154 replies to this topic

[KoalaBrownie]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

You know what's funny? Not a lot of people does, we don't want to take the heat for you to rack up the damage numbers, and pretend like you carried the team. This is why LRMs being indirect-fire is hardly worth it.

For me to rack up the numbers? Most of the time I play direct-fire mechs. But I appreciate that the game offers different ways to play and people who enjoy the idea of throwing missile after missile over the hill should have their fun too.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

People with direct fire don't need LRM boats, LRM players only wanting to play indirect-fire need direct-fire people.

Yeah you don't need LRMs, until of course you get caught in an engagement you're in danger of losing until LRMs start raining down on your opponent and give you the upper hand, or vice versa.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

The problem is that you are defending this problematic playstyle that is precisely why LRMs is weak. No, I care about the LRMs, I simply do not care about the parasitic playstyle

Parasitic? TEAM GAME. You are playing a TEAM GAME.
I defend the play style because anyone arguing for what is essentially more generic gameplay is arguing for a game I don't care to play. You want direct fire missiles? Get MRMs. SRMs. RLs. Fire away. Variety of play styles meanwhile is what keeps a game like this interesting and well populated.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Really? Bring a dedicated NARC or TAG mech. Tell us how useful it is without LRM allies on the team.

Dedicated TAG mech? When did they add the Ostscout?
As for Narc, even the Raven has a bunch of other kit. Kintaro has a bunch of other weapons too. There's no such thing as "dedicated Narc" mech unless someone actually builds it and if you build it well, A+ for effort but F for usefulness.

No mech should mount Narc without also mounting missiles to benefit from it.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

I think you're confusing a spotter from a sniper/poker.

If you're shooting while you're spotting, you ain't spotting properly. That gives away your position, and prevents you from spotting because you have to break line of sight to not get shot at, and this in turn breaks the lock for your team LRM boat. You need that reliable lock to land missiles, you should know that, you seem to be one of these parasitic lurm enthusiast.

3/35 builds makes me an LRM enthusiast? Sure dude.
No, I just respect other people's play styles.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

And again, that's the problem why they are inferior weapons. They need to be good on their own.

So argue to buff the weapon, don't argue to change the play style.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

This is why we need LRMs to be powerful, and specialized spotters that will result into a powerful combination.

Specialized spotters don't work in a game dominated by solo QP.

[The6thMessenger]

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

For me to rack up the numbers? Most of the time I play direct-fire mechs. But I appreciate that the game offers different ways to play and people who enjoy the idea of throwing missile after missile over the hill should have their fun too.

Sure, but with reason. If they're hurling a lot of missiles, but ultimately does little, that really questions the point.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Yeah you don't need LRMs, until of course you get caught in an engagement you're in danger of losing until LRMs start raining down on your opponent and give you the upper hand, or vice versa.

That's a pretty specific incident. Far more common is that, we'll be poking from cover, trading damage. You know, like how veterans play the game.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Parasitic? TEAM GAME. You are playing a TEAM GAME.

Yes, parasite. If the LRM boat isn't capable of standing on it's own, then it's just a one-way beneficiary. That spotting assist, is effectively the spotter's damage, not them.

Sure it's a team game, so i expect the damn lurm boat to share armor. I also expect him to pull his weight. I won't want to carry a damn dead weight.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

I defend the play style because anyone arguing for what is essentially more generic gameplay is arguing for a game I don't care to play. You want direct fire missiles? Get MRMs. SRMs. RLs. Fire away. Variety of play styles meanwhile is what keeps a game like this interesting and well populated.

Or you know, just fix the damn LRMs in the first place and be done with it. Don't get me wrong sure, MRMs, SRMS, RLs, ATMs are good solution -- but that is precisely why the are a valuable weapon system, and the LRM isn't.

If you're content of it being a piss-poor weapon, that's on you. But don't pretend that it's just fine, or the rest of us actually want it that broke. Even PGI knows this.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Dedicated TAG mech? When did they add the Ostscout?

Or you know, a properly kitted out Raven, Spider, Kitfox, Cougar, Arctic Cheetah, Cicada, Shadow Cat, Arctic Wolf, Mist Lynx -- basically mechs quick to reposition and easy to hide with.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

As for Narc, even the Raven has a bunch of other kit. Kintaro has a bunch of other weapons too. There's no such thing as "dedicated Narc" mech unless someone actually builds it and if you build it well, A+ for effort but F for usefulness.

