216 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimately we need to ask what we think the goal of indirect fire should be because the fact it can do damage without any exposure automatically puts it at odds with mixing in a typical drop deck so what is the role of it. To me it should be like in MW4 where you could either go all in and use an artillery only drop dec essentially that uses mobility and the range of artillery to basically avoid the enemy while lights "spot for the artillery. Or it is used against a static enemy in a strong defensive position as a tool to force them into a bad position and thus allowing you to either push them, take their positions from them, or begin trading from you original positions because they no longer have certain problematic angles.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 October 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

That is the only purpose of scouting, or at the very least the MOST IMPORTANT part of it.


In lower level play sure, then again, even LRM boats should be getting their own locks. You think Jman hid in the back of the pack with his LRMback relying on lights to get locks? Get real, he was often leading the pack. Sorry, but the main advantage of scouting has ALWAYS been positional related which is why "scouts" suffer in PUG queue because very few know what to do with that information (group queue is actually more consistent with movements to the same areas than solo queue). Sharing locks for LRMs is the reason LRMs are in the position they are (jokes on a majority of maps when players aren't spuds) and shouldn't be the reason "scouts" exist.

FYI, not everyone is here for so-called “high level play”. As such, can we now dispense with the extremely elitist attitude? ... Good!

Now, with that out of the way, here are some proposals:

1. Make ECM once again disable IFF (i.e. red and blue Doritos) and restore/increase the bubble
2. No lock means zero weapons convergence
3. Make all maps at least 16X their current size

These are just for starters!

Edited by Mystere, 11 October 2017 - 09:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 11 October 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

FYI, not everyone is here for so-called “high level play”. As such, can we now dispense within extremely elitist attitude? ... Good!

because only "high-level" players can be elitist

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2017 - 09:02 AM.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

because only "high-level" players can be elitist

I implied no such thing, AND neither does it detract from the message of my post.

Or did the knife cut deep?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 11 October 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

I implied no such thing

It is implied throughout this forum where the belief is that hardcore players are the only ones who are ever "elitist"

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Ultimately we need to ask what we think the goal of indirect fire should be because the fact it can do damage without any exposure automatically puts it at odds with mixing in a typical drop deck so what is the role of it. To me it should be like in MW4 where you could either go all in and use an artillery only drop dec essentially that uses mobility and the range of artillery to basically avoid the enemy while lights "spot for the artillery. Or it is used against a static enemy in a strong defensive position as a tool to force them into a bad position and thus allowing you to either push them, take their positions from them, or begin trading from you original positions because they no longer have certain problematic angles.

Why does indirect fire have to be an “all or nothing” black or white proposition?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

It is implied throughout this forum where the belief is that hardcore players are the only ones who are ever "elitist"

I think you meant stat-whoring “comp” players.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 11 October 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

does it detract from the message of my post.

On the topic of your message:
1. We had this once, it didn't create good gameplay and consider we actually have penalties for friendly fire, could create some stupid scenarios. All in all, a bad idea, especially if we are keeping this effect passive and you have to hard counter it with BAP or ECCM.
2. We've been over this before, it exacerbates the power gap between mechs with clustered hardpoints and those without and also doesn't make much sense given many weapons have ranges that reach outside of sensor ranges without dedicating a stupid amount of tonnage/skills to it.
3. Polar is what I would consider perfect size, I would say no map should really be bigger than it (very few MW4 maps were bigger) simply because getting to an engagement would take way too long. So 16x is probably way too much.

Mystere, on 11 October 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

Why does indirect fire have to be an “all or nothing” black or white proposition?

Because it's advantage is doing damage without exposure which means you are liability to the rest of the team if they aren't indirect fire capable. You aren't sharing armor or exposing with them and if you are, you are paying some level of inefficiency if you are exposing because indirect fire has to be penalized for that capability. So you either have to be fairly useful before the engagement to force the enemy into a better position for you to approach or engage or your team has to be all indirect so that you are all avoiding direct engagement together (so if you do get caught you are at least sharing armor).

Mystere, on 11 October 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think you meant stat-whoring “comp” players.

Yes, because all of us stat-*****

Edit: So apparently the verb is acceptable but the noun isn't.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 October 2017 - 11:06 AM.

[Beaching Betty]

Oh k...

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

It is when it doesn't match the skill floor.

The skill floor is "everybody mounts AMS", that is, zero-skill-required automatic missile defense. Most T5 players are actually below even that.

