93 replies to this topic

[Asym]

Kiran Yagami, on 15 January 2019 - 07:37 AM, said:

"One of the best manuever maps there is" is disingenuous to say the least. The terrain varies from smooth to slightly sloped, but that's about it. There are no visual landmarks of any meaning, so even if it is a "great maneuver" map it's hard to learn, and it's so unpopular that no one cares to learn it. They just resign themselves to death or pray their team has more LRMs than the other team. Sorry, but that's bad map design. You can like it as much as you please. At least someone likes the map, but if the majority of the community makes an exacerbated sigh every time someone blows their 12x multiplier on it then it at least needs some alterations. And again, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR REWORK OF ALPINE. Instead Alpine stayed the same and we got 2 maps most people hate. As for taking all the ECM and radar derp nodes, that'd be fine if I could choose my mech after I know what map we're playing on, but that's a privilege reserved only for FPers, which makes zero sense to begin with. I can't even spec my camo for polar because bright white sticks out like a sore thumb on every other map. They couldn't at least let us change the paint scheme for a map?! But in QP you get to play map roulette, so specializing your mech or skill nodes to the map is not a thing.

I'm not being sincere? I sure am ! Slow rolling terrain with plenty of visibility and good maneuver corridors... Terrain features are all over the place to use as references. And, you have a map to use ! Good grief, you'd quit the game if we had a Great Pains or Flint Hills map.... Of course, when at School at Fort Leavenworth, we went out into the plains to explore combined arms operations in the vast areas of the plains to think through just how you would fight in terrain like Polar with grass instead of snow.... And, I'd chose to Command a Regimental Combat Team there any day of the week and I gar-un-tee you, you'd be tied up for weeks trying to ferret that RCT out. Or, a real Desert map then; and, over the past 30 years, we've had a lot of fighting in deserts.....and, we seem to make that work??? In an environments where modern LRM's actually will kill you..........we make it work every day of every week....

I've never resigned myself to death because some other player has a different weapon? Bad map design? So then, Solaris city is a bad map design because LRM's aren't anywhere near useful on that map, right? Or, it's a great map because LRM's aren't useful.....or, are they? I wish we could create rubble on that map.....I'd use LRM's to create lane blockages by collapsing buildings....

Of course, PGI could allow us to change camouflages.........but they won't (and, they'd make a lot more money that way!). Of course, QP could allow a QP drop deck where we could chose the mech after the map is assigned.but, they won't. Of course, PGI could make map selection a random generator that we have no choice in.........and, I'd be 100% behind that since I can't stand the HPG, Mining, HPG, Mining voting that goes on for 8 or 9 cycles before someone gets a 10x multiplier........but, they won't....

But, make no mistake, Polar is a good map to conduct bounding over watches on; and, fix and envelope missions when the enemy just doesn't want to move and...........of course, that means someone needs to know how to do those things instead of running around with their FPS pants on fire and not working as a team.........which, is SOP for MWO.....

[Sjorpha]

Y E O N N E, on 15 January 2019 - 11:40 AM, said:

Bingo, though that isn't really being the Devil's advocate.

Equipment should never, ever, ever be used as a bridge to a skill gap. And I'm sorry if some of you have disabilities that mean you basically can't do well with other weapons and rely on equipment to bridge the skill gap, but a game cannot maintain its integrity while maintaining such a system in support of the few at the expense if the many.

Those thats for Reckless also indicates the skill gap is very much preserved with LRMs though, as he still performs within the top 1% using them.

What those numbers indicate is basically 2 things. 1: that LRMs are slightly underpowered compared to other weapons and they reduce average performance of a top player and 2: that the difference between good and bad players remain almost entirely intact if they use LRMs, so the reduction in skill gap would seem to be fairly minimal here.

I'm not saying those numbers are what we should base our beliefs about LRMs on obviously, stats from organised FP would probably show LRMs being overpowered on certain maps etc, I'm just pointing out that in isolation those numbers contradict both the claim that LRMs are too strong and the claim that they remove the skill gap. Other more comprehensive data may show something else idk.

Now if I misunderstood your position and my post was irrelevant to what you were saying I accept that and that's fine with me. I wanted to point out those things anyways in the general context of this thread about LRMs, you don't have to consider my post as a direct response in that case as it can stand on it's own.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 January 2019 - 01:13 PM.

[Knuckles OTool]

Y E O N N E, on 14 January 2019 - 08:54 PM, said:

I can't give you his LRM stats page, but I can give you the final result:

Wait I'm confused by this. Did he run an LRM light 29% of the time in august or is the highlighted part just off? Did he run a bunch of mechs and LRM or LRM mostly or what? I don't care all that much I just don't understand what it is really showing except the dude does well in anything he drives. I would always think that people that move well and shoot well do better in mechs that, well, do both of those well.

Edited by Knuckles OTool, 15 January 2019 - 09:09 PM.