You do realize that, unlike TAG, NARC does not need retained line of sight? Being dedicated narcer does not mean you don't have other weapons, hell you could even have other weapons with TAG. The thing about narc is that you can hit and run, land a narc, and hit and run again. You don't exactly risk reliable locks, unlike in TAG.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

No mech should mount Narc without also mounting missiles to benefit from it.

Except dedicated NARCers like Kitfox with D Left arm, and the Raven. Also a few other mechs.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

3/35 builds makes me an LRM enthusiast? Sure dude. No, I just respect other people's play styles.

Oh, so you don't have adequate knowledge about LRMing? So why are we even talking?

Respect is earned, not given. Your right to play as you wish is respected, but you playing poorly by choice isn't respected. You're more than welcome to be the knight-in-shining-armor of bad-play, but don't expect us to take you seriously.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

So argue to buff the weapon, don't argue to change the play style.

But we can't just buff the weapon at it's Indirect-Fire anymore, that is the crux of this problem. As PGI said on the podcast before, if we balance the LRMs at the high level, what do you think happens to the lower level of play? And if Indirect-Fire > Direct-Fire, we couldn't just buff it for Direct-Fire because the Indirect-Fire would also be buffed more than what is intended.

Why is that logic flying over your head, is it really that hard? Without mechanical adjustments, we can't do anything of substance.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Specialized spotters don't work in a game dominated by solo QP.

Two things: Not the only environment in the game, there's also Group Queue, Invasion. Hell, even Solaris and Scouting -- though i don't think LRMs are supposed to work well in there.

And the last thing is that, they wouldn't work because of the piss-poor performance of LRMs. Just that simple.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2018 - 08:09 PM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

Well, we've tried indirect-fire primary, didn't really go well either.
[color=#222222]

[/color]

[color=#222222]It could be argued that we did not try enough, especially given the mainly one-dimensional nerf/buff outlook of both PGI and (especially) the player base.[/color]

[color=#222222]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

[/color]
Improvements on the interplay between counter measures how? TAG weakens AMS?
[color=#222222]

[/color]

Here is just a quick -- and completely uncurated -- example:

• Give LRMs an initially ballistic trajectory to target.
  
• Make multiple AMS more effective (i.e. improved accuracy, killing more missiles per AMS) when positioned as an "umbrella" (i.e. overlapping).
  
• [color=#222222]Give ECM a new feature: decoy target signatures.[/color]
  
• Make TAG invisible in 2 of 3 vision modes.
  
• TAG flattens the trajectory of LRMs, thus giving them a shorter time-to-target. Better yet, make the missiles accelerate while target is tagged.
  
• NARC makes LRMs prioritize the enemy hit with a beacon, if any, making LRMs true fire-and-forget weapons.
  
• Using any two of TAG, NARC, and Artemis gives extra benefits.
  
• TAG + NARC + Artemis gives even more extra benefits.

Remember, the above is just a quick and completely uncurated example.


And change the reward system towards the generous side to reflect the above if so desired, although frankly I myself do not care.

[color=#222222]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:00 PM, said:

[/color]
I'm down on improving information warfare. But as far as we're concerned, LRMs won't still be contributing much on it's own. It's still going to leech from others, and because of that it could not be buffed. This only shifts the problem, but doesn't really address it.

LRMs being indirect fire need guys to spot for them, the guys using indirect fire doesn't, this is why more often the LRMs when employed as indirect-fire primarily becomes a deadweight to players that could not -- and more importantly would not -- spot for them. **** needs to be addressed.

As I mentioned in another thread, I am still not convinced it is a weapon problem as opposed to it being a people (i.e. teamwork) problem.

I am a firm believer in giving people more than enough rope to hang themselves if that is what they so choose.

(Damned Edge. I'm tired of removing the extraneous formatting tags. I'm just leaving them as is. <shrugs>)

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2018 - 08:16 PM.

[KoalaBrownie]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's a pretty specific incident. Far more common is that, we'll be poking from cover, trading damage. You know, like how veterans play the game.

