216 replies to this topic

[Hycerot]

Novakaine, on 09 October 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

And here we go again........... another LRM rant.
Did a bad lurm boat pilot touch ya'll again.
How in the world would any real life battle be won if no one communicated?
Lets just take VOIP and in game chat out of the game.
Then you can really go COD.
Seriously though this a team based game.
Enough already and leave the worst weapon system in the game alone.
We Rocketeers have suffered enough.
And time for my well worn meme........

There is only 1 reason why you LRM players suffer. The same reason why WOT arty players,,,, The only time when lrm players share armor is when a light finds a way to you or when most of your team is already dead (where your 100% percent armor is not usefull anymore).

[Escef]

Joey Tankblaster, on 10 October 2017 - 04:01 AM, said:

Maybe you can discuss this interesting issue in a separate topic named "nerf lights to buff streak-boats"?

Or maybe not? I mean, since I'm not asking for any such thing.

H I A S, on 10 October 2017 - 04:03 AM, said:

Hyperbole for the win. lol

Pot, kettle; kettle, pot.

At any rate, you have nothing of value to say.

[H I A S]

Escef, on 10 October 2017 - 04:31 AM, said:

Pot, kettle; kettle, pot.

At any rate, you have nothing of value to say.

You are one of those Players who arent able to play well and try to teach their bad behaviore to other players. On top you lack the skill to read my first comment directet at you.
It's a waste of time to argue with terribads.
Play how ever you want, keep your awsome WR and let me hope that I never get you on my team.

[Xiphias]

Joey Tankblaster, on 10 October 2017 - 04:01 AM, said:

Maybe you can discuss this interesting issue in a separate topic named "nerf lights to buff streak-boats"?

It's somewhat relevant since the topic on on buddy locks which affect streaks, but probably not worth further discussion at this point.

Escef, on 10 October 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

Two Alphas of 36 Streaks is barely enough to reliably strip the armor from the side torsos of a Cheetah, without skill tree bonuses.

That's the trade-off you get when you choose spread weapons over ones you can aim. The point is that you are doing 144 damage (2 alphas of 36 streaks) to a mech that has 315 hp (without skill tree) that's 45% of the total health of the mech. Every single point of armor matters on a light and a light will absolutely feel that kind of damage. It makes the light incredibly vulnerable afterwards.

Quote

I would put a decent Arctic Cheetah pilot against an equally skilled StreakCrow or StreakDog pilot and put my money on the Cheetah. Every. Time.

The Cheetah literally cannot put out enough DPS to kill those mechs before they can kill it (I'm excluding the case the Cheetah has a range advantage and kites the whole time). Unless the terrain is significantly advantageous to the light mech (radio tower on Forest for example) an equally skill light is going to lose that match up in a 1v1. Most of the time even a bad streak mech can take out or drive off a significantly better light mech. Streaks are the lowest skill weapon in the game.

Quote

I have too frequently seen Streaks fail to perform as you advertise to place any stock in your words.

And I've wrecked lights with (and been wrecked by) streaks countless times. You can't argue the point that each salvo is doing around 20% of the total health of a light mech and that in most cases it isn't possible to evade. The point is that streaks do a massive amount of damage and require very little skill to do so.

Again, what would it take for you to consider a weapon a hard counter? I'm really interested to know. If a weapon can be extremely effective against a class and require a bare minimum of competence to be used to that effect I would consider it a hard counter. You see streak mechs chasing lights and lights running from streaks for a reason.

If streaks don't counter lights why do pilots take them? It's certainly not to be effective against assault mechs.

Kotzi, on 10 October 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

That is true with almost any weapons. Pilots skills enhances this.

The point is that even a poor player with streaks can easily fight off a significantly better light pilot due to the nature of the weapon. If someone kills me with gauss, it's because they were able to predict where I went and I wasn't able to evade them. With streaks it's hold the mouse in the general area for half a second and boom, instant damage that almost impossible to evade. I'm not advocating for them to be nerfed (though I might like that), but I am arguing that they are a hard counter to light mechs because they allow lights to be countered without requiring significant skill. A bad player can still beat a good light pilot by using streaks, no aim required.

[Dr Hobo]

The only way you can remove buddy likes is add a C3 module that takes up tonnage and slots.

[Escef]

Xiphias, on 10 October 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

That's the trade-off you get when you choose spread weapons over ones you can aim. The point is that you are doing 144 damage (2 alphas of 36 streaks) to a mech that has 315 hp (without skill tree) that's 45% of the total health of the mech. Every single point of armor matters on a light and a light will absolutely feel that kind of damage. It makes the light incredibly vulnerable afterwards.

