274 replies to this topic

[Kubernetes]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 08 March 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

Different philosophy on how to have fun, that's how.

To you, min-maxing, getting the absolute last drop of performance out of your mech, riding that heat wave, all of that, is how you have fun, gaming the numbers, all of that is where you're going in and crunching all the numbers. Using the meta and not deviating. That's the fun to you.

Shoot, it's almost like you know everything about me.

Oh wait, no, no you don't.

What exactly is the meta from which I don't deviate? Please explain to everyone here how I play.

Quote

For many of us though, that's NOT fun, that's tiring... Yes, the average person who puts the time in, can get good with the meta, or even GREAT with the meta, consistently do well for themselves, and have huge numbers.

But to many of us, that's boring, especially considering the depth of the setting, the history of Battletech, the roles of mechs, all of that. To many of us, that's what matters over constantly min/maxing.

For some of us, we've been playing this franchise since the 90's, and in some cases the 80's... we've been down this road, we remember boating ERML's in Mechwarrior 2 and blasting off everything's legs, we remember doing the same in Mechwarrior 3, Many of us were there for the poptart meta that was Mech 4 and Mech 4 mercs... And that kind of gameplay, the munchkin meta... is very, VERY stale to many of us... because we've been doing it for over 20+ years.

Just keep that in mind, before you go around throwing out stats, stats, are not the end all, be all my friend.

Yeah, buddy, I too am old. I've been playing BT games since The Crescent Hawks' Inception. Please lecture someone else.

BTW, if you're all about the fun fun fun from messing about with any regard for actual effectiveness, why tf are you weighing in on balance and gameplay threads? If your fun is wholly not dependent on effective gameplay, why do you care, at all, whether some weapons are good or bad?

Edited by Kubernetes, 08 March 2019 - 02:27 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

Shoot, it's almost like you know everything about me.

Oh wait, no, no you don't.

What exactly is the meta from which I don't deviate? Please explain to everyone here how I play.



Yeah, buddy, I too am old. I've been playing BT games since The Crescent Hawks' Inception. Please lecture someone else.

BTW, if you're all about the fun fun fun from messing about with any regard for actual effectiveness, why tf are you weighing in on balance and gameplay threads? If your fun is wholly not dependent on effective gameplay, why do you care, at all, whether some weapons are good or bad?

Because even I can see inherent flaws.

Point is, stats, arn't the end all man. You need to ease up on that other guy.

[Mystere]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 08 March 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

For some of us, we've been playing this franchise since the 90's, and in some cases the 80's... we've been down this road, we remember boating ERML's in Mechwarrior 2 and blasting off everything's legs, we remember doing the same in Mechwarrior 3, Many of us were there for the poptart meta that was Mech 4 and Mech 4 mercs... And that kind of gameplay, the munchkin meta... is very, VERY stale to many of us... because we've been doing it for over 20+ years.

Don't forget the LAN parties, especially those that involved a lot of food, booze ... and 6.

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

BTW, if you're all about the fun fun fun from messing about with any regard for actual effectiveness, why tf are you weighing in on balance and gameplay threads? If your fun is wholly not dependent on effective gameplay, why do you care, at all, whether some weapons are good or bad?

If I am to guess, it's because a number of people enjoy using certain weapons and/or playstyles and would not like them rendered completely useless (i.e. "unfun") or removed entirely from the game -- as many players on these kinds of threads actually seem to want to do.

Edited by Mystere, 08 March 2019 - 02:42 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Mystere, on 08 March 2019 - 02:37 PM, said:

If I am to guess, it's because a number of people enjoy using certain weapons and/or playstyles and would not like them rendered completely useless (i.e. "unfun") or removed entirely from the game -- as many players on these kinds of threads actually seem to want to do.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

Here's the deal: I don't have a problem surviving vs LRMs, and most good players don't either. I'll explain why, but let's get the truth of LRMS.

1) They suck in QP. Not all the time, but enough to create huge variance in performance. The weapons themselves put out tremendous DPS, but effectiveness is often dependent on factors outside of your control. You aren't guaranteed to get Narc Lights or other spotter support. You're not guaranteed to match up with any other LRM boats. A good deadsided build can survive against a single LRMer for a seeming eternity. Ever tried to kill a Std engined Marauder 3R with LRMs? Tell me how long it takes.