So veteran light mechs don't attack other light mechs? Right. Good to know you're not doing your job.
Any Piranha or other close range Light with the retain the perk to retain a target after it goes behind you will get good locks for LRM support mechs as well.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Yes, parasite. If the LRM boat isn't capable of standing on it's own, then it's just a one-way beneficiary. That spotting assist, is effectively the spotter's damage, not them.

If your requirement for not being a parasite is being able to stand on your own, there are many mechs that are going to fail the test including pretty much every assault mech in the arsenal.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Sure it's a team game, so i expect the damn lurm boat to share armor. I also expect him to pull his weight. I won't want to carry a damn dead weight.

Funny how in the same argument you complain that an LRM mech is doing tons of damage and pretending he carried the game and yet you're claiming they're not pulling their weight. Those tons of damage are doing what exactly?

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Or you know, just fix the damn LRMs in the first place and be done with it. Don't get me wrong sure, MRMs, SRMS, RLs, ATMs are good solution -- but that is precisely why the are a valuable weapon system, and the LRM isn't.

Again, you don't wan to fix LRMs. You want to fix a play style.
Quit trying to enforce your rules of play on other people.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Or you know, a properly kitted out Raven, Spider, Kitfox, Cougar, Arctic Cheetah, Cicada, Shadow Cat, Arctic Wolf, Mist Lynx -- basically mechs quick to reposition and easy to hide with.

You do realize that, unlike TAG, NARC does not need retained line of sight? Being dedicated narcer does not mean you don't have other weapons, hell you could even have other weapons with TAG. The thing about narc is that you can hit and run, land a narc, and hit and run again. You don't exactly risk reliable locks, unlike in TAG.

You know what the word dedicated means? It means devoted to a task. A mech with 5 ER ML and 1 TAG is not "dedicated". I've only seen one dedicated spotter in thousands of games and it was some joker running around with 1 TAG and 2 Narcs. There may be more dedicated spotters in GP or FP but certainly not in QP

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Oh, so you don't have adequate knowledge about LRMing? So why are we even talking?

Oh first I'm an enthusiast. Now I don't have adequate knowledge?
Please try to make an argument dude. This attacking the person **** is getting old.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Your right to play as you wish is respected, but you playing poorly by choice isn't respected.

Can you contradict yourself any faster?

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

But we can't just buff the weapon at it's Indirect-Fire anymore, that is the crux of this problem. As PGI said on the podcast before, if we balance the LRMs at the high level, what do you think happens to the lower level of play? And if Indirect-Fire > Direct-Fire, we couldn't just buff it for Direct-Fire because the Indirect-Fire would also be buffed more than what is intended.

If PGI is serious about e-sports they'll balance at high level and not care about the rest like Dota2. If they're not serious and just want to make money from the majority, they balance for low level.

Those are the only two real options.

Edited by KoalaBrownie, 08 August 2018 - 08:38 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

It could be argued that we did not try enough, especially given the mainly one-dimensional nerf/buff outlook of both PGI and (especially) the player base.

With what we've seen, I expect it to be piss poor way of doing it.

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

Here is just a quick -- and completely uncurated -- example:

• Give LRMs an initially ballistic trajectory to target.
  
• Make multiple AMS more effective (i.e. improved accuracy, killing more missiles per AMS) when positioned as an "umbrella" (i.e. overlapping).
  
• Give ECM a new feature: decoy target signatures.
  
• Make TAG invisible in 2 of 3 vision modes.
  
• TAG flattens the trajectory of LRMs, thus giving them a shorter time-to-target. Better yet, make the missiles accelerate while target is tagged.
  
• NARC makes LRMs prioritize the enemy hit with a beacon, if any, making LRMs true fire-and-forget weapons.
  
• Using any two of TAG, NARC, and Artemis gives extra benefits.
  
• TAG + NARC + Artemis gives even more extra benefits.

Remember, the above is just a quick and completely uncurated example.