I've seen what happens in a lurms vs AMS cluster situation. It's an almost comedic reduction in damage. If Trials made AMS mandatory, you'd probably see the same T5's complaining "LRMS OP!" going "LRMS WEAK!" because there'd be so much flak going up in Newbie Town, it'd look like Baghdad during the Gulf War.

Come to think, it's surprising that newbie robots don't get the most newbie defensive systems.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Brain Cancer, on 11 October 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

I've seen what happens in a lurms vs AMS cluster situation. It's an almost comedic reduction in damage. If Trials made AMS mandatory, you'd probably see the same T5's complaining "LRMS OP!" going "LRMS WEAK!" because there'd be so much flak going up in Newbie Town, it'd look like Baghdad during the Gulf War.

Which reminds me AMS really needs a rework too.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 11 October 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

Sharing armor means distributing enemy fire. It can be physically getting shot or it can mean being a fast light at range drawing missed shots or it can mean trading with an enemy that you're winning, resulting in most their shots being wasted on your cover.

The point is to ensure the enemy has multi targets drawing their attention so they don't focus down one person. Bads don't get this and bads are usually unwilling to learn to not be bad, so it's usually a waste to try. Because most have the same mentality about the game you do and so they lose a lot and blame everyone else and develop bad habits.

If you're not actively a visible threat, even if the enemy isn't shoot at you that second they're watching your cover, you're less useful to the team. That's all during armor. You should constantly be pushing up to get a good firing position, someone who's damaged pulls back a bit so the rotation happens naturally. I see it in pug games all the time from the good players while the bads are always in the back or hiding.

It's why some people win a lot more consistently than others.

I get the concept of presenting multiple targets to defuse damage across multiple sources of armor. Conceptually it works as so...

No one mech gets all the damage but several mechs get some of the damage.

Yep this is a solid and basic tactic.

But here is the thing here. your team still takes all of the damage and has not really reduced any of the potential attrition on the team's global armor resource. Sure no single mech was lost but several were weakened.

But, it's better than losing the one mech.

Now this particular concept of what I will call "passive armor sharing" is it is entirely dependent on your enemy not focusing their fire effectively. So this passive armor sharing is reliant on the enemy being to some degree poorly organized.

The very moment you run across a well ordered fire line that does focus fire the relevents of how many individual armor sources present to potentially take hits is meaningless because only one target will be fired upon.

So Passive Armor Sharing is basically an incidental side effect of general game play and not some sort of codified law of engagment.

To circumvent the passive armor sharing all a team needs to do is focus fire. very simple.

So an actual tactic is "Active Armor Sharing" where there is a deliberate plan to how mechs enter combat and how they manuver to reduce exposure and allow a second line of fresh mechs to engage as vanguard. This will confound focus fire because the less damaged mechs are literally manuvered in front of the damaged mechs (that are now cooling to later rotate forward again with fresh heat scales)

Now let's stop kidding ourselves. Passive armor sharing is about the best you can ever hope for in quick play. Active armor sharing is limited to coordinated teams and small well ordered groups.

So I guess my point I tried to make very clear was there is no singular way to preserve team armor resources and contributions are made for that preservation in several ways.

Claiming an LRM carrier does nothing when sitting in the rear is absolute B.S. unless they are literally doing nothing.

Indirect fire upon engaged targets increases the volume of damage sustained to the target and as a direct result reduces that targets time to deploy it's own damage. A dead mech does NO DAMAGE.

So the LRM boat by assisting in a quicker kill has preserved armor and not just defused damage they have actually prevented the damage from occuring at all.

Now to be absolutely clear here is my stance on LRMs and their use.

Quickplay is about it. Avoid using LRMs when well organized enemy teams are likely.

No assault mechs as LRM boats except for maybe a Supernova A or an Awesome 8R

LRM support platforms need mobility and should be fighting in close proximity to the team.

Use intelligent target selection and don't just lob ammo at anything you see. Pick meaningful targets that advance your team's chances of winning.

When I do opt to use an LRM mech it's my Cougar because 35 tons dedicated to a support role isn't like taking an assault or heavy mech off the front.


Now as to the assumption that I am a bad lurmer or don't grasp the "complexities of armor sharing" lol...

I primarily gravitate toward heavy brawling mechs. my overall ranking in heavy weight class is generally in the 700s with a 2:1 KDR and win/loss (or there abouts)

Not mechwarrior ace status but I don't suck either and I am kinda nice to have around if you want to get an aggressive match in because I love the chaos of a good close quarters fight.