Not telling me anything I don't know.

Xiphias, on 10 October 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

The Cheetah literally cannot put out enough DPS to kill those mechs before they can kill it...

The Champion Cheetah can CT core a Stormcrow in 2 Alphas, and has the speed and maneuverability to make it happen. But we can argue hypotheticals all day and get nowhere.

What amazes me, though, is when I say that Streaks aren't as good as you say, ok, fine, we disagree. But almost every time I talk about this there's some jackwagon claiming I want lights nerfed or Streaks buffed, and I'm not making any such argument. I'm just giving my evaluation. I think the best weapons for killing lights are Gauss, PPCs, and large bore ACs. Streaks are sandblasters, the only reason they work against is because there isn't much there to blast in the first place. That and a LOT of players have a hard time hitting lights with direct fire weapons (been playing this game for years and I still have issues with it, and probably always will, I don't have the reaction time I did when I was young), Streaks are a bit forgiving on that one by requiring you to do more aiming, but it doesn't need to be precise aiming. That and Streaks aren't as much affected by the occasional bouts of hitreg going down the crapper.

[Roadbuster]

Joey Tankblaster, on 09 October 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

This is not a rant about LURMs in general but more a rant about LURM pilots. The whole buddy lock feature in MWO is really painful and nonsense from a game design perspective.

I just hate those LURM pilots who do not share their armour, intel and firepower with their team in a meaningful way.

We already have lock after direct sighting, TAG-laser, UAVs and NARC. This is enough. I really don't see the necessity to promote a playstyle which favours cowardeous hidding in the third row waiting for others to do the job (e.g. locking up targets).

Buddy lock destroys role warfare. Lights on a scouting mission just get cought by an enemy light, locked up and lurmed to death. It's senseless.

What is the point of this design? I am fine with a substantial buff for LURMs if buddy lock is removed.

You said it. You hate the PILOTS who don't share their armor. So this has nothing to do with LRMs in general.
I also hate these people hiding behind buildings while others push. I also hate these snipers who refuse to move an inch, but instead wait for something to move through their fov.

Getting locks for teammates IS role warfare. It's the thing scouts and spotters do. If you get caught by another light while scouting, well...bad luck. But you can also target the other light and both of you have the same chance to get lurmed.
Or you just equip AMS, ECM, stealth armor, level radar deprivation or don't get caught.

LRMs are the least effective weapon system and the only weapon system, besides ATM and to some extent SRM/SSRM, with direct counters.
It's only strong if the LRM user knows how to position, which targets can be hit and if someone can hold a lock for more than 1 second.

You blame a fire support mech for not standing in the frontline?
I'd like to see a laservomit mech move out of cover, stare at the opponent for 2-5 seconds before firing, then waiting a bit more, while still facing the enemy, till the lasers hit. If the target didn't retreat behind cover by that time...
In the time it takes to fire 1 LRM volley an opponent can alpha you 2 times.
Let's say your volley are respectable 60 LRMs. If you have a good hitrate and artemis you might get 30dmg out of that, spread all over the enemy mech.
The opponent can alpha you for 40-60dmg pinpoint 2 times...
And that's why you need other players, to be effective.

A LRM boat in a match full of snipers, will be pretty much useless.
It becomes viable if people push. And it's viable for pushing enemies back behind cover, preventing them from shooting.

I also dislike players who do nothing but hide behind their teammates and don't even try to get thrit own targets. And I hate slow LRM assaults.
But don't try to make the least effective weapon system even more useless.

Use LRMs to your advantage. If you have an LRM boat in your team, just lock whatever you're shooting. Play as team, not against the team.

MadRover, on 09 October 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Agree with the OP. Especially when assault mechs are hiding in the back not sharing their armor because they brought LRMs.

While I also hate such behaviour, it's the fault of the general playstyle, imho.
People leave the assault mechs behind, then blame them for not tanking for them, while they keep running around the map and hide, taking potshots.

Slow assault mechs are all or nothing. You can't play the peeking game with most of them, because they are too slow. You can either wait for something to come into your fireline, or you can go all out and push. But you won't have a chance to backpaddle.
And if your teammates don't support a push, you just die.

But that's another very old problem many people still don't understand.


TLDR: I'm bored. Just go out there and try being effective with an LRM boat.

Edited by Roadbuster, 10 October 2017 - 08:54 AM.