[VeeOt Dragon]

as an Ex-Artilleryman (13-M Missile Delivery System Operator (my weapon system was the MLRS)) IDF weapons have special place in my heart. Terrain always has an effect. yes Polar is great for LRM but a smart team can maneuver in a way the doesn't give the LRM much of a chance.

thankfully this LRM thread isn't as full of meta whiners as the other one so I can talk on the subject without getting to angry. LRM are one of those weapons that punish mistakes (on both sides). you make a mistake and get caught out in the open your going to be dead soon or at the very least heavily damaged. now if your the LRM mech and you don't watch your team, get to focused on your firing and not moving. now your team has moved and your all alone, perfect Light bait for any scouting mechs.

the biggest problem with the game from my view is not LRM, its not map design. its the inability of most players (even the tier 1 meta try hards) to use different tactics for the various maps. inevitably nearly every match devolves into one of two tactics. you either get the inevitable Nascar (as a result Charlie lance often gets decimated because they can't keep up with the faster mechs in the lead) or they scatter at the first contact with the enemy murder ball. the devs put some work into the maps and over half the map never gets used.

it seems that LRM are seen as bad because they require more teamwork to be effective. an LRM mech should be second or third line (not 500m from the nearest ally) so that they are within range of most mechs that the team will encounter while being in a position that their allies can cover them if something gets under that 180m min range (mind you all LRM mech should carry something for closer in work even if its just a pair of MLs).

as a locking weapon they don't require as much twitch skill as DF weapons but they still require some if you are playing against anyone with some experience.

in the end I think the LoS buffs to LRM a good idea but the IDF nerf is a terrible one (I think LRMs themselves without calculating things like Artemis (something that now isn't quite worth the tonnage increase) are about where thy should be as far as IDF goes.)

for all those haters name one other weapon system that has as many hard counters as LRM (what if say they implemented something like shields and holo decoys to counter your DF weapons that anti-LRM people harp on so much, by no means do I think this should be a thing though)

more people just need to think outside the normal FPS box. put some diversity in your builds, things that aren't meta but still effective builds. you might find that you get more joy out of the game.

[Wil McCullough]

VeeOt Dragon, on 15 January 2019 - 09:07 PM, said:

as an Ex-Artilleryman (13-M Missile Delivery System Operator (my weapon system was the MLRS)) IDF weapons have special place in my heart. Terrain always has an effect. yes Polar is great for LRM but a smart team can maneuver in a way the doesn't give the LRM much of a chance.

thankfully this LRM thread isn't as full of meta whiners as the other one so I can talk on the subject without getting to angry. LRM are one of those weapons that punish mistakes (on both sides). you make a mistake and get caught out in the open your going to be dead soon or at the very least heavily damaged. now if your the LRM mech and you don't watch your team, get to focused on your firing and not moving. now your team has moved and your all alone, perfect Light bait for any scouting mechs.

the biggest problem with the game from my view is not LRM, its not map design. its the inability of most players (even the tier 1 meta try hards) to use different tactics for the various maps. inevitably nearly every match devolves into one of two tactics. you either get the inevitable Nascar (as a result Charlie lance often gets decimated because they can't keep up with the faster mechs in the lead) or they scatter at the first contact with the enemy murder ball. the devs put some work into the maps and over half the map never gets used.

it seems that LRM are seen as bad because they require more teamwork to be effective. an LRM mech should be second or third line (not 500m from the nearest ally) so that they are within range of most mechs that the team will encounter while being in a position that their allies can cover them if something gets under that 180m min range (mind you all LRM mech should carry something for closer in work even if its just a pair of MLs).

as a locking weapon they don't require as much twitch skill as DF weapons but they still require some if you are playing against anyone with some experience.

in the end I think the LoS buffs to LRM a good idea but the IDF nerf is a terrible one (I think LRMs themselves without calculating things like Artemis (something that now isn't quite worth the tonnage increase) are about where thy should be as far as IDF goes.)

for all those haters name one other weapon system that has as many hard counters as LRM (what if say they implemented something like shields and holo decoys to counter your DF weapons that anti-LRM people harp on so much, by no means do I think this should be a thing though)

more people just need to think outside the normal FPS box. put some diversity in your builds, things that aren't meta but still effective builds. you might find that you get more joy out of the game.

The reasons why some people hate the weapon are all in your post.

To use the weapon's gimmick (idf), someone has to be in front with los. What you call "teamwork" while shooting from relative safety is viewed as "involuntary sandbagging" to the guy in front.

By itself, this doesn't cause hate of the intensity you sometimes see.

However, the weapon has a laundry list of soft and hard counters, making it unreliable and generally inefficient for scoring kills.

That's where a lot of resentment comes from - the front guy is being used as an involuntary meat shield for a weapon in the rear that takes too long to kill things. Lurk lurmers also have the disadvantage of often being either 1) dying quickly to a marauding enemy light and dealing very little damage or 2) being the last to die. The first makes you stand out for all the wrong reasons at the match-end's performance table. The latter means everyone is spectating you while you ineffectively try to sling missiles at the enemy deathball.

[Knuckles OTool]

Think of it another way. In a game where exposing yourself for a short time to fire and get back into cover but your enemy still keeps hitting you because LOS is no longer cover and there is nowhere decent to hide in the next 10 seconds LRMs and ATMs are extra punishing.