1.) Do you mean straight or hyperbolic? Cause they're already doing a ballistic trajectory if it were hyperbolic.
2.) Really? Buff the counters? ****'s already not performing well.
3.) Again, buff the counters? But okay sure, target signatures.
4.) Oh i agree, TAG should have been doing that in the first place. But we still we get to this problem. LRMs are still pretty bad.
5.) That's probably something. But needing TAG for basic chore of not being deadweight, maybe it should have been doing that in the first place.
6.) Yes, that's nice. Make NARC + LRMs = true fire and forget. But again we come to the Indirect-Fire problem, LRMs still ****. You only gave more worth with NARC, but ultimately does nothing to make LRMs more useful.
7 - 8.) Don't they already do? Even so, that's just extra hurdles to make LRMs bearable. Without those things, LRMs are still ****, and now we have to invest more things to make them not ****.

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

And change the reward system towards the generous side to reflect the above if so desired, although frankly I myself do not care.

I don't think people should be rewarded generously for doing piss-poor contribution.

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

As I mentioned in another thread, I am still not convinced it is a weapon problem as opposed to it being a people (i.e. teamwork) problem.

I am a firm believer in giving people more than enough rope to hang themselves if that is what they so choose.

(Damned Edge. I'm tired of removing the extraneous formatting tags. I'm just leaving them as is. <shrugs>)

Well, that's on you. People on the other hand, even PGI looking at the global data, they argue otherwise.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

So veteran light mechs don't attack other light mechs? Right. Good to know you're not doing your job.

Lol. I don't think we're playing the same game. Lights have a variety of job, and fighting off lights aren't necessarily their job. Mostly it falls on who is mostly capable, such as that streak-cat.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Any Piranha or other close range Light with the retain the perk to retain a target after it goes behind you will get good locks for LRM support mechs as well.

True. That being said, Streak-Dog, Streak-Huntsman, and Streak-Cat says Hi.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

If your requirement for not being a parasite is being able to stand on your own, there are many mechs that are going to fail the test including pretty much every assault mech in the arsenal.

No, my requirement is that these people could get locks on their own, and work for their own damage. That's a key difference.

Build a Dakka-Dire, it pummels enemies on their own. HGR Seipnir, puts a pair of 25-damage shells on the enemy on their own. Build LRM boats, unless you get your own locks, and the team graces you with their own, you are a dead weight. You are a parasite.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Funny how in the same argument you complain that an LRM mech is doing tons of damage and pretending he carried the game and yet you're claiming they're not pulling their weight. Those tons of damage are doing what exactly?

Molesting and annoying mechs. You know a laser-vomit could quickly destroy a component, destroy key weapons, and junk. two to three shots, by bye heavy-gauss.

You want to know what those tons of damage do? They waste time.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Again, you don't wan to fix LRMs. You want to fix a play style. Quit trying to enforce your rules of play on other people.

Again, the playstyle is LRM's problem. Quit defending bad-play, quit being in the way of progress.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

You know what the word dedicated means? It means devoted to a task. A mech with 5 ER ML and 1 TAG is not "dedicated".

I've only seen one dedicated spotter in thousands of games and it was some joker running around with 1 TAG and 2 Narcs. There may be more dedicated spotters in GP or FP but certainly not in QP

Do you know what context is? If we accept your definition, then no mech is dedicated. There's the task of flanking around, of moving, of jumping, of locking.

But with context of "dedication" as in it's a god damn role, means it's primarily kitted to such a role. It's build is catered to it's playstyle. Having so much investment for other weapons that necessitate the use of those weapons to get a solid return of investment is something to consider.

You might as well argue "that's not a crocodile, that's an alligator", when there's still a predator around the bayou that killed your mate. It's not solving anything.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Oh first I'm an enthusiast. Now I don't have adequate knowledge?

If you have, you failed to demonstrate it. And enthusaist =/= having knowledge about it, it's a matter of preference.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Please try to make an argument dude. This attacking the person **** is getting old.

I wasn't attacking you, i was describing you. Big difference.

As in, if your argument is that you "have 3/35 builds that wouldn't make you the usual Parasitic LRM boat", but then the issue is that you aren't demonstrating adequate knowledge about it, then that's just a conclusion.

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

Can you contradict yourself any faster?

There isn't a contradiction. Respecting people's right to decide, isn't the same as respecting people's decisions. Hate speech must be allowed for free speech to thrive, but that doesn't mean we couldn't frown on hate speech.

Is that really hard logic to follow? Are we even on the same page?

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

If PGI is serious about e-sports they'll balance at high level and not care about the rest like Dota2. If they're not serious and just want to make money from the majority, they balance for low level.

