Rogue Jedi, on 30 March 2018 - 01:32 AM, said:
it is true it can be easy to counter indirectly fired LRMs however if someone is firing them with their own lock it can be much harder to evade them (especialy because they are likely to be closer thus you get less reaction time)
If they are closer and firing directly, then they can be countered by shooting them back, because LRMs are heavily underpowered in direct fire exchanges.
Rogue Jedi, on 30 March 2018 - 01:32 AM, said:
also this thread is in the New Player Help forum, new players are likely to take a while to figure out and get competant at breaking locks, so newer players (especialy those on their first 25 matches who are by far the most likely to be using Champion Mechs) will get far more benefit from AMS than someone who has been playing for a while.
I'm of the opinion that AMS use discourages novice players from learning better LRM counters.
Sure AMS counters LRMs, but learning how to break locks is by far the superior counter.
Rogue Jedi, on 30 March 2018 - 01:32 AM, said:
I suspect Zergling's advice was based upon having Radar Deprivation unlocked when the enemy does not have Target Decay, which is not something a new player in trial Mechs can control.
Nope; I stopped using Radar Deprivation shortly after the Skill Tree was released, and I'm still not having much trouble with LRMs.
Radar Deprivation just makes it even easier to counter LRMs. I'd probably suggest novice players use it at first to learn how to break locks, then take it off later on once they've gotten the hang of it.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:
You're describing a situation using a relatively fast mech. Not every mech is fast. Not every mech has maxed the mobility tree. This is in addition to full on radar deprivation and assuming the enemy doesn't have target decay (which if they don't, they shouldn't be running LRMs OR long-range use of ATMS to begin with).
In fact many mechs haven't even touched the mobility tree, they spam firepower and survival, and thus cannot quickly pop in and out of cover.
This agility is the exception, not the norm.
I don't put any points in the mobility tree, nor do I run radar deprivation.
And I still don't have any problems avoiding LRMs, even in slow 100 tonners.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:
Another high end player has pumped out a plethora of suggestions of UACs, but while that works for many players, it didn't work for a different new player due to the designs being too hot, requiring some strict conditions to be met in order to be guaranteed success without shutting down next to enemies, etc
UAC's generally aren't hot, unless boated in large numbers. If a UAC build is shutting down all the time, then either it is ghost heating or built badly.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:
and being forbidden the XL engine in favor of an LFE ended up putting the player in situations where they can't escape, drastically slaughtering that poor player's stats.
A novice player with an isXL is basically a free kill.
You cannot give a new player worse advice than instructing them to use an isXL in a mech heavier than 35-40 tons.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:
Why did that high end player's suggestion flop so bad? That player plays team matches, in group play, with HELP from other players. The one he advised? A solo player in pugs, with uncooperative team mates, as such there's no one to protect him when he shuts down. Getting so close to make the most out of the UACs brought him into situations where he couldn't get out of. Sure, he never jammed to the point of not being able to fight, but... if he did survive more than two encounters, he was out of ammo in addition to the lack of speed. This doesn't matter if you have an organized team behind you. But if you don't... it matters.
And a lot of these "high end" players don't seem to realize this.
Given I have no problem using UACs in the solo queue, your criticism is undeserved.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:
Beyond that, not really. Metamechs was run by competition players, and once competitions began having money involved, they stopped sharing any of their top builds and any recent updates, despite saying that they are high end mechs, are pretty easily countered. This is because if you want to be at the top of a competition, you give away the less than stellar but still better than most builds... This ensures people will A) use them, and B ) be built exactly as you want them to be built so that C ) you can easily dissect them by exploiting the weaknesses you had built into them, so that D ) you can reap the rewards and the cash.
Many "low level" contributions are genuine, some, particularly by the highest end players, are cleverly described death traps.
Sorry, but that's on the level of flat earth conspiracy theories.
Koniving, on 30 March 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:
Figure this to be true: SRMs, good. Multiple ACs, generally good-ish (fast kills for a bit of spammery). Laser vomit...unfortunately,king. There's few builds that beat it, one of them is apparently twin LBX-20 with lots of SRM-6s + Artemis. Encountered that once, never had a more humiliating one shot against an Annihilator.
.....To mention, the Annihilator is one of the IS's most heavily armored 100 ton mechs.
....One shotted.
By CT.
Holy.
****.
That was in a one versus one match, too.
2x cLBX20 + 4x cSRM6 top out at just 88 damage, well short of what the Annihilator can fit to its CT.
Even with no survival tree nodes and a ridiculous 20 rear armor, it would still have 104 front CT armor.
So either that wasn't a one shot like you claim, or the Annihilator was stupidly underarmored (probably a stock build, which only has 50 front CT armor).
Edited by Zergling, 30 March 2018 - 11:22 PM.
2
)
This topic is locked
