78 replies to this topic

[Wing 0]

This has to be the most embarrassing weapon balancing ever. I play with a team doing 8 LRM boats and the other 4 are anything goes and see enemy mechs dead in 3 secs apart by LRMS. So much for that "Time To Kill" excuse. Just sad and too easy now. Who was the idiot who wanted this, I want to give him a punch to the face at this point. PTS was a bad wake up call prior before this patch went out.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Im here to many ...Brawl ...Brawl ...
Brawl not the king of Tactics , its the simplest and a very Poor Tactic...its more a Saloonfight style ...with most less tactical awarness .Perfect Tactic for "Gen"Custer-like Ego player tahts not will really fight with Teams like the Knights in the early Medieval Period with less Tactics and many individual Mass Fights to fight for his own Proud and not for to win as team ...

Many brawlers stupid and helpless when she must fight against other tactics...how many Brawlers im seeing thats fight by Ranges under 100m in max Zoom and nothing seeing ,many have terrible bad aim and a stupid tunnelview annothing seeing more as her cursor...


And for this Players the LRMs deadly like the Longbow Arrows thats raining of the Medieval Knights by the Charge over open Terrain , or the Charge of the english Light Cavalry in the Crimean War in the1850ths against russia Artillery.
When all is Auto Pinpoint with no skill and so easy ? why lost the bad players ? and not use the High Pinpoint Accuracy for herself ??????? and matchs with under 300dmg and nothing kills in a Heavy Mech is bad ,when not technical/personal handycaps problems or high Ping problems

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 17 July 2018 - 08:50 PM.

[Vellron2005]

kutkip, on 17 July 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

First match after patch

Nice..

Give it a week or two..

It will all be back to business as usual by then..

[MischiefSC]

Simple answer to what takes the most skill -

When the best players in the game play against the best players in the game what do they use? Because that's going to be whatever gives them the most return on their skill investment. That's going to be whatever has the highest skill ceiling.

Nobody uses LRMs competitively because the relative skill ceiling is low. Because direct fire is so much more effective as you get more and more competent it's the better choice. That's because it isn't just that it takes more skill, it is that it continues to provide increasing rewards as your skill increases regardless of the skill of your opponent.

LRMs conversely take little skill comparatively to use and you can max out their performance pretty early. Also their effectiveness declines as the enemies skill increases.

Simply put, LRMs are easier to use but largely only good vs bads.

[Agent of Change]

MischiefSC, on 18 July 2018 - 07:23 AM, said:

Simply put, LRMs are easier to use but largely only good vs bads.

We have gone back and forth a couple times, so please don't take this for sarcasm or argued in bad faith.

If, as you say, LRM's are "largely only good Vs. bads"' why do i hear a constant refrain from self professed "good players" complaining about how they are tired of being killed/hurt/having combat effectiveness reduced by LRMs?

It's a serious question asked only slightly disingenuously, which I am admitting. LRM's are a low initial skill ceiling, true. But applied knowledge of chassis, map, myriad game mechanics, positioning, team support, communication, etc.. all build to increase incrementally the effectiveness one can have while using them. Granted the skill curve is more of a sharp spike up initially and then a very low slow gentle up from there unlike say direct fire (which requires most of the same soft skills plus reflex skills) that has a more traditional skill curve with it not being the easiest to excel initially but can become devastating with developed skill.

My point being, that IF the argument that LRM's are only good against bads because (as I have argued and you imply) half the effectiveness of LRM's is reliant on enemy choices and actions then it's only in those situations where players are actually good enough to negate LRM's on the receiving end that they become completely ineffective to teh point of being abandoned. You mention competition being a place LRM's are rarely used?

Ok, this is true, but why? And i argue that the truth of the argument is deeper and a little more uncomfortable than the preferred argument that "LRM's are just bad weapons for bad players and aginst bad players." Yes, competitive players in competition teams, with competition builds, and Competition drop designs do largely render LRM's usueless other wise we'd see more of them right? Yes, Direct fire is more efficient in killing enemies than LRM's, but requiring the risk of exposure and return fire that requires additional different skills to be effective. LRM's are not "easier" to use than any direct fire weapon, Direct fire weapons are literally point and click, the trick it's that surviving is more difficult being the trade off for the more efficient killing power. Which is a different skill set entirely and That is where we get back to LRM's.