Those are the only two real options.

Not really. It's much more nuanced than that. Such as if the game is too hard to get in, with newbies getting demolished utterly, then there won't be new players and we result in a dead game because eventually, people leave and there's no new blood to fill in the missing slots.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2018 - 09:41 PM.

[Phoenix 72]

Rafe Yomin, on 08 August 2018 - 02:38 PM, said:

So if you could upgrade your armor to take 10% less laser damage or ballistic damage, for the price of 1,5 tons (for clans, guessing 2 for IS? Also just using the weight of 1 AMS, so halving the percentage neutralized to make a fair representation), you wouldn't take it?

Sure I would. Which is why I am carrying AMS into battle in most of the Mechs I own that can carry them. However, IMO AMS works more like a X% damage reduction for Y amount of time buff. Which may bring you exactly nothing if you cannot act on the problem during that timeframe. Most games these days are static peeking for a good amount of time. I can do exactly nothing on my own in this game. If I charge in, I will get focused down. I don't remember the number of games where my AMS ammo ran out during the peeking phase, but it is a significant number. Which is why I said it is not a hard counter. Nor do I expect it to be. All it does is give you some additional time to get organised.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

1.) Do you mean straight or hyperbolic? Cause they're already doing a ballistic trajectory if it were hyperbolic.
2.) Really? Buff the counters? ****'s already not performing well.
3.) Again, buff the counters? But okay sure, target signatures.
4.) Oh i agree, TAG should have been doing that in the first place. But we still we get to this problem. LRMs are still pretty bad.
5.) That's probably something. But needing TAG for basic chore of not being deadweight, maybe it should have been doing that in the first place.
6.) Yes, that's nice. Make NARC + LRMs = true fire and forget. But again we come to the Indirect-Fire problem, LRMs still ****. You only gave more worth with NARC, but ultimately does nothing to make LRMs more useful.
7 - 8.) Don't they already do? Even so, that's just extra hurdles to make LRMs bearable. Without those things, LRMs are still ****, and now we have to invest more things to make them not ****.

I did say that was just a quick and uncurated example. I'm not being paid to fully thresh this out, you know.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

I don't think people should be rewarded generously for doing piss-poor contribution.

I was referring to the players applying the force multipliers, not the LRM carrier.

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

Well, that's on you. People on the other hand, even PGI looking at the global data, they argue otherwise.

Are you really sure you want to be on PGI's side, especially given their impeccable track record?

Edited by Mystere, 08 August 2018 - 08:55 PM.

[MischiefSC]

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 02:27 PM, said:

Blah blah personal attack blah blah. Heard it all before.
Inflicting damage while taking no damage in return is superior to armor sharing. Case closed.
Being able to concentrate fire from multiple attackers onto one target without LOS is superior to direct fire as well.

The problem is not that LRM boats don't share armor, the problem is that direct-damage dealers rush the enemy before the LRMs have properly softened them up.



RTS? Yeah okay buddy.



Wrong for the reasons listed above.



You didn't make the spotting role stronger you just limited it to a few specialized mechs with the proper equipment. You're trying to make spotting rare and direct fire better to influence LRM players to play as direct-fire mechs as they can no longer consistently rely on spotters being in-game.

Instead, howabout you let other players play in the way that THEY want to play, not the way you want them to play.

There's no personal attacks here. Without question armor sharing is a big part of what wins. If you erroneously think that just because you're not taking damage the enemy isn't shooting you dont get this game at all. What does and doesnt work is established by the winners. The people who win the most. That's already been addressed repeatedly.

Though can play however you want. When you play LRMs you statistically reduce the odds of your team winning. This is show observable in the win/loss statistics. Indirect fire and not sharing armor means your teammates are taking effective focused fire spread between fewer of them. This is a compound effect - if your team is spreading their fire between 8-12 targets and the enemy is only spreading their damage between 6-10, while your team is burdened with the LRMs spread damage and inconsistent hits plus taking an average not just 10%+ more damage each (usually more) but its focused damage. That's why you tend to be gunned down in seconds as the match ends and you're getting rolled 8 v 2.

If you want to argue that all the people who are demonstratively more successful at winning matches in this game than you (or I) dont actually understand what wins as well as you do you have a big burden of proof to address.

