377 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

Sorbic, on 17 July 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

Standing behind a wall isn't fighting. Esp for those who hide and wait for their mates to make moves and then act like they're a good player.

Personally I've been enjoying a renewed reason to bring out my KF. However it will quickly die back down after people have given them a good try.

fight in the shade != stand around and do nothing in the shade.

just because you have good cover from lerms does not mean that your direct fire weapons are blocked.

also you can usually find a covered approach to the lerm boat to get inside of his min range and kill them. i do not need ams to do this. if you want to go for it in the open under constant bombardment, spewing tons of ams ammo the whole way, by all means do so.

the problem isnt the lerm boats, its when you encounter things that arent lerm boats. then suddenly all that ams tonnage which could have been used for ammo or heat sinks is dead weight. those are the real threat in the game so id rather be equipped to handle that than to be missile proof.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 July 2018 - 02:52 AM.

[LordNothing]

Tesunie, on 17 July 2018 - 07:22 PM, said:

Well, PPCs don't exactly brawl very well either.

tell that to my warhawk.

[Judah Malganis]

Quote

the problem isnt the lerm boats, its when you encounter things that arent lerm boats. then suddenly all that ams tonnage which could have been used for ammo or heat sinks is dead weight. those are the real threat in the game so id rather be equipped to handle that than to be missile proof.

The problem is not everyone is like you. You choose not to take AMS because you understand LRMs enough to avoid them, for the most part, and you don't seem to complain if you get hit by them.

On the other hand, there's other players who would argue to nerf LRMs to ensure they never have to take AMS.

Can't wait until they add reflective and reinforced armor to the game. Players won't know which one to pick, and they'll argue for nerfs to all weapon systems so they don't have to choose.

Edited by Judah Malganis, 18 July 2018 - 03:16 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

LordNothing, on 18 July 2018 - 02:43 AM, said:

snip

the problem isnt the lrm boats, its when you encounter things that arent lrm boats. then suddenly all that ams tonnage which could have been used for ammo or heat sinks is dead weight. those are the real threat in the game so id rather be equipped to handle that than to be missile proof.

Tis not that much tonnage for AMS. But by making a small changes, both good/bad, to LRMS, PGI has put some focus on LRMS which the community is responding to. For many it will not take long for people to start taking AMS again, as well as equip mechs to run narcs, ECM mechs, etc.

And by bringing to focus LRMS in this patch, PGI has also ensured lots of data, providing they are really collecting it, something they could not do on a PTS a 4v4 environment. What is funny and sad are the number of players who are shocked tis LRMmogeden at the moment

[DGTLDaemon]

It seems the world is indeed going crazy. Just killed a Javelin carrying nothing but 4xLRM5s in Polar I guess some people are taking LRM buffs too seriously.

P.S. For those advocating universal adoption of AMS - remember that many if not most meta builds are already pushing the limits in terms of tonnage, crit slots, heat management etc. You take away a couple of tons/slots required for AMS+ammo, or crank up the heat by installing Laser AMS, and a top-tier build suddenly turns into a mediocre semi-support mech.

[El Bandito]

DGTLDaemon, on 18 July 2018 - 03:31 AM, said:

It seems the world is indeed going crazy. Just killed a Javelin carrying nothing but 4xLRM5s in Polar I guess some people are taking LRM buffs too seriously.

P.S. For those advocating universal adoption of AMS - remember that many if not most meta builds are already pushing the limits in terms of tonnage, crit slots, heat management etc. You take away a couple of tons/slots required for AMS+ammo, or crank up the heat by installing Laser AMS, and a top-tier build suddenly turns into a mediocre semi-support mech.

Nah, I can tell you from experience that for mechs 50 tons and above sacrificing 2 tons/slots does not drastically cut down their effectiveness. The fearmongering is not warranted.

[DGTLDaemon]

El Bandito, on 18 July 2018 - 03:42 AM, said:

Nah, I can tell you from experience that for mechs 50 tons and above sacrificing 2 tons/slots does not drastically cut down their effectiveness. The fearmongering is not warranted.

