140 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Brain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.

And we all know in group queue, a coordinated team that drops with a few LRM tossers and good spotter/NARC'ers can cause considerable devastation and problems, even for experienced teams.

While the NARC'ers and spotters are utilizing significant skill to do their thing, again, the very nature of guided weapons, requires very little skill to use effectively.

My video proves how utterly painful they can be to random teams of potatos (that was a vid from the group queue), even when utilized by someone playing in a potato 'mech and intoxicated enough to be in 'potato mode' himself.

Guided weaponry is not broke, nor under powered:

It's pretty much RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

[Xiphias]

MECHWARRlOR, on 08 November 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

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...

Spoiler

[ Originally developed in [color=blue]2647[/color] by the [color=blue]Star League[/color], 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]

I agree that the description leaves room or even implies that the missiles are homing. However, in terms of game rules for Battletech you still have to roll to hit with SSRMs the same as with SRMs. The difference is that with SSRMs if you get a miss it doesn't consume ammo. I don't believe they give any sort of to hit multiplier which is effectively what they do in this game.

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

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.

I agree. This topic was about streaks so that was the focus of my discussion. Streaks are probably the lowest skilled weapon system in the game.

This is going to be long.

Spoiler

Quote

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?

What you're talking about is travel time and lead distance. Lasers don't require leading a target (sans ping issues). Ballistics and PPCs require the pilot to predict where the target will be when the projectile arrives, aka leading a target. If a pilot is behind a building, obviously you can't hit them with direct fire weapons. If they are in the open you can still miss them if they change speed or direction. Slower weapons are harder to use because the time the target has to change speed/direct is increased.

LRMs have a travel time to consider, the calculation is a lot simpler. Is the target behind cover or not? If the target is in cover you'll (probably) miss. If the target is in the open you will be guaranteed to hit it, regardless of if the target changes speed or direction. Because you don't have to account for changes in the target's speed/direction it takes less skill to hit a target. All that is required to be thought about is travel time and distance to cover. You might argue angle, but that's true for all weapons and LRMs tend to be more generous in that regard (you can shoot over teammates for example) so direct fire weapons require more skill in positioning to be effective.

Quote

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?

The accuracy stat isn't real useful in this game. If you touch a target with 1% of a laser burn it counts as a hit. You could have 100% laser accuracy in stats, but only have 1% effective laser damage. With lock on missiles your accuracy reflects damage done directly. What's important is the % possible damage done by the weapon. I'd guess you aren't getting 100% of your burn on target every time so are effectively "missing" say 50% of the time when you are hitting the target.

I agree that a good player can get a higher effective hit percentage with lasers than a player with LRMs is likely to be able to get. That's due to the fact that more skill is involved with being able to aim/hold a burn with lasers. The control is in the hands of the player rather than external factors such as AMS that will reduce the accuracy and are beyond the control of the player (for the most part, getting closing can have an impact).

Getting a hit isn't the hard part with lasers, it's holding a full burn on a target (requires facetime) and focusing components specifically. LRMs may or may not require facetime, but the player only needs to worry about hit or not, not the effectiveness of the hit. PPFLD doesn't have to worry about effectiveness (it's all or nothing), but require more effort to actually hit the target.

Quote

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.

Sure, I agree that there is skill involved with use LRMs. A good player with LRMs will be more effective and require fewer salvos to kill a target than a bad player shooting LRMs into a wall. The amount of skill that is required is low though. It doesn't take long to "master" LRMs where you are using them at maximum effectiveness. The difference between a person with a little bit of experience vs a lot if pretty small. If the target is in the open there is no difference, both are equally effective.

With direct fire weapons the difference between a bad player and a good player can be much more significant, and the upper levels require much more effort than that of LRMs. Theoretically lasers are capable of headshotting a moving mech if you can hold the burn constantly enough. Can you do that? I certainly can't. The skills required to use LRMs effectively aren't unique to LRMs and aren't hard to pick up. The LRM user is dependent on the skill of their opponent most of the time while direct fire is more dependent on the ability of player using it.

Quote

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.

Sure, but the player with direct fire weapons is actively having to aim. They can still miss the target. The LRM user just has to click fire and keep the reticle near the target. A decent direct fire player should win every time, but a really bad player could easily lose due to a lack of ability to aim well. LRMs have this problem to a much lesser extent.