[Xiphias]

Escef, on 10 October 2017 - 06:52 AM, said:

The Champion Cheetah can CT core a Stormcrow in 2 Alphas, and has the speed and maneuverability to make it happen. But we can argue hypotheticals all day and get nowhere.

To be clear. The champion Cheetah runs 6xERSL for a 30 point alpha. The stormcrow has 72 points of CT armor (36 structure), with a 68/4 armor split that requires at total of 4 alphas to hit perfectly on the CT to kill the mech (2 doesn't quite core it, 3 won't quite kill it). Burn time on CERSL is 1.1s, cooldown is 3.2s and optimal range range is 200m. The stormcrow (5xSSRM6) does 60 damage an alpha, cooldown of 6s and range of 360m.

Time for a Cheetah to kill a fresh SC at optimal range is 14s.

Cheetah has 315 hp. That means that it woulds take 5 alphas to destroy all (300pts) of the health on the entire mech. Total time would be 24s or a bit less than twice as long. That's not considering the fact that the Cheetah will likely die significantly before losing every single hitpoint it has, that it will lose firepower as it takes damage, or that the SC can spread damage, but I will concede your point that it is theoretically possible.

Assuming perfect SSRM convergence it would take a single shot to destroy the CT of an Arctic Cheetah, two shots to destroy both STs, and two shots to destroy both legs so the range is in theory 1-5 alphas (0-24s) with the most likely being 3-4 shots to kill (12-18s). At 3 shots the SC wins, at 4 shots the Cheetah wins.

The SC has is a decently fast mech though and it's pretty hard to put the entire burn purely on the CT if the pilot is competent. The SC only needs to spread or negate 13 damage (out of 120) in order to survive an additional alpha bringing the time to 18.3s allowing all but the worst case 5 shot scenario. To win the Stormcrow vs Cheetah duel the Cheetah pilot would have to be significantly better than the SC pilot

Quote

What amazes me, though, is when I say that Streaks aren't as good as you say, ok, fine, we disagree. But almost every time I talk about this there's some jackwagon claiming I want lights nerfed or Streaks buffed, and I'm not making any such argument. I'm just giving my evaluation.

I don't think that I've implied you are making this argument, or that I have made an argument on either side of it either.

Quote

I think the best weapons for killing lights are Gauss, PPCs, and large bore ACs. Streaks are sandblasters, the only reason they work against is because there isn't much there to blast in the first place. That and a LOT of players have a hard time hitting lights with direct fire weapons (been playing this game for years and I still have issues with it, and probably always will, I don't have the reaction time I did when I was young), Streaks are a bit forgiving on that one by requiring you to do more aiming, but it doesn't need to be precise aiming. That and Streaks aren't as much affected by the occasional bouts of hitreg going down the crapper.

I agree completely on these points. Gauss/PPCs/big ACs are better weapons against lights, I'm certainly more afraid of them. These weapons all require a certain amount of skill to use though and a good light pilot can increase the chances of their enemy missing with them by using evasion.

The benefit of (most of) the light class is speed and evasion. Streaks negate this and effectively allow an inexperienced player to counter a much better pilot in a light mech. E.g a good light might kill a guass SC without taking more than a few points of damage, against a streakcrow the light would be lucky to survive the fight.

I think we probably agree on more points than we disagree, that why I'd like to hear what you consider a hard counter since I think that's the main point we disagree on.

Overall, streaks aren't a great weapon the only real complaint I have is that clan streaks have a range of almost 400m with the skill tree and I think that's a bit much given the optimal range of light mechs is usually under 200m, but I deal with it.

[MechaBattler]

I think leave it where it is. But buff direct LOS locks. Give them reduced spread. To reward people for putting themselves at risk and getting the lock themselves.

[Grus]

Joey Tankblaster, on 09 October 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Ok gents,

this is not a rant about LURMs in general but more a rant about LURM pilots. The whole buddy lock feature in MWO is really painful and nonsense from a game design perspective.

I just hate those LURM pilots who do not share their armour, intel and firepower with their team in a meaningful way.

We already have lock after direct sighting, TAG-laser, UAVs and NARC. This is enough. I really don't see the necessity to promote a playstyle which favours cowardeous hidding in the third row waiting for others to do the job (e.g. locking up targets).

Buddy lock destroys role warfare. Lights on a scouting mission just get cought by an enemy light, locked up and lurmed to death. It's senseless.

What is the point of this design? I am fine with a substantial buff for LURMs if buddy lock is removed.

Get rid of buddy lock ASAP.