However, again, play how you want. Bring stock mechs or lbx5 + streaks or LRMs or whatever. There's a lot of ways to decrease your odds of winning. You're not required to do what's successful, do what you want within the rules.

However when you state something demonstratively false like "armor sharing is inferior to hiding and using your teammates as pug armor" you're going to get called out.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

I did say that was just a quick and uncurated example. I'm not being paid to fully thresh this out, you know.

Well, okay.

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

I was referring to the players applying the force multipliers, not the LRM carrier.

Oh, apologies, in that case. Yes please.

Mystere, on 08 August 2018 - 08:46 PM, said:

Are you really sure you want to be on PGI's side, especially given their impeccable track record?

Wrong, PGI is on our side. Not that it has that much merit, but it's still a distinction. Now i get that PGI will probably do things wrongly, but still.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 08 August 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Yes, parasite. If the LRM boat isn't capable of standing on it's own, then it's just a one-way beneficiary. That spotting assist, is effectively the spotter's damage, not them.

Sure it's a team game, so i expect the damn lurm boat to share armor. I also expect him to pull his weight. I won't want to carry a damn dead weight.

Its a team game, but there are still lots of people dont do locks because parasite lrms. Why should i share armor with them? Lots of people dont take ams or bap, why should i share armor with people that dont invest at least a single ton for the team? Should we also talk about the parasites that use "pugs as meatshields" ?
Give and take ...

And about frontline:
They thanks to pgi, the arc/artemis nerfed forced me to stay futher away,
no 200-250m bending over obstacles since then.

MischiefSC, on 08 August 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

When you play LRMs you statistically reduce the odds of your team winning. This is show observable in the win/loss statistics.

My statistics say that my lrm boats increase the chance to win (pure qp).
Maybe you can show me some stats/statistics where i can see what you claim?

Edited by Kroete, 09 August 2018 - 01:08 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 09 August 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

Its a team game, but there are still lots of people dont do locks because parasite lrms. Why should i share armor with them?

Because you won't be the parasite LRM boats if you do.

Kroete, on 09 August 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

Lots of people dont take ams or bap, why should i share armor with people that dont invest at least a single ton for the team?

Probably because there's more than just AMS or BAP to contribute to the team. Sharing Armor is two way street, they are there for you just as you for them.

Kroete, on 09 August 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

Should we also talk about the parasites that use "pugs as meatshields" ?

Yes, we should. But while they usually get good results, the parasites usually don't.

Kroete, on 09 August 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

Give and take ...

So why would we just give our own armor for the sake of LRMs getting their own kills?

[Rafe Yomin]

KoalaBrownie, on 08 August 2018 - 03:26 PM, said:

Who said I was talking about the LRM boat? I was talking about the team. If your whole team except for the spotters is out of LOS then you can rain LRMs down before you even get shot.



So your brilliant solution is to force mechs to specialize, and then drop into random teams of 11 other players who may or may not benefit from their support.

Tell me what's better for a team? A specialized support mech with no one to help and no weapons to contribute? Or an LRM boat that is delivering constant damage but not taking enemy shots?

If you're in a light, and are the only thing visible, you won't be spotting for long. Slower lights and mediums rely on the team to take most of the damage. If they have an assault next to them they will get targeted a lot less. Incidentally that assault is made with more armor, so he can take that damage. If that assault doesn't take damage because he's chucking missiles over a hill, then the light or medium will take that damage and die very quickly. Then they'll come and hit you because they might have an assault which took a lot of damage for the mediums and lights leaving more mechs alive than your team has left now.

[Orion ji]

Ya I love LRMS because at my horrible skill level they make the game fun.
tldr- they don't need a nerf but even if you do, I'll just adapt and overcome and you will nerf them again in a couple years. rinse and repeat till its just some derpy metabuild robot boxing match game.

it's_all_so_tiresome.exe

East Indy, on 07 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Since open beta, players generally dislike LRMs for two reasons, on the same principle: indirect fire at long range encourages low-effort play.

This only holds true if the opposing team is a 'low effort' team.
Meaning:
A) they stay in range of enemy LRMer
they stay in LOS
C) they stay out of ECM cover
D) they stay out of AMS cover
E) they cause you to MOVE from your cozy sniping spot.
A LRMer rarely does massive amounts of damage unless they enemy allows them to do so. I use them on nearly all my mechs because they do more than damage, they mess with players minds. Many players cannot even drive their mechs and shoot at the same time so it forces decision making which causes frustration which causes anger which causes silly threads like this.