Quote

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.

Yes, angle does have an effect. My earlier point was a bit of a simplification. Angle is true for all mechs. Sure, you can kill a mech faster from behind with streaks, but the amount of adjustment is really minimal. There is some skill involved, it's just minimal.

Quote

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.

This isn't true though. While piloting is linked to weapon skill they aren't the same thing. All weapons require piloting and positioning to be used effectively. To shoot someone with a Gauss you have to put yourself in a position where you have a direct line on the target and you have to consider friendly targets that might move in the way. Similarly, with mechs that have short range weapons, you have to move in to closer ranges to be useful. With LRMs you don't require direct line of sight because you can shoot over things like teammates. You can also do things like jump, shoot, and drop (similar to a PPC) the difference is that you trade travel time (PPC) for the need not to aim (LRMs).

The only weapon skill LRMs require is calculating travel time and in some cases approximating angle.

Getting close to a target isn't a weapon skill, that's a piloting skill.

Take a light on light fight (with lasers) as an example of something that requires a decent amount of skill. It requires consideration of range (full damage or partial damage), fire type (alpha vs groupings), ability to hold a burn on target (amount of effective damage per shot), mitigating incoming damage, and use of terrain.

Most importantly (and most relevant here) is the trade off between mitigating incoming fire and putting out fire when considering piloting. The easiest aim case is where your mech is standing still. The trade off is that this is when you are easiest to hit. The other pilot can evade parts of your shots and you will lose the battle. Flat terrain and running in a straight line are the next easiest for aiming, but are also easy for your foe to predict. The best for dodging is uneven terrain are changing directions/speed, however this makes it hard to hold a solid burn. If you've ever run over a small rock/ledge and lost part of a laser burn you'll know what I'm talking about. Because of this interaction between aiming and piloting, what will happen in a light fight is that you will wait for your opponent to fire, slow down or stop to fire while they are in cooldown, and then resume moving before they can fire. You have to decide whether it is worth it to take more time and get a full burn (more heat efficient, but riskier in terms of taking damage) or to cut the burn short (less incoming damage, but more heat wasted on a miss).

This short of interaction requires the player to constantly be adjusting both aim and piloting based on factors such as heat, armor, enemy cooldown, enemy health, damaged locations, and terrain. These factors apply in varying degrees against other weight classes too.

How exciting is have a duel between two LRM mechs? They can change their positions or angles, but mostly it's either a game of cover or of luck. The most skilled scenario I can think of is jumping in and out of the minimum range so that your missiles do damage, but theirs do not. That would take some weapon/piloting skill. The locking mechanism basically allows LRM mechs to ignore the terrain they are standing on from a skill factor.

Quote

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.

Sure, getting closer makes it easier to get hits with LRMs, same with direct fire weapons. It's not harder to shoot the LRMs from far away, just more likely the enemy can dodge them. This is the same for ballistics, less so for lasers. What you don't have to worry about at range with LRMs is missing for non cover related reasons. Targets are small at 1000 m (full range) and a small change in terrain can throw off your aim. You have to be more precise to actually hit the target and the tradeoff is that they have less time to react and get into cover. It's not a guaranteed hit if they are in the open like it is with LRMs.

And yes, I did know about the arc and that's why in the limited amount of time I've played around with LRMs I mostly run them at around 300-350m (pairs nicely with MLs there too).

Quote

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?

Shooting requires aim, aiming fast requires skill. Pushing a button requires "skill". Does it take more skill to press a button twice or five times in a given time span? Perhaps a bit more skill to hit the button faster, but the skill is only that of smashing a button quickly. It's significantly less increase than it is to aim and shoot multiple times quickly. Is it harder to hit a button five times fast or to aim and shoot twice?

Your example of the scope is one where the difficultly and the skill are linked (e.g. carrying 1 cup of water vs 100 at the same time).

Quote

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

Sure, skill can compensate for some failings of a tool. The question is how much effect the user’s effort has on the result compared to how much external factors have an impact. The more the user can affect the results the more skill it requires. External difficulty factors don’t

Quote

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.

Locks are still super easy to hold. Sure, you can’t spread damage as easily now, but prior to that you could shoot while not even looking at your target. With direct fire weapons you gain the ability to snapshot the target, but that takes aim and skill. Shooting at a lock requires minimal skill.

