40 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

It's a 1.5 ton piece of equipment that provides AoE support for you and nearby teammates. It's really good for its tonnage. Missiles would suck so badly if 1 joker with 1 AMS could shut down an entire team firing intermittently.

Edited by Jman5, 07 February 2019 - 04:06 PM.

[The Lost Boy]

LRMS do suck badly in most peoples hands. If everyone that could take AMS, would with just a1/2 ton of ammo, this wouldnt bea discussion.

[The6thMessenger]

The AMS is a 0.5 ton equipment + 1 ton of ammo, if you get something like a kitfox with 3 of them with 3 tons of ammo, which is 4.5 tons, you nullify most homing missiles except the dirtiest of lurmboats. Now consider that EVERY ONE of your team could bring at least one, and that's 12 AMS.

It's effective for it's tonnage investment.

Khobai, on 07 February 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

which is completely dumb.

Gawd, this again.

Khobai, on 07 February 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

the whole purpose of LRMs is both indirect fire and LONG RANGE. Those are two things that define LRMs.

And the point of IDF is that you coordinate with your team for IDF support, and a competent LRM battery should still be able to do it well if done by consenting parties, not just some individual leeching off some locks.

IDF means an effective team, not effective individual, and the PTS does this well by restricting effective IDF with NARC/TAG (granted it needs to be a lot more powerful than what it is right now). You still got both strong individual use, but also strong IDF use this way, and LRM is less of a joke and promote better experiences.

You're too way up in your own head and said head up your butt to realize that.

EDIT:


As for Long Range, problem is mostly maps than actually the weapon itself, and the need for lock for EFFECTIVE use at long-range doesn't make this any easier cause this means either someone got close to lock for you for a reliable lock, or the locks from far away most likely makes it unreliable and you don't hit anyway. Long-Range combat with LRMs would most likely need a rebalance of everything else.

If anything the shorter time-to-target by the lower-arc help in this aspect cause you land your missiles faster. Scores, CBills, and XPs won't exactly entice much people that already grinded (paid) their stuff in the game, and are actually just looking for a good time.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 February 2019 - 04:38 PM.

[eminus]

simple solution: LET OUR MGs and LAZORS be able to shoot down those missiles

[El Bandito]

Darian DelFord, on 07 February 2019 - 08:34 AM, said:

LRM's are not a problem for the most part. I am in a light, and I am usually always in cover and can get to it quick.

Just because an assault mech lumbers out into cover and becomes easy pickings for any LRM, it does not make LRM's OP.

Well as an Assault player, I had not problem with pre-nerf Streaks too but PGI nerfed its tracking as well as removed its hidden Artemis buff. It is what it is.

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

eminus, on 07 February 2019 - 04:15 PM, said:

simple solution: LET OUR MGs and LAZORS be able to shoot down those missiles

What do you think AMS and Laser AMS are?

[Darian DelFord]

El Bandito, on 07 February 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

Well as an Assault player, I had not problem with pre-nerf Streaks too but PGI nerfed its tracking as well as removed its hidden Artemis buff. It is what it is.

I'm good with the Artemis fix on streak that should have been fixed years ago. I am not a fan of the tracking change either. However I am in a light and it does not matter what is weighted and by how much. Either way, I run into a streaker and I will be molested and basically put out of the game.

Lights are the only class that have a definitive Hard Counter that we have almost no defense against.

[GeminiWolf]

Rifleman89, on 07 February 2019 - 07:53 AM, said:

Even though I max out Radar Deprivation and carry 2 tons of AMS ammo, to get where I can shoot back at the enemy with direct fire weapons the LRM death is unavoidable. Most matches now have 1/3rd of the enemy sporting TAG and their own LRMs on top the the assault boats. Even though you dodge back into cover, you take sooo much damage, it tells me the latest attempt to modify the LRM firing mechanism is adding to the problem.

The real problem is the inefficiency of the countermeasures other than ECM. AMS is under performing. Who knows what AMS is supposed to do effectively? What are the stats? Stop 1 in 5 missiles, 3 in 10? Are they supposed to stop 50% of a LRM 5, 30% of LRM 10, 20% of LRM 15, and 10% of LRM 20??? Does anyone know so we can all be enlightened? You see the dilemma don't you? With so many optimized missile builds that can quickly and effectively overcome the defense, the defense is the failure.

