Jump to content

I Love The Folks Who Complain Streaks Don't Take Skill....


140 replies to this topic

#101 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:06 PM

View PostESC 907, on 07 November 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

My issue is that people are decrying Streaks as skill-less, when it requires skill when facing skill. If a light is ******** enough to try to run 200m. or more in the open when there's a streak-boat, that requires no skill. Alpha & erased. But if a light singles out the streak-boat, starts running circles around them to prevent a solid lock or otherwise avoids extended exposure to prevent locks? Requires skill. It's really not the cheese weapon that so many are making it out to be, it has definite drawbacks.

And SURE, if a streak-boat has to brawl a splatter, it's hardly a contest. But that's not why one would boat streaks. You shouldn't bring a knife to a gun-fight.

You're basically saying that streak mechs have to turn to maintain locks when a light gets close and that that means skill is required. That's bottom of the barrel level of skill required.

The amount of skill required to hold a lock on a light mech is significantly less than the amount of skill required to break a lock as a light mech. Once you established a lock (~1s) it's extremely easy to hold that lock. You basically have to aim at your target once (with a generous aim) and after than you can just broadly wave your cross-hairs around. The difference between losing a lock and missing a shot is that when you shoot you use heat, missing a lock costs no heat. A good light might be able to run up the heat on a laser boat through evasion, it's significantly harder to do that with streaks (only way is to run the missiles into cover)

Even with ideal conditions for the light mech it requires tight timing and movement to prevent/break locks. You have to know the cooldown on streaks, guess the lock on time, and out maneuver the other mech. On the streak side you need to get the reticle close to the mech for ~1s and then you have a 45 degree arc that you can swing around in without losing lock. You only need to occasionally brush over the light mech to keep the lock forever. Additionally, things like teammates or UAVs can allow you to maintain the lock indefinitely while the light is behind cover. All it takes for the light to lose is to make one or two mistakes. The streak mech is going to have to repeatedly make mistakes to lose the fight.

The skill needed to use streaks is pretty much the bare minimum that you can have. Even in worst case scenarios. It's absolutely a cheese weapon because it is highly effective against light mechs while requiring little skill to use effectively and at the same time being near useless against the heavier weight classes. It allows a player will little skill to match a player with significantly more skill simply through how the mechanic works.

#102 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:28 PM

Quote

The skill needed to use streaks is pretty much the bare minimum that you can have. Even in worst case scenarios. It's absolutely a cheese weapon because it is highly effective against light mechs while requiring little skill to use effectively and at the same time being near useless against the heavier weight classes. It allows a player will little skill to match a player with significantly more skill simply through how the mechanic works.


Welcome to how most missile boaters feel about ECM.

"The skill needed to use ECM is pretty much the bare minimum that you can have. Even in worst case scenarios. It's absolutely a cheese weapon because it is highly effective against missile-carrying mechs while requiring little skill to use effectively and at the same time being near useless against the other weapon classes. It allows a player will little skill to match a player with significantly more skill simply through how the mechanic works.
"

Edited by Brain Cancer, 07 November 2017 - 03:32 PM.


#103 ESC 907

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 214 posts
  • Location'Murica

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:50 PM

View PostXiphias, on 07 November 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

On the streak side you need to get the reticle close to the mech for ~1s and then you have a 45 degree arc that you can swing around in without losing lock. You only need to occasionally brush over the light mech to keep the lock forever.

You must have missed that whole patch where they nerfed the ever-loving hell outta the locks of ATMs and Streaks... 45 degrees?!

#104 Pariah Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clan Cat
  • The Clan Cat
  • 7,655 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAboard the NCS True Path

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:57 PM

View PostESC 907, on 07 November 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

You must have missed that whole patch where they nerfed the ever-loving hell outta the locks of ATMs and Streaks... 45 degrees?!


The video that was posted up was uploaded post patch. Now, how long he was holding onto the video to upload, I cannot say. However, if it wasn't held onto for mysterious reasons in advance, then even with that nerf, it's still stupidly easy.

#105 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:


Welcome to how most missile boaters feel about ECM.

"The skill needed to use ECM is pretty much the bare minimum that you can have. Even in worst case scenarios. It's absolutely a cheese weapon because it is highly effective against missile-carrying mechs while requiring little skill to use effectively and at the same time being near useless against the other weapon classes. It allows a player will little skill to match a player with significantly more skill simply through how the mechanic works.
"

ECM doesn't require skill to use other than being smart enough not to give yourself away when sneaking up on other players or the rare case when flipping it from disrupt to jamming comes into play. Similarly, AMS doesn't require skill to use.