Quote

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.

Weapons should be balanced from the top, but they do need to consider low skilled players too. If you make a weapon with little skill as effective as one that requires a lot of skill it will absolutely dominate in low skill play. That’s the problem with buffing LRMs. For interesting competition all the weapons should have high skill caps because competitions are designed to measure skill. Two LRM boats dueling is way more boring than two light mechs because of the skill required.

Quote

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.

What you are missing is that no amount of skill with LRMs can match the effectiveness of direct fire weapons; this is the skill ceiling of the weapon. You can put as much skill into it as you want, but you won’t increase performance. You can only be so good with a certain weapon, after that you are relying on your enemy lacking skill.

Just because a weapon is good doesn’t mean that it is easy to use. Headshots are good, but difficult to obtain. Bad weapons can be easy to use, good weapons can be hard to use. The difficulty that is within the player’s control when using a weapon is what determines skill, not overall difficulty.

Quote

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.

I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to get at here. Sure, the crude hammer requires more skill if the final quality is the same.
Take the example of machining, what takes more skill. Manually using a mill to make a geometry or using a CNC mill that automatically does all the work for the user? Obviously, with the manual process it takes more skill. Now, with the manual machining does it take more skill to make 10 parts that are all the same? Likely yes, repeating the manual operation adds to the difficulty and requires more skill. Similarly, doing it faster or with higher precision requires more skill. This is analogous to weapons that require aiming.

With the CNC mill is it harder to make 10 parts than 1? No, the difficulty is the same, it simply requires more time.

The results in game are useful when comparing a weapon to itself. A player who can get better results consistently is more skilled with a weapon that a player that consistently has poorer results. You can’t compare skill across weapons like this though. It might take more skill to do the same amount of damage with a weaker weapon. I agree on that point.

At the end of the day it’s a question of how hard the things inside of a player’s control are to execute. While external factors influence a weapon’s effectiveness (enemy has ECM, stands in the open, etc.) the things in the player’s control are the only ones that indicate that player’s skill.

If I've missed any points or lost my train of thought at any point, my apologies. Feel free to bring it up and I'll try to address it. That was a long wall of text to go through and I was doing things in between writing my wall of text in reply.

In condensed form.

The more impact a player's actions have on a weapon's effectiveness the more skill that weapon has. External factors (such as ECM, enemies standing in the open) may make it more difficult (or easy) to be effective with a weapon, but because they are (mostly) outside of the player's control they don't have an effect on the skill required to use the weapon.

Only possible user actions affect the skill of a weapon system. There are fewer user actions required for lock on missiles cause them to require less skill (to varying extents).

Edit: Fixed font size

Edited by Xiphias, 08 November 2017 - 12:13 PM.

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 08 November 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

And we all know in group queue, a coordinated team that drops with a few LRM tossers and good spotter/NARC'ers can cause considerable devastation and problems, even for experienced teams.

I wouldn't know about that ...

Dimento Graven, on 08 November 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

While the NARC'ers and spotters are utilizing significant skill to do their thing, again, the very nature of guided weapons, requires very little skill to use effectively.

My video proves how utterly painful they can be to random teams of potatos (that was a vid from the group queue), even when utilized by someone playing in a potato 'mech and intoxicated enough to be in 'potato mode' himself.

Guided weaponry is not broke, nor under powered:

It's pretty much RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

... but based on regular comments about their "feast or famine" nature is a good indication that they need to be improved and/or changed.

Edited by Mystere, 08 November 2017 - 12:20 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Guided weaponry is not broke, nor under powered:

It's pretty much RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

Only good for killing trash? I mean, those co-ordinated LRM teams sure did rip things up in competitive play- oh wait.

No. They get kicked squarely in the junk and guided missiles don't exist at the top. Because they're inaccurate, heavily counterable, and spread damage.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

What you are missing is that no amount of skill with LRMs can match the effectiveness of direct fire weapons; this is the skill ceiling of the weapon. You can put as much skill into it as you want, but you won’t increase performance. You can only be so good with a certain weapon, after that you are relying on your enemy lacking skill.

And the elephant in the room here is that no weapon should be left behind in the dust due to a skill ceiling, because if it is, the weapon is underpowered.