Want to reign in the missile threat? Improve the countermeasures. Unless LRMs are nerfed into oblivion, which PGI seems unwilling to do, nor should they be removed as AN EFFECTIVE OPTION for the players. The cure? We need a stronger "pill" to fight "the cancer." If you take a countermeasure, it should actually provide a reasonable counter. AMS in the current state of constant metal missile rain isn't doing what it is supposed to. Since electing to use AMS should be JUST AS EQUALLY AN EFFECTIVE OPTION for the players, it needs to be EFFECTIVE, which it is obviously not.

There is no doubt that LRMs are easily effective. AMS doesn't share this aspect. Taking AMS has more detriment than benefit in the current state. You sacrifice DPS or cooling or speed or armor; there is a trade off. At the moment there is no equal sacrifice for taking LRMs and a TAG compared to the effectiveness you gain. I think this is self evident.

If everyone on the other team has AMS THAT ACTUALLY DOES ITS JOB, then missiles would be countered and drop their use. Perhaps then, some sort of BALANCE is possible and not with the current proposal to change the cancer. Give us an equal option to fight the cancer.

AMS is not suppose to stop LRM, its a Damage shield, which reduces the damage you take from LRM's. Unlike TAG and Targetting computers which only benefit a LURMBOATER itself, if you have multiple mechs with AMS you basically can make LRM's useless. In QP on numerous occasions when Im running AMS I have had other AMS mechs around me and we completely stopped the LRM rain on our team... Which made the LURMBOAT team impotent. So your assessment I disagree with simply because you can stack AMS and you can't Stack Tag or Targetting Computers.

[Prototelis]

Darian DelFord, on 07 February 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

I'm good with the Artemis fix on streak that should have been fixed years ago. I am not a fan of the tracking change either. However I am in a light and it does not matter what is weighted and by how much. Either way, I run into a streaker and I will be molested and basically put out of the game.

Lights are the only class that have a definitive Hard Counter that we have almost no defense against.

Streaks are the most ******** form of autoaim.

[Vellron2005]

Rifleman89, on 07 February 2019 - 07:53 AM, said:

Even though I max out Radar Deprivation and carry 2 tons of AMS ammo, to get where I can shoot back at the enemy with direct fire weapons the LRM death is unavoidable. Most matches now have 1/3rd of the enemy sporting TAG and their own LRMs on top the the assault boats. Even though you dodge back into cover, you take sooo much damage, it tells me the latest attempt to modify the LRM firing mechanism is adding to the problem.

The real problem is the inefficiency of the countermeasures other than ECM. AMS is under performing. Who knows what AMS is supposed to do effectively? What are the stats? Stop 1 in 5 missiles, 3 in 10? Are they supposed to stop 50% of a LRM 5, 30% of LRM 10, 20% of LRM 15, and 10% of LRM 20??? Does anyone know so we can all be enlightened? You see the dilemma don't you? With so many optimized missile builds that can quickly and effectively overcome the defense, the defense is the failure.

Want to reign in the missile threat? Improve the countermeasures. Unless LRMs are nerfed into oblivion, which PGI seems unwilling to do, nor should they be removed as AN EFFECTIVE OPTION for the players. The cure? We need a stronger "pill" to fight "the cancer." If you take a countermeasure, it should actually provide a reasonable counter. AMS in the current state of constant metal missile rain isn't doing what it is supposed to. Since electing to use AMS should be JUST AS EQUALLY AN EFFECTIVE OPTION for the players, it needs to be EFFECTIVE, which it is obviously not.

There is no doubt that LRMs are easily effective. AMS doesn't share this aspect. Taking AMS has more detriment than benefit in the current state. You sacrifice DPS or cooling or speed or armor; there is a trade off. At the moment there is no equal sacrifice for taking LRMs and a TAG compared to the effectiveness you gain. I think this is self evident.

If everyone on the other team has AMS THAT ACTUALLY DOES ITS JOB, then missiles would be countered and drop their use. Perhaps then, some sort of BALANCE is possible and not with the current proposal to change the cancer. Give us an equal option to fight the cancer.

WOW...

This is one of the super-ultra-rare times when I gotta say... GIT GUD

LRMs have 10+ counters, and spread damage like a sift, and you say the counters are ineffective?
So what, you want your AMS to completely negate a whole mech's loadout?

Come on man.. seriously... Learn how to counter LRMs and stay in cover...

LRMs ain't your problem.

You are your problem..

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

Vellron2005, on 07 February 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

WOW...