All the lock on missiles in this game are low skill weapons, they are easy to use with a minimum amount of time invested and they peak in terms of effectiveness level at a relatively low skill ceiling.

There are a couple of factors that distinguish ECM from SSRMs and other lock-on missiles. Most importantly is that ECM is not an offensive weapon. You can't kill other players with ECM it is only a countermeasure. It doesn't shut down an entire class of mech, but only weakens a couple of weapon systems. Similarly, you could say that Gauss is a hard counter to flamers.

Missile boaters are making a choice when building a mech to equip those weapons. They have advantages (e.g. lock-on) and disadvantages (e.g. they require a lock). You can deal with these limitations through additional equipment/techniques. For example you can take bap with streaks to completely negate ECM. You can take tag with LRMs to punch through ECM. You can use PPCs or UAVs to counter ECM. You can dumbfire LRMs. If you can't lock your target with streaks you can lock a different target and maneuver such that the enemy (or friendly) you cannot lock is between you and the locked target to get a hit (this is one of the few situations where I'd say streaks require a decent amount of skill.)

Light mechs don't really have a lot of options to counter streaks, mostly just distance and cover the same with any other weapon.


View PostESC 907, on 07 November 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

You must have missed that whole patch where they nerfed the ever-loving hell outta the locks of ATMs and Streaks... 45 degrees?!

You are correct that they dropped the range from 45 degrees to 25 degrees. However, that is an angle to each side. In practice that means you have a firing arc of 50 degrees without losing lock. That's a huge window that requires very little skill to maintain. See my previous video (below) to see just how wide of an area you can keep locks in. That's not hard it's super easy. I made that video the same day it was uploaded after reading this thread so it's using current game values.

Spoiler

Even post patch the hold lock window is enormous.

Edit:
Quick note. With a FOV of 80 degrees a lock angle of 25 degrees to each side (50 degrees total) corresponds to 62.5% of the view-able area (aka the screen). Previously with 45 degrees to both sides you could literally hold the lock if the target was visible at all on the screen. Even if I'm understanding the notes wrong, 25 is still 31.3% of the view area which is basically a third of the screen. The nerf was long overdue and well warranted.

Edited by Xiphias, 07 November 2017 - 04:07 PM.


#106 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,260 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:21 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:


Get the same stats with missiles you get with your direct-fire-meta-of-the-month-mech. If you can't, clearly some level of gitgud is required to rise to that level.

Of course, both of those automatically spread damage to levels that would equate to a laserboat pilot with muscle spasms so there has to be some kind of skill being used to get there. It's not "put crosshair on pixel and make sure it stays there", but there's a distinct difference between a lurmtater and a competent missile user, and considering they have to play keepaway not to get mauled, a certain level of awareness is also required.

Juju's footfu was like watching a professional doing an impression of a rank amateur. I'd love to see his numbers actually using his hands instead.


Posting big damage isn't hard. And even if it was, a weapon being ineffective doesn't make it require a lot of skill.

#107 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,478 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:24 PM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 05 November 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

If taking a lot of time to kill an Assault with Streaks = skill, then Flamers are the most skillful weapon in the game.


Actually in the context of trying to kill a mech with only flamers before being killed yourself, they kind of are.

In any case requiring this or that skill in this or that amount isn't really an argument for making a weapon weaker or stronger, all weapons should be competitively viable whether they are skill intensive or not.

Edited by Sjorpha, 07 November 2017 - 04:26 PM.


#108 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:58 PM

Quote

Posting big damage isn't hard. And even if it was, a weapon being ineffective doesn't make it require a lot of skill.


Is it not harder to kill someone with a weapon that forces you to spread damage per hit before they kill you with laservomit?

Forget even damage. Spread weapons automatically "lose" damage thanks to it either auto-missing or scattering to non-critical sections.

If I pump my Hellbringer HLLs+ERMLs into a missile boat straight up, the missile boat will almost inevitably be slagged, because it takes me fewer of the usual salvos to cripple or kill him versus his spread damage. I put 50+ damage into his torso. He's got to keep facetime no matter what, because lock-on weapon. He fires 50-60 or so damage back, some of it automatically misses because spread. Some more hits arms or legs, because spread. He won't even get most of the damage into one location. Because auto-spread. To match him, I'd have to randomly trace my crosshairs over the target, and for real accuracy, off it occasionally during a shot.