I do know that there's a ceiling, and it falls below the point where direct fire weapons can go. Way, WAY below. So low that you can't generally measure the usefulness of a piece of defensive gear specifically for killing missiles...because nobody needs to bother. I'm not even advocating that guided missiles get up to that level, but the gap is immense and seems to be torn wider with each patch. It needs to be narrowed.

[Mystere]

Xiphias, on 07 November 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

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.

Are you saying that it does not take skill to kill with a bad weapon a good player before said player gets to kill you?

I'm still not entirely convinced.

And this one below makes me even less convinced:

Xiphias, on 07 November 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

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".

And yet we call those who regularly uses a light to beat almost any good player in a heavier class "skilled".

Edited by Mystere, 08 November 2017 - 01:10 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Mystere, on 08 November 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

I wouldn't know about that ...

... but based on regular comments about their "feast or famine" nature is a good indication that they need to be improved and/or changed.

Yeah well, that's the problem with most of the people complaining about the weakness of LRMs, they apparently don't "know" the actual intent of the weapon, and those people that DO actually know what the primary use of them are, and use them that way, can be pretty frickin' mean.

LRMs aren't really intended as a "kill weapon", there's no real "burst" damage to them and they have a minimum range that entirely invalidates their use as "brawl" weapons.

LRMs are for softening targets and controlling the field of battle.

You want a team to keep their heads down while you have a few flankers incoming to cause confusion, LRMs!

You want a weapon that will allow you to soften up enemies as they approach, LRMs.

Beyond that, using them as a "primary weapon" to "get kills", is dumb. You only get kills with LRMs by the grace of RNGeesus, AND EVEN THEN, PGI has added the 'anti-crit' algorithm to keep computer guided weaponry from lowering TTK, ensuring that even a 'mech with an open ST/CT will still have some time to find cover before they die.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

You want a team to keep their heads down while you have a few flankers incoming to cause confusion, LRMs!

You want a weapon that will allow you to soften up enemies as they approach, LRMs.

All of these are done better by direct fire weaponry. Clearly, that can't be their purpose either.

Quote

Beyond that, using them as a "primary weapon" to "get kills", is dumb.

Clearly, those people mounting 30+ tons of them on their giant robot must be intending to use them as secondary weapons to gently wash and lather the opponent instead. And if they aren't effective enough at killing people, the weapon is in need of a buff. Or three.

[Dimento Graven]

Brain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

Only good for killing trash? I mean, those co-ordinated LRM teams sure did rip things up in competitive play- oh wait.

Oh F that reasoning... "Oh they're not used in competitive, which comprises NOT EVEN ONE PERCENT of the gaming population, so it must be horrific, and therefore need to be buffed..."

Don't even go there.

Competitive play should have ZERO affect on how weapons are balanced.

The number of actual "competitive matches" vs: quick play and FW matches is probably on the order of something to 1 to 10,000.

It'd be stupid to balance from that perspective.

Quote

No. They get kicked squarely in the junk and guided missiles don't exist at the top.

No, computer guided weapons should be NO WHERE NEAR THE TOP, you are ABSOLUTELY correct.

Quote

Because they're inaccurate, heavily counterable, and spread damage.

As COMPUTER GUIDED weaponry SHOULD be in a game that's supposed to be about a player's individual skill, and how well he can cooperate with up to 11 other team members, all playing what is SUPPOSED TO BE a "thinking man's shooter."

[Dimento Graven]

Brain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

All of these are done better by direct fire weaponry. Clearly, that can't be their purpose either.

Situationally, that's true, though there are situations where LRMs can be better, typically based on map and what other 'mechs have been grouped with you.

Quote

Clearly, those people mounting 30+ tons of them on their giant robot must be intending to use them as secondary weapons to gently wash and lather the opponent instead. And if they aren't effective enough at killing people, the weapon is in need of a buff. Or three.

I don't give a flying F what the average potato has intended when he's equipped his 'mech, the fact is the weapons are designed around supporting other 'mechs and their attacks, primarily without having to be in direct line of sight of their intended targets.