This is one of the super-ultra-rare times when I gotta say... GIT GUD

LRMs have 10+ counters, and spread damage like a sift, and you say the counters are ineffective?
So what, you want your AMS to completely negate a whole mech's loadout?

Come on man.. seriously... Learn how to counter LRMs and stay in cover...

LRMs ain't your problem.

You are your problem..

DON'T quote me on that, but this may be one of the few times I agree with Vel, at least in parts.
you gotta learn to use cover, mate. and/or ecm-teammates. stay within the pack, and you get to share AMSs and ECMs.

or better yet: get yourself a fast ecm-light, circle behind the enemy blob and find Vel and other lurmboats there; use shortrange to get rid of the lurms the BEST way - with some (un)friendly fire to where it hurts most

[Darian DelFord]

Prototelis, on 07 February 2019 - 09:08 PM, said:

Streaks are the most ******** form of autoaim.

I agree, its amazing how 1 mech can damn near negate 4 other mechs just by fear alone .

Only thing that can be done is to increase targeting time based on tonnage. Light takes longer to lock on then say an assault. That way you can still use them against heavier mechs. With the new changes Streaks are now deadly in late game.



LRM's are not OP. Last night for example dropped on Caustic, enemy had 4 LRM Boats. At one point in time I had all 4 targeting me. Below is the clip from that match and you will see just how ineffective they really are. And oh BTW I had no AMS equipped. Grated I died, however it was not due to LRM's being OP.

[Jman5]

Darian DelFord, on 08 February 2019 - 05:32 AM, said:

I agree, its amazing how 1 mech can damn near negate 4 other mechs just by fear alone .

Only thing that can be done is to increase targeting time based on tonnage. Light takes longer to lock on then say an assault. That way you can still use them against heavier mechs. With the new changes Streaks are now deadly in late game.



LRM's are not OP. Last night for example dropped on Caustic, enemy had 4 LRM Boats. At one point in time I had all 4 targeting me. Below is the clip from that match and you will see just how ineffective they really are. And oh BTW I had no AMS equipped. Grated I died, however it was not due to LRM's being OP.

This is actually a great video example of how missile attacks happen in a real game and why AMS is awesome. Over the course of that match you took a series of small attacks that eventually add up to a lot of damage. With an AMS interfering with each of those small attacks the total damage mitigation is quite pronounced.

Engagement #:

1. 93% - 84% health: from missile attack
2. 84-73% from missile attack
3. 73%-69%: from missile attack
4. 69%-67%: from missile attack
5. 65%-51%: from missile attack
6. 50%-39%: from missile attack
7. 33%-30%: from missile attack (and dead )

So 7 separate missile attacks that hit that I could identify. Imagine if you had just knocked some damage off each of those attacks. It adds up quite a bit for a little commando.

(you could totally fit one in too!)

Edited by Jman5, 08 February 2019 - 08:42 AM.

[ShaneoftheDead]

Darian DelFord, on 07 February 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

I'm good with the Artemis fix on streak that should have been fixed years ago. I am not a fan of the tracking change either. However I am in a light and it does not matter what is weighted and by how much. Either way, I run into a streaker and I will be molested and basically put out of the game.

Lights are the only class that have a definitive Hard Counter that we have almost no defense against.

I pilot mechs on both sides of this issue and it is not the Hard Counter you portray it to be.

To be viable now, a Streak-boat has to have a BAP, Tag, and a TC. Usually at the expense of heatsinks, so they usually run hot. Even with all that and going heavy into the Sensor Tree, getting locks is still takes 2 seconds with no ECM interference, which is rare these days. Keeping locks is harder. 2 ECMs around and you are not shooting anyone. Good Luck trying to keep a tag on a light that is running circles and going behind rocks, trees, buildings, etc. Many times Streaks hit the ground and other objects. Streak damage spread means lots of face-time required to fight an Assault or Heavy, which means they blast you to bits. Streak lock favoring the torsos helps a little, but there is still spread. Streak-boating is a different skill set than other weapon systems, closer to using ATMs.