If it's Streaks, it's even worse. Not only is that damage spreading, but his rate of fire is pathetic by comparison.. If it's ATMs, I can hug him for zero damage. LRMs, near zero. He has to manage his distance, hit me as often as possible without me being able to respond, preferably from behind others, not-so-much from behind cover because then the spread is even worse and takes inefficiency to a whole new level.

And yet, if he manages to master the Art Of Not Being Seen (mostly) and gets his own locks like a good boy, he might end up with 4-5 kills/KMDDs after bludgeoning targets to death with ATM/LRMs. With Streaks, that's probably a miracle unless he ganks the enemy lights all by his lonesome, or perhaps vultures a few lategame opponents. Big damage numbers, but it's because he's got to sacrifice potential damage on every shot and can barely direct what actually hits.

They're "low-skill" weapons to operate, but they're even lower-reward weapons for successful use. That's why no guided missiles exist in comp-ville. Streaks are useless against bigger targets, LRMs and ATMs have immense amounts of easy counters and cannot focus fire, AND are relatively inaccurate even with their spread damage.

The handicaps of these weapon systems greatly exceed any benefit from ease of use. That's the problem.

#109 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:22 PM

View PostSjorpha, on 07 November 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:


Actually in the context of trying to kill a mech with only flamers before being killed yourself, they kind of are.

In any case requiring this or that skill in this or that amount isn't really an argument for making a weapon weaker or stronger, all weapons should be competitively viable whether they are skill intensive or not.

Taking longer to kill something doesn't mean that it requires more skill to use that weapon. It takes the same amount of skill to shoot one volley of streaks as the next. The skill that you are referencing is the ability to stay alive longer. That skill is mostly independent of the weapon being used.

If I can kill a mech in 2 salvos instead of 5 by aiming then it was my skill that allowed me to be more effective. It doesn't take more skill to kill the target in 5 salvos. Skill is a measure of the amount of salvos that I am able to reduce.

Streaks can kill a light mech in 1 shot if they are lucky or they can take 5 shots if they are extremely unlucky. Regardless there is no skill involved on the part of the pilot shooting the missile to change the number of salvos. Each salvo is as easy as the last and no skill can be used to reduce the number needed to kill a mech, only RNG.

You are confusing piloting skill, with weapon skill.

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Is it not harder to kill someone with a weapon that forces you to spread damage per hit before they kill you with laservomit?

Forget even damage. Spread weapons automatically "lose" damage thanks to it either auto-missing or scattering to non-critical sections.


Being harder doesn't mean that something requires more skill. Is it harder to carry a cup of water 1 time or to carry 100 cups of water individually? Carrying more water is obviously harder, but it doesn't require any more skill than carrying 1 cup of water, just more time and effort. Difficulty can increase without skill increasing. If you can carry 100 cups of water in a single trip that would be an example of increased difficulty and skill because it takes more skill to carry 100 cups of water than it does to carry 1.

Quote

If I pump my Hellbringer HLLs+ERMLs into a missile boat straight up, the missile boat will almost inevitably be slagged, because it takes me fewer of the usual salvos to cripple or kill him versus his spread damage. I put 50+ damage into his torso. He's got to keep facetime no matter what, because lock-on weapon. He fires 50-60 or so damage back, some of it automatically misses because spread. Some more hits arms or legs, because spread. He won't even get most of the damage into one location. Because auto-spread. To match him, I'd have to randomly trace my crosshairs over the target, and for real accuracy, off it occasionally during a shot.


You can spread damage with lock on weapons. Wait until they fire, acquire lock while they are in cooldown, fire alpha, twist while still holding lock. Sure, you are more limited in the angle you can twist through, but you don't have to stare straight ahead to hold the lock.

Quote

The handicaps of these weapon systems greatly exceed any benefit from ease of use. That's the problem.

At high skill level that's absolutely true, that's why they are generally seen as weak weapons. At low skill level it's reversed, that's why you see players complaining about LRMs being overpowered at lower levels. The problem is that they can't be made better because they require such a low skill floor to use. If you want the weapons to get buffed they need to be harder to use.

One exception to that is that streaks are almost universally worth the investment if a player is only going to be fighting light mechs. Sure you have the trade off that you are going to be terrible against assaults, but that's the choice you make when you pick a weapon that hard counters an entire class.

You've made the argument that lock on weapons are bad. The fact that they are bad doesn't mean they require more skill to use though.