Pretty much the ONLY reason people bring LRMs is so that they don't have do their own aiming, period. They can utilize the locks provided by other people, and all they're required to do is put the little circle in the big square, wait for the BIG circle, and pull a trigger, then let the computer figure out what damage they've done. With LRMs it's easy to rack up lots of damage with low risk, just stay behind your team and wait for 'em to start finding the enemy for you.

It's why EVERY frickin' EVENT PGI has ever thrown that requires a player to get up to a certain 'score' to qualify, the population of LRM toting 'mechs explodes to triple, even quadruple the normal amount what you'd see during normal, non-event, periods.

[Laser Kiwi]

Streaks and lrms require skills to use, they aren't easy weapons to use well IMO. I only dislike lrms cause they often involve not sharing armour, streaks guarantee your boy is in the fight. Also try tracking a maxed out cmd with streaks, 25 degree lock angle means it isn't that easy.

[Xiphias]

Mystere, on 08 November 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

Are you saying that it does not take skill to kill with a bad weapon a good player before said player gets to kill you?

Whether a weapon is good or bad has nothing to do with how much skill is required to use it. The two are independent.

You are confusing two issues, how effectively the weapon can be used based on player action (skill), and how hard it is to kill another player with it (effectiveness).

Effectiveness is a combination of skill and weapon mechanics. A low skill player with streaks will be more effective at killing a light mech than the same low skill player with Gauss. A high skill player with streaks will be less effective against a light than that same high skill player with Gauss (1-2 shot kill). The skill required for each weapon hasn't changed, but the effectiveness has.

Regardless of how good you are if you are having an assault battle a "good" player boating streaks is not going to beat a "good" player with direct fire weapons. If the direct fire mech loses it's because they performed poorly. Skill can only gain so much performance (effectiveness) from a weapon system.

Quote

And yet we call those who regularly uses a light to beat almost any good player in a heavier class "skilled".

As a class, light mechs are overall weaker. If you put the best heavy pilot in the game up against the best light pilot in the game. The heavy pilot is almost certainly going to win (in theory the light could be so good they could headshot the heavy, but the same argument goes for the heavy vs the light).

The reason lights beating heavies is considered "high skill" is that the mechanics the light has to perform are difficult (e.g. holding a laser burn on a target while maneuvering and moving at high speed) and directly under the control of the pilot. Consistently doing something hard makes it harder, consistently doing something easy doesn't make it significantly harder.

To kill a heavy a light has to do some combination of the following two things:

Decrease incoming damage (aka evading)
Increase damage effectiveness (e.g. focusing a single component)

Decreasing the incoming damage takes piloting skill. Increasing damage effectiveness requires a combination of piloting skill and weapons skill.

If the light can kill the heavy they probably have both high piloting skill and high weapon skill. Beating the heavy demonstrates the skill, it isn't the skill.

Laser Kiwi, on 08 November 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Streaks and lrms require skills to use, they aren't easy weapons to use well IMO. I only dislike lrms cause they often involve not sharing armour, streaks guarantee your boy is in the fight. Also try tracking a maxed out cmd with streaks, 25 degree lock angle means it isn't that easy.

Try holding a solid laser burn on that Commando the same time. It really isn't that hard to hold a streak lock unless you're in something really slow and it is still easier than hitting effectively with pretty much any other weapon.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Dee Eight, on 05 November 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

when beaten/out damage outputted by them. Ignoring the fact you cannot fire them without a weapon lock... and that THAT requires holding your crosshairs on the target for about 2 seconds... and you have to keep holding the crosshairs on target to keep firing them.... there's the mental math that goes into using them. Are you in range ? Will the missiles have the range to chase down the target ? Will they have the speed to do that before they run out of range ? Will anything get in the way during their flight (like a friendly) ? What if the enemy turns...are they going to track into a building ? How's PGI's hit registration lately ? Will it result in better if chain or group fired as a result ?

Yeah... no skill required at all. And I don't boat streaks on anything.

You're describing things that don't take much skill, as if they do.

This "mental math" is the 1 + 1 of MWO.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

It's why EVERY frickin' EVENT PGI has ever thrown that requires a player to get up to a certain 'score' to qualify, the population of LRM toting 'mechs explodes to triple, even quadruple the normal amount what you'd see during normal, non-event, periods.

Nah. It's because due to the spread damage, it's easier to get that match score.