People good at direct fire weapons are generally also good at "survival skills" people with genuinely good survival skills are also least likely to get destroyed by LRM's. That's why Pro teams don't use LRM's, not becasue they wouldn't over some argument of cowardice or it being an easy weapon, if it delivered damage effectively it would be used period. Any argument to the contrary is missing the obvious about a competitive system. So let's look at those "survival skills" that are omni-applicable and render LRM's so useless at the highest levels of play.

• Coordination - communication within a team, a simple warning can mean a lot, identifying threats and sharing that info can be invaluable, and a team moving and fighting as one is the ultimate force multiplier
  
• Smart movement: using cover, begin aware of your firing lanes and where you are vulnerable from.
  
• Timing: Patience in when to engage, when to hold, when to move.
  
• Knowledge of the game: deep understanding of the mechanics, and the abilities of your team and teh enemies
  
• Damage spreading: known as unselfish play, encompassing both armor sharing and personal skill in spreading incoming fire across your mech, and even includes clustering AMS in the case of missiles for mutual defense

I'm sure there are others but those are teh major ones I can think of and when applied at a high level can render LRM's useless, but also apply to all other aspects of the the game.



I posit the issue is not with LRM's themselves. A good player in QP or Group will rarely have much to complain about LRMs if they apply their survival skills, sure once in a while maybe but mostly not. The problem people seem to have it that LRM's are "unfair" but only because your average QP or group drop is made up of players that play in a selfish, damage focused, kill hunting, barely coordinated, reluctant to communicate, impatient, and often reckless manner. The issue at hand is not that LRM's are the problem, it's that most players won't put in the minimal effort to even talk in a QP and work as a team let alone Group drops where groups just ignore everyone not in their own group. LRM's are only a 'problem' (and i really don't agree they are right now) in MWO because we are content to play an implicitly team based game as a bunch of individuals rather than try to work together to both our personal and collective benefit.

Ask yourself, if you are mad at LRM's, why are you really mad at LRM's? Is it really becasue they are so OP? Or is it because it just makes it hard to move across open ground, or because some perceived lesser player hurt or killed you, or is it because you lost because your team didn't play as a team, or the other team did play as a team better than yours did.

So to close I'll restate your thesis as i see it: "LRM's are largely only good against the disorganized, unsupported, uncommunicative, careless, and arrogant." And to be honest I seen some self professed very good players be some or all of those things in QP and Group.

Edited by Agent of Change, 18 July 2018 - 08:45 AM.

[LordBraxton]

kutkip, on 17 July 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

With the ammo and velocity buffs from the latest patches added it might get a little crazy. The point is that a good brawl is much more fun than raining missiles. It creates a playstyle where everyone is scared to come out of cover.

no, pinpoint alpha and laser vomit create that kind of gameplay.

[Thorqemada]

MischiefSC, on 18 July 2018 - 07:23 AM, said:

When the best players in the game play against the best players in the game what do they use? Because that's going to be whatever gives them the most return on their skill investment. That's going to be whatever has the highest skill ceiling.

A competitive Player does not use a Weapon bcs it takes skill, a competitive Players uses a Weapon bcs it is most effective!

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Thorqemada, on 18 July 2018 - 08:48 AM, said:

A competitive Player does not use a Weapon bcs it takes skill, a competitive Players uses a Weapon bcs it is most effective!

Yep. Lasers. Point. Click. Retreat behind rock. Repeat.

[Kubernetes]

Agent of Change, on 18 July 2018 - 08:33 AM, said:

If, as you say, LRM's are "largely only good Vs. bads"' why do i hear a constant refrain from self professed "good players" complaining about how they are tired of being killed/hurt/having combat effectiveness reduced by LRMs?

Because a "self professed good player" is not necessarily a good player.

[Agent of Change]

Kubernetes, on 18 July 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

Because a "self professed good player" is not necessarily a good player.

As far as i'm concerned that category covers absolutely anyone here that claims their personal skill as an argument but doesn't have a large number of people going "damn that guy right there is good"

Edited by Agent of Change, 18 July 2018 - 09:33 AM.

[Kubernetes]

Agent of Change, on 18 July 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

As far as i'm concerned that category covers absolutely anyone here that claims their personal skill as an argument but doesn't have a large number of people going "damn that guy right there is good"

Why do you need spectator approval? Just look up their stats.

(not saying that good stats are definitive proof of a player's quality, but bad stats are a strong indication that a player lacks quality)

Edited by Kubernetes, 18 July 2018 - 09:51 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Kubernetes, on 18 July 2018 - 09:48 AM, said:

Why do you need spectator approval? Just look up their stats.