I also play near exclusivley in solo quickplay wit hone night a week where I play in small groups of 4 or less in group quick play.

I do not have a large well ordered premade inflating my personal stats. I am working within the limitations of pugglandia.

So I am one of those guys "sharing armor" and presenting a threat because I want to get in the enemy's face ASAP and mow them down.

Now to me there is little difference between the effective "armor sharing" potential between a hidey-pokey laser vomit mech and a turtled LRM boat.

Neither is a better target than I am. They will not be shot at if I am in combat because who the heck looks past the mech wrecking them to see if they have a miniscule chance to hit the poker?

But...if those guys on my team dealt damage to my target before I get in the combat or lob LRMs onto them while I am in combat I kill that target faster and because of that my armor is preserved.

it has little to do with presented targets unless my opponent is a moron. It's all about how wrecked the target is when I engage them and/or how much firepower my team mates are lending to the fight.

Edited by Lykaon, 11 October 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

it can do damage without any exposure

A missile boat that solely hides behind hills generally not only fails to take hits for the team, he helps insure they die faster than they should, gimping them in the process (speaking of focus fire, a hiding lurmtater actually is assisting the other team to focus instead.).

You're trading increased damage for everyone else- and beyond what you save for yourself- plus minimizing your own damage by staying full IDF, zero exposure.

If the only way you can continue to DPS is IDF mode, good and well- but it's the weakest damage mode for a LRM carrier. Ideal is around 300m-500m with secondaries firing, direct LOS (but feel free to use cover like any poker does), and at least Artemis. It's more a way to keep the missiles raining than a "I want to hide all game" option for a competent player.

The worst thing a missile boat can do is not be firing. That's why LRMs are IDF-capable, but bads use it as an excuse to hide while "helping".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Now this particular concept of what I will call "passive armor sharing" is it is entirely dependent on your enemy not focusing their fire effectively. So this passive armor sharing is reliant on the enemy being to some degree poorly organized.

Not necessarily poorly organized, if you are poking properly (which very few do even in comp), you are presenting yourselves at the same time (synchronized poking essentially) this tends to work well at defeating that easy to single out because what you see first is going to be the target you are inclined to aim for, but who you see first may be different if your team is spaced out and taking different angles.

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

So an actual tactic is "Active Armor Sharing" where there is a deliberate plan to how mechs enter combat and how they manuver to reduce exposure and allow a second line of fresh mechs to engage as vanguard. This will confound focus fire because the less damaged mechs are literally manuvered in front of the damaged mechs (that are now cooling to later rotate forward again with fresh heat scales)

This is only useful in pushes where because of differences in speed cause this to happen naturally especially where you can rotate in a push. In trading engagements, there really isn't a way to rotate and even then you allow the same pressure that was applied to you to be applied to your fresh group.

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Indirect fire upon engaged targets increases the volume of damage sustained to the target and as a direct result reduces that targets time to deploy it's own damage. A dead mech does NO DAMAGE.

This is true but indirect fire is typically nerfed in the volume of damage it can do compared to direct fire. The only real power of indirect is that it can change firing solutions without necessarily changing positions (supporting against targets of opportunity) but that issue is solved by appropriate firing lines that are able to support each other regardless of the angle of approach by an enemy.

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

No assault mechs as LRM boats except for maybe a Supernova A or an Awesome 8R

LRM support platforms need mobility and should be fighting in close proximity to the team.

Use intelligent target selection and don't just lob ammo at anything you see. Pick meaningful targets that advance your team's chances of winning.

These are all fair assessments, as they all essentially fit how Jman used his old HBK-4J(man) back when it had awesome quirks. It was mobile, played with the team, could reliably get its own locks due to head TAG. The only thing it lacked was JJs and being IS had a deadzone (which I still want gone on all weapon because it is a stupid mechanic).

[MischiefSC]

Well, you rotate in trading by skipping a cycle or changing position in pug/group/fw. Stop trading with the same guy/guys. Move or let them shift targets. I do that when I'm almost dead, want to stay doing damage as long as possible. Conversely when I'm still fresh and I've got a teammate who's pretty chewed I'll move up and pick a fight with whoever is worrying on him.

Which is why I'm just shy of a 2.0 win/loss in QP only playing IS MAD 5D, 3Rs this month while only being an average player. Oh, and 3 matches in a K9, to teach some people to respect the law.