#110 MECHWARRlOR

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 60 posts
  • LocationCorea(south)

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:32 PM

Streaks and guided missile is also part of this game and battletech.
they are not complaining only about missiles, tey are blame everything. mecs, weapons, teams, quirks bla bla...
only the suckers are blame the others and complaining about this things. remember. it's also part of this game and BATTLETECH.
and mostly, complaining user is light player with their super quirk addict.

we better worry about the hacks. hacks are really irritated

Edited by MECHWARRlOR, 07 November 2017 - 05:34 PM.


#111 Xiphias

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 862 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:41 PM

View PostSjorpha, on 07 November 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

In any case requiring this or that skill in this or that amount isn't really an argument for making a weapon weaker or stronger, all weapons should be competitively viable whether they are skill intensive or not.

Forgot to address this.

The skill a weapon takes to use should absolutely affect the argument for making it weaker or stronger.

Imagine we have two weapons. The PPC and the aim-bot PPC. The PPC works regularly as it currently does in game. The aim bot PPC has 100% accuracy and can be targeted to any component. It doesn't require a lock either.

Should these weapons have identical stats? Obviously not, if they did the aim-bot would be taken every time because it is clearly superior in that it doesn't require any skill.

Similarly, for a competitive game to to interesting there needs to be a sufficiently high requirement of skill to distinguish low skill players from high skill ones. If mechs piloted themselves and auto aimed it wouldn't matter if the player was Proton or a potato, you couldn't tell the difference. Similarly, at higher level play there isn't a whole lot of difference between a good player using streaks and a great player using streaks. Both players have hit the skill ceiling and are using the weapons at maximum effectiveness. For competitive play to be interesting you need weapons with a high skill ceiling.

If low skill weapons are as viable as high skill weapons that means low skill teams can compete with high skill teams. That doesn't make for good competition. The point of a competition is to determine which side has more skill. That's why target shooting puts the targets far away where they are hard to hit instead of 5 feet in front where practically anyone could hit dead center.

View PostMECHWARRlOR, on 07 November 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

Streaks and guided missile is also part of this game and battletech.
they are not complaining only about missiles, tey are blame everything. mecs, weapons, teams, quirks bla bla...
only the suckers are blame the others and complaining about this things. remember. it's also part of this game and BATTLETECH.
and mostly, complaining user is light player with their super quirk addict

Technically, in Battletech streaks don't have lock on, they just don't fire unless they are guaranteed a hit. The MWO mechanism for streaks is nothing like Battletech.

Light mechs are the least played class and are objectively the weakest. They are usually only taken over other classes in competitive MWO because they are required. Quirks or not, light mechs are still the weakest and very few of them have "super quirks".

It's in the game. I deal with it. It still doesn't require any significant amount of skill to use streaks. That's not a complaint, it's just a statement of fact.

#112 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,260 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 07 November 2017 - 06:42 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:


Is it not harder to kill someone with a weapon that forces you to spread damage per hit before they kill you with laservomit?

Forget even damage. Spread weapons automatically "lose" damage thanks to it either auto-missing or scattering to non-critical sections.

If I pump my Hellbringer HLLs+ERMLs into a missile boat straight up, the missile boat will almost inevitably be slagged, because it takes me fewer of the usual salvos to cripple or kill him versus his spread damage. I put 50+ damage into his torso. He's got to keep facetime no matter what, because lock-on weapon. He fires 50-60 or so damage back, some of it automatically misses because spread. Some more hits arms or legs, because spread. He won't even get most of the damage into one location. Because auto-spread. To match him, I'd have to randomly trace my crosshairs over the target, and for real accuracy, off it occasionally during a shot.

If it's Streaks, it's even worse. Not only is that damage spreading, but his rate of fire is pathetic by comparison.. If it's ATMs, I can hug him for zero damage. LRMs, near zero. He has to manage his distance, hit me as often as possible without me being able to respond, preferably from behind others, not-so-much from behind cover because then the spread is even worse and takes inefficiency to a whole new level.

And yet, if he manages to master the Art Of Not Being Seen (mostly) and gets his own locks like a good boy, he might end up with 4-5 kills/KMDDs after bludgeoning targets to death with ATM/LRMs. With Streaks, that's probably a miracle unless he ganks the enemy lights all by his lonesome, or perhaps vultures a few lategame opponents. Big damage numbers, but it's because he's got to sacrifice potential damage on every shot and can barely direct what actually hits.