East Indy, on 07 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

1. Players using LRMs en masse are encouraged to move well behind the team, reducing the number of 'Mechs that can present a front and share armor. Multiple LRM-boating 'Mechs can compound this problem.

-'encouraged to move well behind the team'.

No a good LRMer will ALWAYS keep his team in between him and the enemy; like a quarterback staying behind the lineman. This requires being able to constantly read his teams movements, being able to keep up with the teams speed, AND being able to guess or keep track of the enemies movements ALL while trying to gain & maintain locks and a good firing position(LOS, or no obstacles,etc.). It takes practice and skill to do this and the enemy(or your own team) will almost certainly screw you up.

-'and share armor'

this is kinda laughable considering the fact that if you NEED armor, YOUR positioning has been the blame for taking hits, NOT the LRMer. I would wager most times a player would either accidentally or intentionally shoot another player blocking that 'le epic core shot' and QQ in chat about how 'the derp blocked muh shot!!!'.

Seriously, are your games actually THAT close that this is a GREAT factor in your win/loss as opposed to enemy dps or bad positioning?

East Indy, on 07 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

2. Players targeted by LRMs, particularly players attempting to organize a push or maneuver away from cover, can be locked indefinitely by a single spotter, with few opportunities for return fire.

-'can be locked indefinitely by a single spotter'
This does NOT equate to being indefinitely FIRED UPON. Again, the shooter HAS to have a lock, HAS to be in range, and HAS to be in a position where his missiles(at least some) can actually HIT his target. Its kinda like ballistics except crappier damage because you have to have a lock.

With ALL the ECM,AMS, and LOS counters a players team has at their disposal UNLIKE ALL the other weapons in this game, firing LRMs does not guarantee ANY damage.

East Indy, on 07 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Low-effort, indirect fire is and always has been the problem with LRMs. Recent buffs to velocity and heat have cascaded a bit into more widespread usage. If PGI wants to maintain the absolute power of LRMs while shifting them to mechanics that make them less controversial, there is one mechanic to focus on: secondary locks/indirect fire. That means something like:

1. Nerfing lock time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

2. Nerfing tracking time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

3. Nerfing missile spread from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

4. Nerfing missile damage from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

Make LRM Guy work for his locks. Make him work for his damage. Your proposed changes, Paul and Chris, won't do that.

---'the absolute power of LRMs'. Oh this is funny.

If this game is still around in 10 years after countless nerfs, people would STILL be complaining about them when all they really had to do was learn their weaknesses and apply that to counter them, but no, complaining is so much easier that way they never really have to learn how to overcome a perceived challenge.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 09 August 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

My statistics say that my lrm boats increase the chance to win (pure qp).
Maybe you can show me some stats/statistics where i can see what you claim?

I'm not wanting to get into a territory that could be considered 'stat-shaming'. This is a game - people play it for fun. There is no 'shame' facet to discussing the lack of success of LRMs at winning matches vs LRMs at padding damage (and thus match score).

The stats in question would be the leaderboard and, more usefully, the Jarls List. Look at everyone who wins the most. All of them are going to tell you the same thing. Look at your own stats; you do decent damage but few wins. If you sort the Jarls List by match score you'll see your w/l is significantly lower than the people around you with more than 100 total matches played. Conversely, sort by w/l. You'll see that the majority of people above and below you in the list have a lower match score (do less damage) for their wins/losses.

The results of using LRMs has been tested by teams and casuals god knows how many times over the years. There's never been a time when the LRM team won, save when it was just a flat out significantly better team. The reasons for this have been gone over, repeatedly, for years. There's no moral component or shaming component to this just an observation of what wins vs what doesn't win. Direct fire wins more than LRMs. If your personal stats don't reflect this that's an anecdotal indicator of a single players behavior; i.e you need to practice direct fire more if you want to see the same benefits that others have from the higher skill cap direct fire provides.

Edited by MischiefSC, 09 August 2018 - 08:41 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

If you wanna talk about statistics....