My 2 cents

if this situation happens a lot for You, it's not the lrms fault. Bring ams, use cover, don't go off by your self... that easy.

Edited by Grus, 10 October 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Escef]

Xiphias, on 10 October 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Time for a Cheetah to kill a fresh SC at optimal range is 14s.

Not if you shoot him in the ***. 2 Alphas at optimal range is more than enough, and can be done with the Stormcrow only getting 1 shot. But we both know that's an optimal situation for the Cheetah, and actual in-game scenarios can do a lot to make that easy or difficult.

Xiphias, on 10 October 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

I don't think that I've implied you are making this argument, or that I have made an argument on either side of it either.

I don't think you have, either, but at least one person has in this thread. And I swear, it happens almost every time the subject comes up. I just don't get it.

Xiphias, on 10 October 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

I think we probably agree on more points than we disagree, that why I'd like to hear what you consider a hard counter since I think that's the main point we disagree on.

Overall, streaks aren't a great weapon the only real complaint I have is that clan streaks have a range of almost 400m with the skill tree and I think that's a bit much given the optimal range of light mechs is usually under 200m, but I deal with it.

Well, the range difference is an artifact from table top Battletech. I think Streaks are one of the few weapon systems where the clan range advantage doesn't mean as much (especially as the Inner Sphere versions don't take a recycle hit for up-sizing have a much faster recycle, a detail that surprised me when I noticed it).

As for a hard counter, perhaps I'm taking too much from another game. In my mind, a hard counter is:



Whereas I'd consider Streaks more akin to spamming this:

Edited by Escef, 10 October 2017 - 09:43 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

Depth of gameplay can also achieved other than removing indirect fire. Your proposal isn't the only option, and the disagreement of it doesn't mean that we just enjoy it being shallow or bad.

It can't be achieved any easier way. The problem with LRMs is that they are trying to fulfill 2 separate roles, artillery and direct fire. So long as they are trying to pull double duty, they will always be lackluster in one or OP in the other. If you want indirect fire, I propose trying to get PGI to add artillery pieces that already exist so that LRMs can be re purposed and be useful for something other than spud farming outside of Polar.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

You can also still use the LRMs not by Indirect fire or buddy lock right now at comp. And while i get that you want to lose the indirect fire for it to be open to buffs, the thing is that it could still work with indirect fire.

As I said above, no, it can't. It makes more sense to separate the functionality so you can dedicate one way or the other and they can be balanced without directly affect performance of each other.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

Maybe you're saying that, there's still a lot of other options that would work. Losing a few isn't the end of the world. Sure okay. But the thing is that, I, and a few others don't want to.

Correct, I want to remove a small option for the temporary to hopefully gain one in the very limited meta. Not that I want artillery weapons to be removed from the game, but again that dual purpose of LRMs has doomed them. I don't care whether they were able to in TT or not, let's leave artillery to actual artillery weapons that already exist in lore (hell you could even re-purpose mortars if PGI is resistant to adjusting crits of artillery).

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

On the idea that many people just couldn't do it right, you want to prevent the people who could do so well.

Yes, because it is a strategy that has a low skill floor and low skill ceiling.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

But it's not like they couldn't coordinate team-work using indirect locks. It's not that we need certain mechanics, but it would be nice to have one -- and it's part of the BT game which people expect MWO to have.

Just because it is expected doesn't mean it is good.....this is a different game than TT and people need to get over themselves and accept that. IT WILL NEVER live up to this dream people have of how Mechwarrior should be especially given that this is a PvP game.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

And i never said that. BUT MWO is a team-game, and team-play would still be a significant factor in matches, should it actually happen.

Teamwork is important regardless of LRMs being capable of indirect fire, that is a non-sequitur.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

Only if you think Indirect fire support is a problem, which many of us don't really.

I don't think it is a problem, I think the current implementation of it is a problem. Again, low skill floor and low skill ceiling.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

That's still far from covers and AMS being magically inadequate just because potatoes aren't using them correctly, or not using them at all.

Do mechs automatically come with AMS? Nor should it be required for all new players, that's indicative of a balance problem when something is required.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

If the cover is the problem, how would making LRM users get their own locks make Covers less of a Problem?

So here is the issue. You know everyone complains about focus fire in this game? You know how LRM mechs tend to all target the first mech they get locks on? Notice the commonality here? That's the problem, in low end game it actually causes focus fire that most would otherwise not be capable of, especially since it can be done without exposure. Making all LRM users get their own locks makes that focus fire less of a thing since they can't be pre-targeting or anything like that. I almost guarantee you would see less focus on a target in the open. This is that exponential problem I was talking about earlier about lower tiers.