Quote

Oh F that reasoning... "Oh they're not used in competitive, which comprises NOT EVEN ONE PERCENT of the gaming population, so it must be horrific, and therefore need to be buffed..."

Don't even go there.

Competitive play should have ZERO affect on how weapons are balanced.

The number of actual "competitive matches" vs: quick play and FW matches is probably on the order of something to 1 to 10,000.

It'd be stupid to balance from that perspective.

Ah, but those comp players are also the ones in QP who are the most competent. Solo and group queue.

They don't use guided missiles, and they take a steaming dump of coolant on players who do out in the 12v12 world where most matches are played.

For that matter, it's a laugh weapon in FP. So if it's no good in comp, it's no good in FP and it's nowhere near the effectiveness of good players with direct fire in QP....you tell me. Where is the magical realm that these are considered balanced and effective?

Quote

I don't give a flying F what the average potato has intended when he's equipped his 'mech, the fact is the weapons are designed around supporting other 'mechs and their attacks, primarily without having to be in direct line of sight of their intended targets.

"Support" is another word for "salting your target with dinks so laservomit master race may core the peasants a bit faster", apparently. Also, you realize that indirect fire mode is the worst damage mode in the game, right? No (weakened) Artemis. No TAG.

"Support" or not, how pathetic do you want these guns to be? They're already strictly optional to good play at best. They're sliding rapidly towards "use only to kill bads when you're drunk and can't be bothered with anything."

[Dimento Graven]

Brain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

Nah. It's because due to the spread damage, it's easier to get that match score.

LOL, exactly --> IT IS EASIER TO GET AN EVENT'S REQUIRED MATCH SCORE WITH LRMS.

Not as easy with ballistics, or lasers, or non-guided missiles. WHY? Face time required, and the risk is that you'll die before being able to achieve the minimal score required.

The skillset required to get minimal score with LRMs is much less than pretty much every other weapon in game.

Quote

Ah, but those comp players are also the ones in QP who are the most competent. Solo and group queue.

They don't use guided missiles, and they take a steaming dump of coolant on players who do out in the 12v12 world where most matches are played.

LRMs aren't used in comp play because, as far as I know, most comp matches are designed around quick kill. LRMs don't do "quick kill", they're not intended for that purpose, so why would any serious comp team bring a weapon that doesn't fit how the match was design and the strategy that utilizes killing enemies ASAP?

Mostly they dump on those that lack even the most basic ability to use them as intended. I've dropped with/against them in quick play matches and as long as the LRM'er uses them well, the comp players LOL'ing around in quick play don't mind 'em.

It's that idiot that refuses to chuck his LRMs at TAG'd/NARC'd 'mechs, insisting instead to toss LRMs at the idiotic light 1200 meters away from the main group that get their dander up.

Quote

For that matter, it's a laugh weapon in FP. So if it's no good in comp, it's no good in FP and it's nowhere near the effectiveness of good players with direct fire in QP....you tell me. Where is the magical realm that these are considered balanced and effective?

Well I'd argue that IS LRMs are laughable in FP. Been plenty of FP matches I've been in against clanners where they made some pretty damn destructive use of their LRMs, but mainly that's a result of the other pieces benefits Clans get, not because Clan LRMs are so much more effective than IS (though the tonnage/crit size differences DOES matter).

Quote

"Support" is another word for "salting your target with dinks so laservomit master race may core the peasants a bit faster", apparently. Also, you realize that indirect fire mode is the worst damage mode in the game, right? No (weakened) Artemis. No TAG.

Support, yes, softening up an enemy is part of that, as well as ensuring they keep their heads down while Bitching Betty is yelling "Incoming Missiles", the enemy is lookin' for cover and not focusing on firing at your team.

Quote

"Support" or not, how pathetic do you want these guns to be? They're already strictly optional to good play at best. They're sliding rapidly towards "use only to kill bads when you're drunk and can't be bothered with anything."

They're not pathetic when used correctly, to use them correctly doesn't require any significant amount of skill, just a bit of coordination with the rest of the team and the dexterity to keep a small circle inside a big box. If they were SO pathetic, you wouldn't even see them being used during events, the fact is though, they're used MORE during events because of the "ease of use" factor when ensuring you want to make that minimal match score.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 November 2017 - 03:10 PM.