I exclusively used LRM assaults last month. Jarl's has me at 99.5% with an average match score of 424. My W/L and K/D ratios are actually DOWN from the previous month, where I used mostly AC2 ANH builds, Laservomit HBR builds, and LBX10 FNR builds. So basically meta direct fire mechs.

Lurm boats are boring to play, and inflate your score well beyond what it actually should be, since they are less effective at killing than direct fire. Of course that's only in QP, in FP they're just stupid if you have 8 of them with a pair of NARC lights on an open map.

[MischiefSC]

Eisenhorne, on 09 August 2018 - 08:46 AM, said:

If you wanna talk about statistics....

I exclusively used LRM assaults last month. Jarl's has me at 99.5% with an average match score of 424. My W/L and K/D ratios are actually DOWN from the previous month, where I used mostly AC2 ANH builds, Laservomit HBR builds, and LBX10 FNR builds. So basically meta direct fire mechs.

Lurm boats are boring to play, and inflate your score well beyond what it actually should be, since they are less effective at killing than direct fire. Of course that's only in QP, in FP they're just stupid if you have 8 of them with a pair of NARC lights on an open map.

I do much better in QP than GQ. If I focus legs and work on legging an enemy or two in the open and then CT coring dangerous enemies I drive my w/l way up but damage is relatively low and kills mediocre.

[Mystere]

Eisenhorne, on 09 August 2018 - 08:46 AM, said:

Lurm boats are boring to play ...

That's your opinion. But based on this thread and others like it, there are those who will say the exact opposite. It's not on us to decide other people's idea of fun.

And in that light, I will say this: for me, the fun in LRMs (and not necessarily boating) is hearing the painful wails and bitter cries of my victims. Extra fun is derived when they run to the forums. And as icing on the cake, it's most fun when it happens while going full HOTAS+Pedals+iPad and sitting on my nice and cozy RS1. <maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 09 August 2018 - 10:32 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Mystere, on 09 August 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

That's your opinion. But based on this thread and others like it, there are those who will say the exact opposite. It's not on us to decide other people's idea of fun.

And in that light, I will say this: for me, the fun in LRMs (and not necessarily boating) is hearing the painful wails and bitter cries of my victims. Extra fun is derived when they run to the forums. And as icing on the cake, it's most fun when it happens while going full HOTAS+Pedals+iPad and sitting on my nice and cozy RS1. <maniacal >

That's honestly the biggest draw of lurms that I can see, which is kinda funny. Was lurming last night with a premade group in FP, lots of salt from the opposition. What was real funny about it was that they also had lurms on their teams, just we had more, and better NARC pilots, so they died. Like... how you gonna complain about LRMs when you're team is doing the same thing, just worse? And honestly, who brings LRM's on Siege Attack? Ugh.

[Mystere]

Eisenhorne, on 09 August 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

That's honestly the biggest draw of lurms that I can see, which is kinda funny. Was lurming last night with a premade group in FP, lots of salt from the opposition. What was real funny about it was that they also had lurms on their teams, just we had more, and better NARC pilots, so they died. Like... how you gonna complain about LRMs when you're team is doing the same thing, just worse?

So the better team won. As I have been saying, it's more a "people" (i.e. teamwork) problem than it is a "weapon" problem.

Eisenhorne, on 09 August 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

And honestly, who brings LRM's on Siege Attack? Ugh.

Edited by Mystere, 09 August 2018 - 10:41 AM.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

The stats in question would be the leaderboard and, more usefully, the Jarls List. Look at everyone who wins the most. All of them are going to tell you the same thing. Look at your own stats; you do decent damage but few wins. If you sort the Jarls List by match score you'll see your w/l is significantly lower than the people around you with more than 100 total matches played. Conversely, sort by w/l. You'll see that the majority of people above and below you in the list have a lower match score (do less damage) for their wins/losses.

You claimed:

MischiefSC, on 08 August 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

When you play LRMs you statistically reduce the odds of your team winning. This is show observable in the win/loss statistics.

This is wrong, if you would be right, i could not have a positive wl with lrms.

Maybe we should talk about the basics of the wl statistics?
Negative wl = reducing odds of your team winning
1.0 wl = even win and lose
positive wl = increasing odds of your team winning.

If you want to show some other correlations do it, but thats not part of your claim about lrms and wl.