And Lights can still get a Streak-boat because the smarter pilots have learned that Streaks frequently break the lock if they use the Leg Hump Exploit. Did you know that? I just re-confirmed this on the Testing Ground. Jump in a Streak boat, I used a KTO-18, and go to Tormaline. There's an Atlas right in front of you. Lock him and go smack up against his front. Look up and around and you will notice that you lose lock when staring right at him. The lockable area of the mech shrank. In fact it changes shape a lot when close and you move around a mech. Behind him to the North is a Jenner. Go nose-to-nose with him and lock-on. You see the same thing with the top half of it, the lock breaks when you are staring right at him. Most pilots do not know they have to aim at the bottom half of the Light to keep lock when point-blank. Pro Light pilots do this to shrink their effective hit-box in half and almost always get a lock break and then proceed to pick you apart. It's hard enough to put the reticle on them when they are down there as it is so regaining lock is a nightmare as they dart around you. At that point, the meta Lights can kill you faster than you can lock and kill them.

[Novakaine]

Khobai, on 07 February 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

which is completely dumb.

the whole purpose of LRMs is both indirect fire and LONG RANGE. Those are two things that define LRMs.

buffing their direct fire ability doesnt help them fulfill their intended role. they still cant compete with other direct fire weapons and now theyre weaker at indirect fire. Thats a straight up nerf. theres no other way of looking at it.

Theyre LONG RANGE missiles. how does nerfing them at long range and making you get closer with them help them fulfill their role? oops it doesnt. thats also why garbage like ECM stealth and radar derp is bad for the game too because it makes LRMs unnecessarily worse at what theyre supposed to be good at.

PGI has no clue what theyre doing as usual. Theyre just appeasing a bunch of crybabies by nerfing LRMs instead of balancing LRMs properly so they actually fill the roles theyre supposed. And again its mostly PGI's fault for not even preparing new players by including a basic tutorial on LRMs. Since according to Paul its the T4-T5 players that struggle the most with LRMs.


The better solution wouldve been threefold:

1) properly reward people for spotting, tagging, narcing. if you risk the armor to spot you should get credited with 50% of the damage for spotting for the IDF LRMs. And the LRM boat loses 50% of its damage by having other people spot for them.That gets rid of the parasitic nature of LRMs since the people risking the armor get properly rewarded for doing so and the LRM boat loses out on damage by having others spot for them.

2) make sure LRMs are actually good at the ONLY two things they should be good at. Indirect Fire and Long range. theyre not supposed to be good at direct fire, how does buffing their direct fire make any sense? Its beyond dumb. if you want direct fire LRMs just use ATMs... thats the role of ATMs afterall.

3) create a LRM tutorial that prepares new players for LRMs and explains how to deal with them by not walking out into the open. Hell even a lot of tier 1 players could benefit from that tutorial because they never learned how to properly play the game...

[The6thMessenger]

Novakaine, on 08 February 2019 - 10:10 AM, said:

No, he's not.

The6thMessenger, on 07 February 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

IDF means an effective team, not effective individual

IDF is about coordinating with the team, not one person leeching off locks of another -- that is how we got in this mess, why LRMs had to be weak as hell because one individual could effectively contribute with little effort.

NARC and TAG being necessary for IDF, is a better course of action for it forces a niche of spotting for IDF and allows LRMs to be necessarily powerful at IDF because it's less available.

As for his suggestion:

Score and rewards only work when people care about them. People who run for fun, for the experience, that's not really important.

We already got that two-things only mess and it got LRMs in a bad place. By restricting effective IDF on NARC and TAG, we give them niche and worth to bring and we could make LRMs more powerful as a result. As for ATMs, **** is too hot and how it's set up, it's a waste using at any range but it's sweet-spot. So there's still a massive gap of effectiveness that we might as well use LRMs anyways.

Weh, okay i'm for the Tutorial part.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 07 February 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

And the point of IDF is that you coordinate with your team for IDF support, and a competent LRM battery should still be able to do it well if done by consenting parties, not just some individual leeching off some locks.

I got a nice giggle off the "consenting parties" portion of the quote.

Just wow...How do I even even begin...

So, you're playing a team game, and this team will be composed of 11 other players who by virtue of the game mechanics can passively supply aid to team mates.

The way you make it sound there is no benefit granted to the team by having an LRM boat raining down bonus "non-consentual" damage on enemy targets attempting to destroy your team.

"leeching locks" is another idiotic statement since, it's one of those passive mechanics that allows team members to assist each other.

Or should we alter the mechanics for consent? maybe a B!tching Betty warning with a pop-up box to click on?

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) team member is requesting consent to use targeting data. consent? yes/no.