In a game where there are only a few mechs that are equipped with Electronic counter measures in their giant multi-million dollar fighting vehicles but everyone has the ability to lock targets, lock on weapons can be extra punishing at times.

In a game where the smallest mechs are considered balanced against their larger brethren due to their mobility, speed and small size, lock-on weapons can be extra punishing at times.

In a game where the biggest gunboats only have twice the armor of the ones half their size but are huge slow moving targets that have a harder time getting into cover, indirect fire lock-on weapons can be extra punishing.

If the game was any more realistic and missiles and artillery could actually perform up to what their real world potential was then it would be a boring game as armored cav stands no chance when 12 v 12 drops on either side of a small map and teams could be loaded with air superiority. Go ahead and drive an HMMWV with machineguns across a battlefield to drop the guided missile platforms and see how balanced that is.

As it is a game they have to balance stuff based on game mechanics only and not real world situations or lore or whatever a persons favorite system is. It is a delicate balance as certain types of weapons that can attack while not being attacked are required to be fun for both sides of the war simply because this war is a game and if games arent fun they fail.

Edited by Knuckles OTool, 15 January 2019 - 10:18 PM.

[OmniFail]

Knuckles OTool, on 15 January 2019 - 10:02 PM, said:

.

In a game where there are only a few mechs that are equipped with Electronic counter measures in their giant multi-million dollar fighting vehicles but everyone has the ability to lock targets, lock on weapons can be extra punishing

Lol ECM mechs are like flies on poo on the battlefield. It seems that almost every other mech has it

Edited by OmniFail, 15 January 2019 - 11:26 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Knuckles OTool, on 15 January 2019 - 09:07 PM, said:

Wait I'm confused by this. Did he run an LRM light 29% of the time in august or is the highlighted part just off? Did he run a bunch of mechs and LRM or LRM mostly or what? I don't care all that much I just don't understand what it is really showing except the dude does well in anything he drives. I would always think that people that move well and shoot well do better in mechs that, well, do both of those well.

Read my last post on the subject.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 16 January 2019 - 12:03 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Sjorpha, on 15 January 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

Those thats for Reckless also indicates the skill gap is very much preserved with LRMs though, as he still performs within the top 1% using them.

What those numbers indicate is basically 2 things. 1: that LRMs are slightly underpowered compared to other weapons and they reduce average performance of a top player and 2: that the difference between good and bad players remain almost entirely intact if they use LRMs, so the reduction in skill gap would seem to be fairly minimal here.

Ignoring the point of my post, that's not true. It is entirely possible for something to reduce the skill gap for worse players but still have a performance ceiling that stops a better player from doing better with it than a worse player would. It's also entirely possible that a player who is good at everything except the core concept of aiming would be indistinguishable from a player like Reckless.

The first case is not a problem unless that capped performance level is right around where the better players perform with manual weapons...which it looks like it basically is when you look at AMS and consider the impact of group play for the other seasons.

The second case is a problem 100% of the time.

[Knuckles OTool]

OmniFail, on 15 January 2019 - 11:24 PM, said:

Lol ECM mechs are like flies on poo on the battlefield. It seems that almost every other mech has it

On lights sure, but how often are they hanging with the big guys just chillin. We'd hardly be seeing any ECM around the main pack if it wasnt for hellbringers and fafnirs.

Y E O N N E, on 16 January 2019 - 12:02 AM, said:

Read my last post on the subject.

Ah ok, so the highlighted part is off. I got the w/l and KDR part already and yeah it stands to reason that someone who can shoot and move so well will do better in mechs that do that. I'm not saying that LRM mechs arent useful but its not exactly a ct back stabbing one shot sort of playstyle for those who can perfect that sort of thing.

I guess what I meant is that it was proving something everyone already knows.

Edited by Knuckles OTool, 16 January 2019 - 03:14 AM.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

Asym, on 15 January 2019 - 12:50 PM, said:

I can't stand the HPG, Mining, HPG, Mining voting that goes on for 8 or 9 cycles before someone gets a 10x multiplier...

True words!

[JediPanther]

I'm just wondering when direct fire weapons will get over 40 hard and soft counters like lrms have. Don't think they have 40 + counters? Google it.

[The Macho Man]

JediPanther, on 16 January 2019 - 09:51 PM, said:

I'm just wondering when direct fire weapons will get over 40 hard and soft counters like lrms have. Don't think they have 40 + counters? Google it.

Rock,bridge,fake geometry, team mate, wrong enemy, building, hill, stump, very small rocks, grape gravy, lag shield, twisting, 150kph light, very tiny mechs, jumping lag shield, that one radio tower in grim plexus that can block anything...

Edited by The Macho Man, 16 January 2019 - 10:18 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

JediPanther, on 16 January 2019 - 09:51 PM, said:

I'm just wondering when direct fire weapons will get over 40 hard and soft counters like lrms have. Don't think they have 40 + counters? Google it.

They have the greatest two counters of all:

1. They cannot hit what cannot be seen

2. They require precise aim