They're "low-skill" weapons to operate, but they're even lower-reward weapons for successful use. That's why no guided missiles exist in comp-ville. Streaks are useless against bigger targets, LRMs and ATMs have immense amounts of easy counters and cannot focus fire, AND are relatively inaccurate even with their spread damage.

The handicaps of these weapon systems greatly exceed any benefit from ease of use. That's the problem.


You are still confusing being ineffective with requiring skill. If lasers would Auto aim and spread damage around an enemy mech, they would require less skill than current lasers, because you don't need to aim.

Let me put it to you this way, pit the best player in the game in a streak crow, and have him 1v1 your average Tier 2 player in the exact same build, and put them somewhere on flat terrain, best out of 10, who wins?

#113 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:02 PM

View PostXiphias, on 07 November 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Taking longer to kill something doesn't mean that it requires more skill to use that weapon. It takes the same amount of skill to shoot one volley of streaks as the next. The skill that you are referencing is the ability to stay alive longer. That skill is mostly independent of the weapon being used.


The process of aiming and firing a guided missile is simple. Streaks, arguably are the simplest guided missile to operate in the game. Get your own lock, shoot. 99% of the time, you'll hit (with freak misses due to intervening terrain or players. Coincidentally, these are impossible to direct beyond which side the missiles hit on and are the least focused damage in the game.

Then you get to ATMs and LRMs, which become an increasingly difficult prediction game with distance and terrain. Can you predict the precise point to launch at someone running through a street on River City so your missiles hit them at the intersection? How about just blasting them with a PPC?

Probably at 200 meters with the launchers. Maybe at 400. Nearly impossible at more. Being able to judge shots is so difficult in MWO, these launchers generally have a 35% or so accuracy rating for me, right there in the 30-40% accuracy range I get asking other missile users for their data.

By comparison, my lasers are about 70%. For easy to use weapons, these guided missiles sure aren't easy to hit with. Perhaps there's some kind of skill involved in using them, after all?

Quote

If I can kill a mech in 2 salvos instead of 5 by aiming then it was my skill that allowed me to be more effective. It doesn't take more skill to kill the target in 5 salvos. Skill is a measure of the amount of salvos that I am able to reduce.


Strangely enough, even missile boats can reduce the number of salvos needed to kill a target. The difference is, that's because they're getting better at reducing missing with a salvo completely. How many times have you seen dozens of missiles eat dirt instead of hitting a target? Someone failed to predict your track and wasted a salvo. That guy who chased you across an entire map square hosing you down with missiles because he found a good spot and herded you into making the mistake of going the wrong way for cover that wasn't working? Skills.

In a direct slugging match of course, that doesn't matter. But we all know direct fire >>> spread damage at that point. Even if it's LB-X vs. lasers, the more concentrated damage wins the day because even at relatively glancing blows, you're still putting more damage on the vital spots than the guy with the missiles.

Quote

Streaks can kill a light mech in 1 shot if they are lucky or they can take 5 shots if they are extremely unlucky. Regardless there is no skill involved on the part of the pilot shooting the missile to change the number of salvos. Each salvo is as easy as the last and no skill can be used to reduce the number needed to kill a mech, only RNG.


Actually, angle of fire matters. Even with bone-seeking missiles, if you spray a side with destroyed locations, missiles seeking the undamaged ones will end up impacting on (and losing damage to) damage transfer trying to get to the unwrecked stuff. If that pilot who's on the right of a target with a destroyed RA/RT/RL fires from there rather than taking a moment to get around to the front or back- he will take more salvos to kill the target.

Quote

You are confusing piloting skill, with weapon skill.


For a missile boat, piloting skill IS weapon skill. You have to position, you can't just point and paint a target with direct fire. In the time it takes to see and shoot someone with a Gauss (never mind an ERLL or PPC) from the edge of it's full damage range, it takes about three seconds for an LRM to arrive, plus lock time.

See how far you can get in three seconds, especially if you're already near cover and know where the shot is coming from. Bet you can easily pop back into cover and whiff the missiles, wasting the shot and ending up with a zero-trade.

Now, take that same missile boat who got himself into a position 300m, in cover from an angle to your front, while knowing his team is trading shots with you. He's just far enough away to get a high missile arc with his LRMs (you did know they're a shallower arc inside 250 or so, right?) and dumps a salvo into you with virtually no delay and no trail to easily follow.