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) a team member is requesting consent to utilize your ECM coverage. consent? yes/no

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) a team member is requesting your AMS to effect missiles targeting them. consent? yes/no


Also in what universe is having an effective team member or an " effective individual" not also effective for the team? It's not like the LRMs damage and kills don't count for the team.

it's just funny...thanks


P.S. just a little FYI...quoting yourself in bold doesn't make your point more um... good? um...I like less terrible...yeah quoting yourself in bold text doesn't make your argument any less terrible.

Edited by Lykaon, 08 February 2019 - 05:57 PM.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

GoodTry, on 07 February 2019 - 08:46 AM, said:

The problem is you. I never run AMS, and rarely ECM, and I only die to LRMs when I'm out of position. The fact that you can't even get into position to shoot the enemy without dying to LRMs shows that you are exaggerating or grossly out of position in every match.

Polar Lurmlands says "Hi!"

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 08 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

The way you make it sound there is no benefit granted to the team by having an LRM boat raining down bonus "non-consentual" damage on enemy targets attempting to destroy your team.

Well wrong, I clarified that it takes a team being on the same page about employing IDF is what makes IDF, not people leeching off locks and thinking it's "teamwork".

Of course if lrms are balanced that way, with easy use of IDF, then it has to be weak, and this is why we see LRMs being laughably incompetent vs direct fire weapons right now.

Lykaon, on 08 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

So, you're playing a team game, and this team will be composed of 11 other players who by virtue of the game mechanics can passively supply aid to team mates.

"leeching locks" is another idiotic statement since, it's one of those passive mechanics that allows team members to assist each other.

Yes, there are passive mechanics but that isn't the issue, IDF is another thing entirely from Target-Info and broadcasting the position of the enemy in the minimap.

You won't be an effective IDF user if none of your missiles land, because your team couldn't hold locks for you precisely because they are peeking in and out to take fire. "Hold locks plz.", ever heard that before? That is because the passive locks of your team isn't that reliable. This is why IDF play needs the team to be in the same page for the LRM IDF user to be effective in what we are doing, people spotting for the IDF support properly.

What, so do we just change our roles so that the LRM in the back would actually pull their weight? Whatever happens to "Play as you want"?

Lykaon, on 08 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

Also in what universe is having an effective team member or an " effective individual" not also effective for the team? It's not like the LRMs damage and kills don't count for the team.

It wasn't mutually exclusive. Where the **** did you even get that idea.

A team is a group of people working together towards a common goal, and individual is a single person doing a portion of the work. Sure it's important to be good at doing the portion of the work, but all of those is moot if your other teammates couldn't effectively do their assigned work anyways.

"Effective team, not effective individual" means the weapon should be tailored by how it works with the team, not just how much score the LRM user would be.

People say that "there's no 'i' in TEAM", well they're wrong. It's in the "a" hole.

It's not that the LRMs aren't putting SOMETHING out there, but unlike other weapons IDF is highly reliant on your team to spot for you, and so ultimately playing LRMs as IDF means you need to be an effective part of a whole.

Why is that I even have to explain this? It's just common sense.

Lykaon, on 08 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

I got a nice giggle off the "consenting parties" portion of the quote.

Or should we alter the mechanics for consent? maybe a B!tching Betty warning with a pop-up box to click on?

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) team member is requesting consent to use targeting data. consent? yes/no.

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) a team member is requesting consent to utilize your ECM coverage. consent? yes/no

(BEEP-BEEP-BEEP) a team member is requesting your AMS to effect missiles targeting them. consent? yes/no

it's just funny...thanks

Or you know, actively coordinate with the team by communicating. Have a properly team set up for IDF. It's called planning.

Why would you treat this as if soliciting sex is beyond me. What, are you a moron? If you aren't, hows about stop acting like it?

Lykaon, on 08 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

P.S. just a little FYI...quoting yourself in bold doesn't make your point more um... good? um...I like less terrible...yeah quoting yourself in bold text doesn't make your argument any less terrible.

Somebody doesn't know how emphasis works, also how argumentation works. If you think that it's what making my argument "better", as opposed of actually critically examining my position, just shows you don't actually know how to argue.

Also Bold is increasing the width of texts, like so: Bold Not Bold

What i did is: Enlarge

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 February 2019 - 08:47 PM.

[InspectorG]

In the past, we had Magic Jesus Box. Hide half a team for under 2 tons...

In the future we get Amazingly Mindless System.

For a couple tons, you can disregard piloting and positioning and just walk through indirect enemy fire.

Mind you, this wont prevent camping from fear of direct fire.