TBH, the only build I ever found space for AMS on was HGN-IIC-C running 2xLPL+2xUAC10, because it was obviously undergunned, and I couldn't put a bigger engine in due to the low engine cap. But then I swapped the LPLs for a pair of PPCs, and suddenly there was no extra space for AMS anymore All other builds I use are all about squeezing that last heatsink or last ton of ammo in, just can't imagine where I'd find that extra tonnage without doing something stupid like stripping the legs or wilfully running without enough ammo for an average QP match. So for now I make do with radar derp and cover, although I have to say LRMs are getting annoying, with more and more people bringing them to farm easy dmg and match scores.

[thievingmagpi]

Faithsfall, on 17 July 2018 - 10:48 PM, said:

Sorry I know this is like gramma police but you are only half right, While I agree that to be able to draw a longbow properly took around 10 years to be able to do (hense why it was law from the age of 6 you were required to learn after church every sunday how to shoot your bow) the Longbow was a artillery weapon it was used on mass to fire roughly in a target area, it wasn't used as a precision weapon.

If we're doing "well actually" then this too is not entirely accurate.

Longbows, and bows in general when *not* being shot in a "direct fire" manner, which they can and were, when firing against a mass of enemies would be closer to say... A (weak) air strike or arty consumable. Not a lock on homing weapon.

But beyond consumables we don't have a grid-firing weapon that's comparable. Lrms and longbows aren't really a very good comparison.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 18 July 2018 - 04:37 AM.

[Jesoo_Creesto]

5/7

Edited by Jesoo_Creesto, 18 July 2018 - 07:38 AM.

[MischiefSC]

1.5 to 3 tons sacrificed, effectively 2 DHS, to he able to periodically shut down 1 - 3 enemy mechs in any given match was always a good investment. If you're in competitive play and trades are won or lost on a few points and nobody takes LRMs then sure. Leave the AMS off. For QP it is a consistently worthwhile investment.

Take 2xAMS and vote LRM friendly maps. I've been doing that and won 21 out of 22 matches. Anecdotal yeah and I'm sure it'll scale back over the month but currently it's pretty skewed in the "Take AMS" category.

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 18 July 2018 - 12:32 AM, said:

Sure longbows and crossbows co-existed and were both used, but the longbow was more-less pushed out of the primary use because crossbows were cheaper to make, and literally any untrained peasant could use them, while longbow archers were some of the most highly trained and most respected troops. (thus expensive)

In MWO terms, you could say Longbows are like LRMs while Crossbows are like MRM..

Actually, the Crossbow was banned by the church for being too destructive. However, as we all know about the crossbow, we obviously know how well that ban worked.

It was considered too easy to use, combined with too deadly, so it was considered an unholy weapon fit for only brigands and thieves. Actually, that's a very good analogy for LRMs when one thinks of it...

(Edit: Fixed a typo.)

Edited by Tesunie, 18 July 2018 - 07:14 AM.

[Tesunie]

LordNothing, on 18 July 2018 - 02:50 AM, said:

tell that to my warhawk.

Oh, I wasn't implying that they couldn't brawl, but lets face it there are better weapons to brawl with if you are intending to be brawling. ERPPCs are hot with rather longish reload speeds, which make them less favorable to a brawl, compared to other weapons such as SRMs and/or any type of SL.

I mean, do you compare your CERPPC to SRMs in a brawl when typically talking about the weapon? Or are you more prone to talking about CERPPCs as more of a long range weapon? Typically, I find people mention PPCs in the latter, or as a mid range weapon. It isn't brought up as a brawling specific weapon, and thus it's rarely denounced as a bad weapon because "it can't brawl as well as...".