That's essentially what it boils down, help removing the focus fire "crutch" (I couldn't think of a better term for it) that indirect fire provides.

The6thMessenger, on 09 October 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

Sure okay, increase of risk to the side of the LRM would make it open for more buffs. But guess what, the terribads will still be terribads, they would still be killed because they can't use cover correctly. We can only do so much to cover for their inadequacy. What's next, are you going to want to remove the LRM homing system too cause terribads are ******? Because homing missiles are a crutch to effective aiming?

This is a slippery slope sort of argument, it is fallacious because it doesn't understand the context of the problem with LRMs.

Escef, on 10 October 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

As for a hard counter, perhaps I'm taking too much from another game. In my mind, a hard counter is:

Streaks are a hard counter to lights just like Remove Soul is a hard counter to creature cards.

[Humpday]

oOOOoo Drop into T5-4 with a light and spot for people. Its hilarious...and T5-4 folks don't know whats going on when they are getting lurmed, mean while, I'm just sitting there behind the lines in the trial Jenner spotting and chuckling.

T5-T4, like, man...the LRM spam is crazy in those tiers.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

What's the problem with the idea? What negatives come of requiring TAG/NARC for missile locks?

Effectively making all LRM boats get a -1E/-1M hardpoint penalty, plus tonnage.

Oh, and it hoses ATMs as well.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

There is only 1 reason why you LRM players suffer. The same reason why WOT arty players,,,, The only time when lrm players share armor is when a light finds a way to you or when most of your team is already dead (where your 100% percent armor is not usefull anymore).

Meanwhile, the intelligent LRM user is deriding the same people for firing past accurate range, maximizing spread constantly, and not actually, you know, dealing damage at shot-trading ranges where you get shot at and use your armor. Oh, and actually being in the group so you don't flail around uselessly while becoming target practice for lights.

Just because you can shoot things at 900+ meters with your guns doesn't mean you should, or that it's ever even remotely effective. Or even likely to hit. I like killing them myself, preferably with a running commentary on the proper use of missile launchers.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 10 October 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

Effectively making all LRM boats get a -1E/-1M hardpoint penalty, plus tonnage.

Oh, and it hoses ATMs as well.

Let me clarify - what's the problem with requiring LRMs using indirect fire to require a TAG or NARC?

Missiles would still fire in a direct fire context with their own lock. Like if you had a target you had locked with line of sight you would still be able to shoot your missiles. However to shoot LRMs with indirect fire you would need them painted with TAG or NARC.

This still lets scouts scout and teams play with teamwork but requires LRMs to, well, get their own lock or have another mech who's dedicated tonnage to supporting indirect fire do so.

In that context I'd be all for some buffs for LRMs. Even better would just be having LRMs work a lot like ATMs, just with an even higher (flat) trajectory and remove the indirect fire aspect all together. This makes them like LRMs but faster (which equates to accuracy) lighter and cooler running. Both would still have a space.

On Artillery -

LRMs are not like artillery. Artillery is extremely destructive, more so than regular man or vehicle carried weapons in terms of area destruction. LRMs are nothing like that.

LRMs do *less* damage than comparable tonnages of direct fire in actual applied, useful damage. Shooting someone with a PPC is more useful than shooting AT someone with an LRM 10. You'll land all 10 damage, it'll all arrive in a fraction of a second and all apply to one location.

LRMs are nothing like artillery. They're just bad direct fire weapons you can shoot while hiding. That's the fundamental issue with them.

[Lykaon]

Leggin Ho, on 09 October 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

LRM boats outside of teams that use them just promote bad game play in anything other that single QP (even then they don't do much for their side). With the shared lock being allowed you actually reduce the roles of scouts that in lore or even other versions of MW would have been running TAG or Narc's and when you face a team that is set up LRM's and proper scouts they can do a lot of damage, but the OP I think has more of a problem with them being used to promote bad teamwork in QP games by allowing folks to just sit and hide while the rest of their team get's beat on till the LRM boat is last to die, even if they did damage, it's usually spread all over to the point that it did not help the team at all.

This "sit and hide" routine is getting tired and old. Let's just stop the lies and face the truth.

EVERYBODY HIDES!

Laser boats...hide poke hide poke hide poke

Gauss/PPC...hide poke hide poke hide poke

Brawlers...hide because nobody else will advance and they get annihilated as the ONLY mechs to advance

LRM boats...hide wait for a friendly "buddy lock" but...the rest of the team is playing hide...poke...hide...poke so no useful locks happen anyway.