Stats mean **** all to me except for my own and only then to track what ever goal i'm currently experimenting with, it is way to easy game stat systems if you wanna just get a high score. But that's not the point, you seem awfully defensive that i won't just validate the value of someones opinion based solely on their word and Jarls' list.

If someone says they are a good player, and no one else confirms that is the case then that is literally teh definition of "self professed". I'm not going to bother doing leg work to validate someones claim, so i use the qualifier.

[MischiefSC]

Thorqemada, on 18 July 2018 - 08:48 AM, said:

A competitive Player does not use a Weapon bcs it takes skill, a competitive Players uses a Weapon bcs it is most effective!

A weapons effectiveness is dependent on skill. The higher the skill ceiling the more use a good player can get out of it. There's some incredible players who can do great in QP with LRMs but that's a distinct exception.

I'm not stat-shaming here, I'm not even looking anything up. However I'm willing to get that anyone talking about how good LRMs are and how they work "if you use them right" I'd going to be struggling to break 1.0 w/l and nowhere near 1.5. There's no moral component to that and it's not a "you but be this 733t to ride this ride" thing. It's that winning is the final arbiter of what does and doesnt work. While GQ does skew stats a bit but only by scale. The people who win the most are the final arbiter on.... what wins the most.

LRMs don't win nearly as much - in fact not even close. There's a handful as in like 5 or so players who win a lot with LRMs. I mean we're talking people like Writhenn. They win a lot with anything. That's not about LRMs but people on the end of the skill curve.

Edited by MischiefSC, 18 July 2018 - 10:01 AM.

[MechaBattler]

How's the new heat on Laser AMS? Is it anymore practical to use? : /

[Groutknoll]

because nobody has posted this in the thread so far ...

[Mystere]

kutkip, on 17 July 2018 - 12:37 PM, said:

It was on the Prianha, maybe you recognise the cockpit in the background. Please try to keep the discussion focussed about the AMS and LRM buff. I think they should make the AMS even a little stronger to convince people to use it.

I say make both AMS and missile weapons all stronger than they currently are.

MischiefSC, on 18 July 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

A weapons effectiveness is dependent on skill. The higher the skill ceiling the more use a good player can get out of it. There's some incredible players who can do great in QP with LRMs but that's a distinct exception.

Are you saying that a "good" player will choose to use a gauss rifle over a fire-and-forget does-not-miss missile that hits the section aimed at at time of firing?

Edited by Mystere, 18 July 2018 - 10:47 AM.

[Ruccus]

MechaBattler, on 18 July 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

How's the new heat on Laser AMS? Is it anymore practical to use? : /

I tried out the clan version on my Hunchback IIC (dual UAC10, 2 ERSL, 1 LAMS) and it seemed better than I remembered it performing before; my main problem was my UAC10s jamming rather than heat from the LAMS. I tried out the IS version with a splat Bushwacker S2 (4xASRM6, 2xSL, 1 AMS, 1 LAMS) and it covered well but I started to have a bit of heat issues when the battle got hot and heavy.

I think it's a viable option on cooler builds for clan mechs, and for the inner sphere on cool missile or ballistic builds where you'd rather use the regular spots for weapon ammo and not put a bunch of ammo in a torso where it can explode before getting used up.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 18 July 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

I say make both AMS and missile weapons all stronger than they currently are.




Are you saying that a "good" player will choose to use a gauss rifle over a fire-and-forget does-not-miss missile that hits the section aimed at at time of firing?

I'm saying a good player will use what best let's him leverage his skill. If there's a weapon so broken OP that the games auto-aim eliminates the value of skill, he will probably go play a game that's skill-based instead. That's the point of it being a multiplayer PvP game - a test of skill between players. Trying to dilute that to replace skill when possible with auto-aim features or features that punish people for having good aim or fast reflexes isn't actually balancing anything.

[General Solo]

So many stars in the sky
Puts some fear back in the game (I miss you Long Tom)
Good - Its Battle tech you should be afraid.

[Weeny Machine]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 17 July 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

Im here to many ...Brawl ...Brawl ...
Brawl not the king of Tactics , its the simplest and a very Poor Tactic...its more a Saloonfight style ...with most less tactical awarness .

I am sorry, but then you have no idea how to brawl properly. Let me guess, you run up to mech x and and just alpha /chuckle

Edited by Bush Hopper, 18 July 2018 - 11:28 AM.