Quote

Being harder doesn't mean that something requires more skill. Is it harder to carry a cup of water 1 time or to carry 100 cups of water individually? Carrying more water is obviously harder, but it doesn't require any more skill than carrying 1 cup of water, just more time and effort. Difficulty can increase without skill increasing. If you can carry 100 cups of water in a single trip that would be an example of increased difficulty and skill because it takes more skill to carry 100 cups of water than it does to carry 1.


Is it harder to shoot someone 5 times in a given time limit (read: your robot's lifespan) or twice for success? Does it take more skill to nail a target with a scoped sniper rifle or an iron-sighted .22?

Success with a less inefficient tool means the user had to compensate with skill the tool failed to provide an effective substitute for.

Quote

You can spread damage with lock on weapons. Wait until they fire, acquire lock while they are in cooldown, fire alpha, twist while still holding lock. Sure, you are more limited in the angle you can twist through, but you don't have to stare straight ahead to hold the lock.


That little nerf to lock-on arcs actually made this more difficult than before. Thanks, Chris! Bonus: If you're breaking lock each time, you have to fire even slower. And your opponent is closing on you, which means the more time you have between salvos, the sooner your opponent has hit the deadzone. That's when your missiles stop dealing damage, followed by you being dead. Oh, and lower DPS for good measure. Woot.

It also is a narrow enough arc now that you can (I do, all the time) casually aim for the crotch and core the missile boat, because if they twist legs and torso away, the lock goes bye-bye and you win.

Quote

At high skill level that's absolutely true, that's why they are generally seen as weak weapons. At low skill level it's reversed, that's why you see players complaining about LRMs being overpowered at lower levels. The problem is that they can't be made better because they require such a low skill floor to use. If you want the weapons to get buffed they need to be harder to use.


Lemme say this.

Screw low skill players with regards to weapon balance. They are ignorant, incapable, and useless in terms of how weapons function, how effective they are against a real player, frequently even of average skill. They lack defensive skills we take for granted and every time we have a thread where Joe Noob whines about lurms, they get laughed at because "decent players don't have to worry about them".

Oh, they have a low skill floor to use. They're effective against people who don't even use their AMS hardpoints, much less a ROCK, against a weapon that gives a BIG FLASHING INCOMING MISSILES sign every time they're fired at them. People who have the situational awareness of the rock they failed to use for cover, frequently against a weapon that's been tracking them for 5 seconds because T5 lurmtaters are hiding in the back, firing at 900 meters. A weapon that can barely put four damage into the same location on a good day without Artemis. Which they aren't using. Because they're firing at a red square behind six pieces of terrain.

Weapons should never be balanced against stupid and ignorant. Weapons should be balanced against competent use against competent opponents. If a weapon is weak against competency, it is inherently understatted and in need of buffs, not nerfs.

I don't want weapons balanced on the experiences of players who can't figure out why they blew up mashing the alpha strike button, or why small lasers don't hit at 750 meters. I want them balanced based on the people who understand how to exploit the flaws of a weapon to render it virtually useless compared to other weapons that are not, so the flawed weapon becomes less flawed and used alongside equally polished weapon systems.


Quote

One exception to that is that streaks are almost universally worth the investment if a player is only going to be fighting light mechs. Sure you have the trade off that you are going to be terrible against assaults, but that's the choice you make when you pick a weapon that hard counters an entire class.

You've made the argument that lock on weapons are bad. The fact that they are bad doesn't mean they require more skill to use though.


If a weapon is bad, it requires more effort and thinking to do the same job. And skill, because the tools provided give less to work with to replace skill. They require more skill to achieve the same result, because face it, you only get so many efforts to win a game before the other guys will eliminate you in the process of winning yours. If X good weapon boating gets you 3 kills before you generally get destroyed, and Y bad weapon normally gets you one, you're going to have to seriously gitgud to use weapon Y to get those 3 kills and match your (lower) skill level with X roflstompypwning your opponents.

Gitguds require skill. Ergo, bad weapons require more skill to succeed at any given measure of success than good ones. Piloting, defensive tactics, positioning, and in the case of missiles, prediction and map knowhow.

Is the man who can forge a sword over a stump with a crude hammer more skilled than the man who can do it equipped with a modern foundry and tools and produce the same quality result? I'd say the higher the quality (that is, the better you do in a game), the more skill is required as the tools (weapons) fall behind.

#114 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:10 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

A well thought out wall of text...