[Tesunie]

Jesoo_Creesto, on 18 July 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

5/7

https://youtu.be/vJdVAF2Rl40

Though you did have good results, I don't believe you leveraged those LRMs as well as you could have. Some points I'd mention:
- You rarely got your own lock. This made you unable to determine how likely you might be to actually land your missiles on target. Many of your missiles ate dirt because of this. (Also, did you take Adv Decay? If so, you wasted those SPs if you never get your own locks.)
- You boated the LRMs. Though I get the understanding behind boating, it's always risky. However, watching your build in action, you could have easily dropped an LRM15 and possibly placed some lasers on (not sure what the hard points are on that mech, but it looks like you could have had two energy to work with). I say this because you where always chain firing them, and your 5th one was off cooldown before you fired your 6th one off, which made one of your launchers redundant for that fighting style.
- You could have moved closer to the enemy initially, which would have helped more of your missiles land on target in the early match. Closer to the enemy means shorter flight time, which means less time you need the lock.
- You did what most LRM boats do, stay behind cover and stop moving once you start shooting. With LRMs, it's far easier to continue to move as you're shooting, so you probably should have considered staying on the move more than you did.

I could make a few more pointers, but I'll refrain from doing so. The match worked out in the end, so it worked.


Edit: If you really wanted to take full advantage of your six LRM15s, you should have fired them in sets of two. Would have increased your damage per volley, and helped on the shots that had a shorter lock time to land more damage against them.

Edited by Tesunie, 18 July 2018 - 08:56 AM.

[LordNothing]

Tesunie, on 18 July 2018 - 06:58 AM, said:

Oh, I wasn't implying that they couldn't brawl, but lets face it there are better weapons to brawl with if you are intending to be brawling. ERPPCs are hot with rather longish reload speeds, which make them less favorable to a brawl, compared to other weapons such as SRMs and/or any type of SL.

I mean, do you compare your CERPPC to SRMs in a brawl when typically talking about the weapon? Or are you more prone to talking about CERPPCs as more of a long range weapon? Typically, I find people mention PPCs in the latter, or as a mid range weapon. It isn't brought up as a brawling specific weapon, and thus it's rarely denounced as a bad weapon because "it can't brawl as well as...".

it more has to do with the warhawk's heat sink complement and quirks. if you fire a ppc every second or so in chain fire you can actually sustain for a really long time. this is great for ranged trading but if the battle ever gets close quarters you are not going to do so bad. would you win against a dedicated ballistic/srm brawler? probably not. if i was in an erll boat id cringe at the possibility of cqb, while the ppc warhawk maintains its effectiveness to a much better degree.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 July 2018 - 08:23 AM.

[Kubernetes]

Sjorpha, on 17 July 2018 - 10:30 PM, said:

It's perfectly OK for different weapons to require different amounts of skill, or different sets of skills. So LRMs are easy to use but so what? Why is that even worth discussing?

As long as weapons are well balanced I don't care how hard or easy they are to use. It's fair for harder to use weapons to also have higher power peaks but that's already true in most cases.

In the context of a game, higher skill weapons/playstyles should be rewarded. Systems like LRMs are like novice or starter weapons-- easy to use but with a low skill ceiling and low potential effectiveness.

All the tweaking around LRMs doesn't bother me because they haven't changed the basic mechanics of the weapon, and that means they'll continue to be low-skill, low effect weapons. What does irk me is how PGI is killing gameplay on the other end by removing high skill styles. Their idea of balance seems to be that all weapons should be equally effective no matter how much skill or effort is required of a player.

[Eisenhorne]

LordNothing, on 18 July 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

it more has to do with the warhawk's heat sink complement and quirks. if you fire a ppc every second or so in chain fire you can actually sustain for a really long time. this is great for ranged trading but if the battle ever gets close quarters you are not going to do so bad. would you win against a dedicated ballistic/srm brawler? probably not. if i was in an erll boat id cringe at the possibility of cqb, while the ppc warhawk maintains its effectiveness to a much better degree.

Yea, the PPC warhawk can deal with close combat pretty well, assuming you're not already heat capped when you engage. Assuming it's a lighter mech attacking you, as long as you hit your next 3-4 double shots (fire both PPC's in an arm at once) you'll kill or cripple most lights and mediums.

If you're engaged with an assault or heavy you're probably in trouble, but you shouldn't get into that situation anyway.

[Groutknoll]

lookout!
LRMs are failing out of the sky!

[The Mysterious Fox]

AMS lol, your spoons will not empty the sea