This is the reality of actual solo quickplay.

Every match goes down thusly...

Advance as fast as you can (screw those assault mechs) to the point of contact (you know the same grid you always run to on that particular map) see a badguy and ....you guessed it HIDE!

All this B.S. about armor sharing. It's not like any non-LRM user is doing it deliberatley.Nearly nobody says in the VOIP hey you guys up front should fall back to second line I will "SHARE MY ARMOR" for you now.

That is a myth. it's just an insidental side effect of being next in view after your team mate has run to hide.

Nobody wants to share anything in solo quickplay what "THEY" want is for "YOU" to be the one "SHARING ARMOR" so "THEY" can play hidey pokie.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 10 October 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

LRMs are nothing like artillery.

When I mention artillery, I'm using it to define weapons that deal damage through indirect fire typically at longer ranges of which there is really only one weapon capable of this currently (which reminds me, why is the closest thing to a grenade launcher in BT an artillery cannon )

MischiefSC, on 10 October 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

LRMs do *less* damage than comparable tonnages of direct fire in actual applied, useful damage. Shooting someone with a PPC is more useful than shooting AT someone with an LRM 10. You'll land all 10 damage, it'll all arrive in a fraction of a second and all apply to one location.

Except you are making a bad comparison, the problem isn't the application of damage it is how it gets there. The application of damage doesn't matter if you can do it at a high enough volume (look at UAC10s). Take the LBX20, give it the same stats as an LRM20 (though adjust the spread values because spread for ballistics works differently than it does missiles) and see how many people spam the ever-living crap out of them because of how much damage it can pump out.

They are a lot like MRMs when it comes to damage,

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 October 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 October 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

When I mention artillery, I'm using it to define weapons that deal damage through indirect fire typically at longer ranges of which there is really only one weapon capable of this currently (which reminds me, why is the closest thing to a grenade launcher in BT an artillery cannon )

I get what you mean, but there's a tendency for people to talk about LRMs like being artillery and what a great benefit that is, because all armies want artillery... right?

Except they're more like some jackwagon hiding in a trench, shooting his gun into the air and hoping the bullets will fall on enemies while you're out bayoneting {Godwin's Law} like all good soldiers should.

Look at the post above yours and what they think 'sharing armor' is and how it works. Bad ideas and bad explanations from people who play badly are common enough. At this point anyone with more than 1,000 matches should, absolutely, understand how the game plays, what works and what doesn't and why. Anyone who doesn't understand, who doesn't get what works and why has a vested interest in NOT understanding. They have something stupid they do and they work really hard to justify why doing this stupid thing isn't stupid.

They're really invested in making their bad choices and justifying why their bad choice fails more than good choices do and how it isn't their fault.

The really sad thing is that the great majority of people. What works best is what works best. That's not subjective. It's objective, and there's nothing someone clinging to bad ideas hates like objective reality.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 10 October 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

I get what you mean, but there's a tendency for people to talk about LRMs like being artillery and what a great benefit that is, because all armies want artillery... right?

Except they're more like some jackwagon hiding in a trench, shooting his gun into the air and hoping the bullets will fall on enemies while you're out bayoneting {Godwin's Law} like all good soldiers should.

Which is why good artillery units in TT are all low armor mechs you can hide somewhere and all vomit a lot of damage. They are the definitive glass cannons (heavy LRM carrier, I'm looking at you).

That said, artillery was really interesting in a particular MW4 mod. NARCs had 1000m range (so you could be just inside visual range to use them) and Arrows had 2500m range so you could take 6 jumping Timber Wolves loaded with 2 Arrows running 81kph while you had 2 NARC mechs "spotting" targets and letting lose waves of arrows upon any poor NARC'd mech. It was useful in NBT when you could face super heavy tonnage drops but really hard to pull off which is what I think indirect fire should be like in this game.

Essentially they were a super version of skirmishers at that point rather than the typical entrenched artillery.

Then you had Thumper artillery which were like Long Toms except they shot 10 "mini"-shells that a bit more splash range. They didn't do much damage but the constant barrage if the arty mech was able to line up shots was a great mind-game weapon to stop camping, in other words it served its purpose (and no spotter really needed, just basic scouting information).

Whereas Long Tom was useful for pushes because it could do massive damage against teams that were huddled and setup to receive a push (and could be used like a grenade launcher in a brawl which was funny if not really practical).

Man I miss that mod, so many neat things.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 October 2017 - 12:52 PM.