My reply, an example of me playing a LRM Stalker while drunk:




#115 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:48 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 07 November 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

My reply, an example of me playing a LRM Stalker while drunk:





Kill #1: You get a orange internal ST Firebrand and XL check him with a few points of damage. Kaput!

Kill #2: You get an already stripped and ST internal Awesome. Again, XL check successful as he doesn't even turn to protect the weak side.

Kill #3: The Banshee you'd initially bombarded, then it got laservomited to a orange-into-red ST...then XL checked with a few missiles. Yep, XL Banshee. Buh-bye.

Kill #4: You ERLL the Thunderbolt in the back to death while your LRMs scatter across everything else, with the laser burn precision coring him. Good aim, by the by.

Kill #5: The Protector loses it's red ST to your missiles, no XL check, has most of it's remaining structure and minimal torso armor lasered off by the guy to your left, then the missiles finish the job on the ruined CT.

Kill #6: Laser kill on the Centurion after the team reduced it to a red CT. Center of mass, center of mass...

Intermission: SEVENTEEN LRM 10 hits on an orange ST Raven fail to destroy it's remaining internal structure, despite direct line of sight, TAG, AND Artemis. Ironically, this was also a standard engine light.

Kill #7: The Firestarter isn't so lucky. Good clean missile kill as it's CT goes away.

Kill #8: The Griffin, orange torso structure, gets gnawed to death after leaping into the air to embrace your missiles. Honestly, you'd have oneshotted him with the ERLLs, but that was just more poetic in a fallen-angel sorta way. 7 LRM 10 hits later, it finally goes down behind cover.

Side finale note: LOL, XL AC/2 Banshee, and WHYYYY DIDN'T YOU CHECK YOUR PLAYER STATS?

A lot of very nice opportunity kills rather than pounding things to death.

#116 MECHWARRlOR

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 60 posts
  • LocationCorea(south)

Posted 08 November 2017 - 06:31 AM

thanks for reply.
but I am just little bit confuse and curious about this guide systems of streaks..
if it's not guided, why airborne missiles are receiving the constant telemetry updates...?
and how they ensuring to hit the target after launched?
sorry to bothering you, but I am really just.. curious about this..
anyway, i am bring this articles from battletech wiki...

[ Originally developed in 2647 by the Star League, the Streak SRM Launcher is relatively similar to the standard SRM launcher but incorporates a unique Targa-7 fire control system. This system consists of a multi-lens sensor linked to a microwave targeting laser and battle computer built in to the launcher. When activated the system fires multiple light pulses at the target, and if the sensor detects a positive return signal from 90% or more of the pulses the battle computer authorizes missile launch; once airborne the missiles receive constant telemetry updates from the system to ensure they hit their target. In contrast if the system does not receive sufficient feedback before firing to guarantee a hit it will prevent the missiles from launching. This special feature of the system prevents the weapon from firing at a target when there is no lock-on, saving ammunition by preventing shots that would otherwise miss]

Edited by MECHWARRlOR, 08 November 2017 - 06:32 AM.


#117 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 07:08 AM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 07 November 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

Kill #1: You get a orange internal ST Firebrand and XL check him with a few points of damage. Kaput!

Kill #2: You get an already stripped and ST internal Awesome. Again, XL check successful as he doesn't even turn to protect the weak side.

Kill #3: The Banshee you'd initially bombarded, then it got laservomited to a orange-into-red ST...then XL checked with a few missiles. Yep, XL Banshee. Buh-bye.

Kill #4: You ERLL the Thunderbolt in the back to death while your LRMs scatter across everything else, with the laser burn precision coring him. Good aim, by the by.

Kill #5: The Protector loses it's red ST to your missiles, no XL check, has most of it's remaining structure and minimal torso armor lasered off by the guy to your left, then the missiles finish the job on the ruined CT.

Kill #6: Laser kill on the Centurion after the team reduced it to a red CT. Center of mass, center of mass...

Intermission: SEVENTEEN LRM 10 hits on an orange ST Raven fail to destroy it's remaining internal structure, despite direct line of sight, TAG, AND Artemis. Ironically, this was also a standard engine light.

Kill #7: The Firestarter isn't so lucky. Good clean missile kill as it's CT goes away.

Kill #8: The Griffin, orange torso structure, gets gnawed to death after leaping into the air to embrace your missiles. Honestly, you'd have oneshotted him with the ERLLs, but that was just more poetic in a fallen-angel sorta way. 7 LRM 10 hits later, it finally goes down behind cover.

