs do require skills just not the "put the curser over the pixel and press fire" skills that are held in such high regard.

I would say that someone getting 300 damage with LRMs on their own exibited higher proficency than someone who pulls down 500 in a laser boat. The lasers are literally point and click at least the LRM user needed to check to see if the ballistic arc was clear the target was solidly locked and had evaded the plethora of countermeasures to land that damage.

Lasers? point...click...repeat no leading no guessing if they will slip a lock or slip into cover no anti-LASER-systems no ECM turning your lasers off ...point...click = damage.

Let's just stop pretending that lining up pixels is a grand skill.

[Smith Gibson]

Lykaon, on 02 October 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

For a HBK-4J I would do

2 non artemis LRM10s w/ 6 tons ammo
5 medium lasers
TAG
12 DHS
275 XL
endo steel
light ferro

Armor is near max with legs set to 40 each

My setup is almost the same, except I trade the 5 Medium Lasers and one of the heat sinks for 5 ER Small Lasers, BAP and AMS. It also lets me run maximum armor on the legs as well.