[Mystere]

Xiphias, on 08 November 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

If the light can kill the heavy they probably have both high piloting skill and high weapon skill. Beating the heavy demonstrates the skill, it isn't the skill.

You just confused me even more.

Doesn't a player who consistently beats another good player via terrible weapons have either high piloting skill, high weapon skill, or even both?

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

The skillset required to get minimal score with LRMs is much less than pretty much every other weapon in game.

And yet, all they're doing is switching to the most inefficient weapon solely to pad match scores. Yes, deliberately because that hillhiding lurmer is putting as much of an armor tickle on enemies as possible, which is rather counter to the usual idea of winning a match by killing the other guy.

It's part of why people complain- derplords deliberately making their already mediocre contributions even worse to a team.

Quote

LRMs aren't used in comp play because, as far as I know, most comp matches are designed around quick kill. LRMs don't do "quick kill", they're not intended for that purpose, so why would any serious comp team bring a weapon that doesn't fit how the match was design and the strategy that utilizes killing enemies ASAP?

"Killing enemies ASAP" is pretty much everyone's strategy. Before they kill you. LRMs that could do "quick kill" were nerfed repeatedly lest another potato felt the wrath of the dreaded LRM 90 Catapult. Damage per missile was reduced. Twice. Spread was steadily increased. Velocity was reduced. Missile warnings were added. LRM users switched to ever higher tube counts trying to compensate.

Streaks got their first meaningful buff since the de-CT-seeking change of IS-SSRM2's. Woo. The first live change to ATMs was a spread nerf, because even a direct-fire guided missile is apparently OP. Unless you use AMS. Then it's confetti.

Compare that to the up and down cycles for lasers, PPCs, and ACs.

[Xiphias]

Mystere, on 08 November 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

You just confused me even more.

Doesn't a player who consistently beats another good player via terrible weapons have either high piloting skill, high weapon skill, or even both?

Show me this player.

[Pariah Devalis]

Mystere, on 08 November 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

You just confused me even more.

Doesn't a player who consistently beats another good player via terrible weapons have either high piloting skill, high weapon skill, or even both?

I'd argue that if a player in a bigger or better mech with better more accurate firepower potential consistently loses to someone using inferior weapons, than it points more to a lack of skill for the pilot with the better guns moreso than a demonstration of skill for the one with the inferior weapons. That is to say, it isn't the SSRM pilot's skill with the missiles that influences how quickly they kill the enemy mech, but it absolutely is the enemy pilot's inability to effectively deploy their own damage that allows them to be beaten.

One can argue that the SSRM player might have superior evasive skills, but, honestly, that only lasts for so long, and all pilots should have a range of defensive skills on hand, so that isn't actually a matter of weapon skills but overall piloting capabilities. If it takes three salvos of SSRM to equate to the effective damage placement of one salvo from the PPD armed mech, and the SSRM mech wins, than the mech with PPD is more than likely being piloted by someone with bad aim. It points more to a lack of skill more than a highly skilled Streaker.

Why do I say that? Because it doesn't matter how skilled you are. Streak SRM have a very low skill ceiling. You put a newbie and an experienced player against one another with identical mechs using nothing but SSRM, and the only major factor for determining a winner would be heat management. That, however, is a skill everyone needs to have, regardless of the weapon type being used, short of gauss, so is a virtual nonfactor, here, when determining the skill of using the weapon system itself.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 08 November 2017 - 06:05 PM.

[Xiphias]

Brain Cancer, on 08 November 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

"Support" is another word for "salting your target with dinks so laservomit master race may core the peasants a bit faster", apparently. Also, you realize that indirect fire mode is the worst damage mode in the game, right? No (weakened) Artemis. No TAG.

The "support" in "support mech" actually refers to the fact that the team has to support this mech, not the the mech supports the team. A common misconception.

It started with the term "supported mech" during the days of the Star League, but was shortened by the clanners from "supported" to "support" to cut down on the number of syllables. When the clans invaded the term was reintroduced to the IS of whom many mistakenly thought that this was an important role to be filled in the battlefield. Experienced pilots soon further shortened the term to "sup" which over time became "sub" indicating the sub optimal performance of these mechs on the battlefield. After the transition from "sup" to "sub" the phrase "some random sub" became common. Over time pilots shortened this phrase to "scrub" which is the modern form.