Side finale note: LOL, XL AC/2 Banshee, and WHYYYY DIDN'T YOU CHECK YOUR PLAYER STATS?

A lot of very nice opportunity kills rather than pounding things to death.
So you too can see how retardedly easy using LRMs can be too.

As far stats... Don't check 'em that often as my wildly good games are offset by tons of mediocre games, and probably most of the time I'm playing, I'm also drinking. I love BattleTech and MechWarrior, but the only way for me to enjoy THIS game is to play it while intoxicated.

While intoxicated I don't notice so much the hit registration issues, don't care quite so much that narrow profile light/medium/heavy 'mechs with torso quirks take as many (or more, in some cases) alphas to kill as an unquirked assault. I won't care quite so much, while grouped, that MM stacks one side with less than 600 tons worth of mech while the other side somehow got well over a 1000 tons. I won't be able to tell quite as distinctly when my shots are blocked by invisible terrain, etc., etc., etc.

The imperfections of this game require a certain level of mental fuzziness to get around.

LRMs? LRMs are just where I go when it's near the end of the night and that gallon of beer I drank is REALLY started to kick in...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 November 2017 - 07:09 AM.


#118 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:39 AM

Quote

So you too can see how retardedly easy using LRMs can be too.


Actually, I was going to say in most cases, you would have deleted them far faster using the lasers. Even the Raven you hit seventeen times would have been minus a ST just by point-click-laser-destroy. Given the damage patterns, many of your kills were on targets that got the usual burnthrough from direct-fire weaponry. You wouldn't have even seriously damaged the Firebrand if someone else hadn't burned most of it's XL torso off.

In fact, I'd guess if we'd seen the stats, you'd have had zero KMDDs. 800ish damage, 8 kills + assists means you did less than 100 per opponent...but your timing in shooting those opponents meant you got to vulture the last dregs of damage in what was a roflstomping of ISXL assault Mechs and standard-engine lights. The team did most of the work, you just happened to put the last two cents in with some astonishingly fortunate opportunities, one after another.

#119 Dimento Graven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guillotine
  • Guillotine
  • 6,208 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 08:55 AM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

Actually, I was going to say in most cases, you would have deleted them far faster using the lasers. Even the Raven you hit seventeen times would have been minus a ST just by point-click-laser-destroy. Given the damage patterns, many of your kills were on targets that got the usual burnthrough from direct-fire weaponry. You wouldn't have even seriously damaged the Firebrand if someone else hadn't burned most of it's XL torso off.

In fact, I'd guess if we'd seen the stats, you'd have had zero KMDDs. 800ish damage, 8 kills + assists means you did less than 100 per opponent...but your timing in shooting those opponents meant you got to vulture the last dregs of damage in what was a roflstomping of ISXL assault Mechs and standard-engine lights. The team did most of the work, you just happened to put the last two cents in with some astonishingly fortunate opportunities, one after another.
The point being missed here is: In those 8 "opportunistic" kills, where was the "skill" required to land my LRMs on those 'mechs?

I did that pretty well lit with a substandard build.

As someone who takes pride in doing things the "hard way", I can assure you the 'skill' necessary to effectively utilize computer guided weaponry is minimal, at most.

It is far, far harder to snipe headshots with dual gauss and lasers than to sand paper 'mechs with LRMs or to 'blunderbuss' an enemy at point blank range with SRMs/SSRMs.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 November 2017 - 08:57 AM.


#120 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,851 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 09:47 AM

Quote

The point being missed here is: In those 8 "opportunistic" kills, where was the "skill" required to land my LRMs on those 'mechs?


Near zero, considering virtually all of your targets ignored you, wading out into open water or standing still. Most of them didn't even try to evade your fire. There was next to no skill required because your targets were one step short of shooting a turret, in most cases. Despite standing out in the open yourself most of the match, hardly anyone bothers even shooting at you enough to encourage you to seek cover.

You don't need skill to kill someone who literally runs circles in the middle of a river or decides to do their best imitation of Washington Crossing the Delaware at 50kph. This is the same reason you see noobtastic players whine about lurms- they clearly have no frickin idea. They do not use cover, even while INCOMING MISSILES. There is no ECM, and you can even see one of them whining about your team's ECM in chat. And it's on a nice, heavy cover map that has easy access to all the lurm-stopping you could ever use. I won't even go into AMS here.

Except for these guys. Because they were potato. And everything kills potato easily. Now show me how you do the same thing against a team that actually knew you existed.





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users