Even a mediocre player in mediocre mechs can win 2 out of 3 matches in QP by playing to the team and some pug wrangling.

[Lykaon]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 October 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

Not necessarily poorly organized, if you are poking properly (which very few do even in comp), you are presenting yourselves at the same time (synchronized poking essentially) this tends to work well at defeating that easy to single out because what you see first is going to be the target you are inclined to aim for, but who you see first may be different if your team is spaced out and taking different angles.


This is only useful in pushes where because of differences in speed cause this to happen naturally especially where you can rotate in a push. In trading engagements, there really isn't a way to rotate and even then you allow the same pressure that was applied to you to be applied to your fresh group.


This is true but indirect fire is typically nerfed in the volume of damage it can do compared to direct fire. The only real power of indirect is that it can change firing solutions without necessarily changing positions (supporting against targets of opportunity) but that issue is solved by appropriate firing lines that are able to support each other regardless of the angle of approach by an enemy.


These are all fair assessments, as they all essentially fit how Jman used his old HBK-4J(man) back when it had awesome quirks. It was mobile, played with the team, could reliably get its own locks due to head TAG. The only thing it lacked was JJs and being IS had a deadzone (which I still want gone on all weapon because it is a stupid mechanic).

Again...your expectations exceed the likely events of quick play matches.

How would you expect a team of pokers to sychronize their poking? you can't even get them to leave the deployment zone at the same time.

Seriously how? herding cats into icewater is easier than getting puggies to co-ordinate their socks never mind complex manuvers.


There is a manuver technique that takes into account mech speeds it's frequently called a "wheel" or "hub and spoke" manuver. (goes waaay back to coordinating cavalry/chariots and infantry ellements)

Your slowest mechs are your hub and the spoke is composed of the other mechs with the slowest inwards and exstending outward. So the whole formation has it's slowest mechs on one end of a line (hub) and the fastest on the opposite (exstending spoke)

I could write a several paragraph long post detailing how this formation works but... trust me it does.

But...again this ain't gonna happen in quick play so yeah... My point still stands that "passive armor sharing" is the most you can expect in pugglandia.


I agree that LRM indirect fire is not the "best" damage but in puglandia work with what you have and not lament what you lack... I will more frequently have an LRM boat on my team than a gauss sniper ace.

If all I have is indirect fire missile spam than I will take it over nothing.

[H I A S]

Lykaon, on 11 October 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

I will more frequently have an LRM boat on my team than a gauss sniper ace.

The Gauss Ace puts out dmg and in the meantime the Lurms are hitting the environment.

I love Lurmers at the enemy team. It's dmg free trading over 90% of the time.

Edited by H I A S, 11 October 2017 - 01:55 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

H I A S, on 11 October 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

The Gauss Ace puts out dmg and in the meantime the Lurms are hitting the environment.

I love Lurmers at the enemy team. It's dmg free trading over 90% of the time.

Agreed, at least ATMs when played well can be scary as heck at that perfect range (and vs a target fast enough to maintain that range). LRMs are only "scary" in certain conditions, namely getting picked on by multiple targets without support, which with almost any weapon combination is mostly death anyway.

[Ngamok]

[MischiefSC]

Shifty McSwift, on 11 October 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Agreed, at least ATMs when played well can be scary as heck at that perfect range (and vs a target fast enough to maintain that range). LRMs are only "scary" in certain conditions, namely getting picked on by multiple targets without support, which with almost any weapon combination is mostly death anyway.

I'm always happy to see LRMs on the other team because I know if I ignore him for last he will hide and spew mostly worthless damage and end the match thinking he did well when in fact he dies last because he's the least threat and in so doing contributes to his teams loss.

ATMs? I kill those fast. A good ATM loadout will rip you in half with one volley in the sweet spot for range. They have the potential to be seriously dangerous, LRMs really don't.

[Lykaon]

H I A S, on 11 October 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

The Gauss Ace puts out dmg and in the meantime the Lurms are hitting the environment.

I love Lurmers at the enemy team. It's dmg free trading over 90% of the time.

Um...yeah missed the boat on that one you did.

The Gauss sniper IS my prefered team mate but...reading comprehenion for the win here gang.

There are more Lurmers than gauss snipers so in quickplay you will be more likely to get the lurmer than the gauss sniper.

My point is rather than wish for what you don't have work with what you do have.