2) They're almost (some would say definitely) OP in FP or any organized team play. Why? Because a team can negate all the disadvantages. You can drop with two Ravens, 8-10 boats, and maybe some brawlers as close-in bodyguards. Ever been in a match like that? It's disgusting. No AMS can stop that. The enemy can drop with 12 trip-AMS Novas and still they'll die seconds after getting targeted. You can win 48-12, and the 12 deaths are from ejecting when running out of ammo.

3) I don't care all that much because I've pretty much just been playing QP this past year. I probably die from LRMs once a week. It's simply not worth 1.5 tons for such a minimal threat, especially when I'm running Lights or Mediums.

And yeah, I keep pointing to your stats, Tesunie. I really don't understand how you can perform so poorly despite thinking about the game so much. Maybe you should do the opposite of everything you're doing now and see how that works out.

So, what does stats have to do with my technical information on how things operate make my information "wrong". I'm not sure when you really entered into this conversation, but stats was first pulled in after I explained how effective AMS can be, and other technical information about equipment in the game. I was retorted with "you're wrong, because you have X K/D". I still want to know why my K/D has to do with the technical information posted being incorrect.

I've posted ways to utilize AMS to better effect. Not saying I can shoot the wings off a fly. So, I'm still wondering how that impacts my presentation of technical data.

So far, I've gotten "it impacts the advice you give, because you obviously die too much and thus have no idea what you are talking about". Rather than "AMS shoots down X missiles on average, rather than your posted 5-8".

There is a difference between technical knowledge and ability to utilize said knowledge in practical situations. I can tell you how a car's motor typically works and how it operates. My inability to repair said motor doesn't invalidate that I know how it works. Not being a race car driver doesn't mean it invalidates any knowledge of their car's technical specs I may have, such as Horsepower and how many seconds it might take for their car to hit 60 MPH.

The opposite of what I'm doing now would be going back to LRM/lasers, going back to my Huntsmen, stop experimenting with new mechs, stop trying to get better with assaults, heavies and lights... Oh, and stop the pain in my knees from interfering with my gameplay. I also should stop playing with my friends, who are all relatively new players and in T5.
I like to experiment. I like to play with my friends. I wish to improve my performance in mechs outside the medium mech class (if you looked at Jarl's List, you'd notice a correlation between my performance and the average mech class I used for that season). I also wish to maintain a wide diversity of weapons I am familiar with, rather than the same Huntsmen build that just works well all the time.


As for your bullet points, it seems like LRMs need to become less feast or famine somehow. I'd also like to mention, in those FP drops... did you have anyone with AMS? Did your who team take AMS? Or did you all drop AMS off your mechs for "more important things"? Also, AMS is only helpful if people stay together. (I highly doubt your FP drops went as you describe, and I don't think anyone has tried to compare and LRM team with an AMS team. Might make for a fun experiment if we could round 24 players together to give it a try.)

I'd like to make mention that I don't mind discussing changes to LRMs. No system is perfect. However, I haven't seen much discussion about LRMs here so far, and instead people just railing into them.

---

I'm going to attempt to add direction to this conversation again:
- If you have an issue with LRMs, the current or proposed changes coming, what are they specifically?
- Of those issues you have, what solutions or changes might you suggest, without gutting the core of what makes LRMs different and interesting? (No, out right removal or the weapon or it's indirect capabilities are not an option here.)
- How do you envision those changes happening, and how do you foresee their impact onto the game?
- Why do you feel your envisionment of LRMs is more balanced, fun and fair?

As stated, we want to have a discussion on LRMs, lets have one. People have concerns and don't like elements of LRMs, lets see what they actually are and what solutions you might have to correct the issue.


I personally feel that AMS is too punishing to lower count launchers. As I don't tend to boat LRMs, I often find my 40 or less tube count launchers to be decimated by a single AMS or two. I'd like to see AMS take a gradually reduced amount of missiles off every volley, capping out around 90% total missiles taken for a volley when the max number of AMS is achieved. Thus, missiles will always be able to land something (maybe), despite AMS. Then, the number of AMS needed to achieve this (remember, it's per volley, not number of missiles over time) could be set to 4-8 (balancing and testing before any 'final' numbers). This keeps AMS effective towards large launchers, while not decimating smaller launchers. This results in boating not being the only 'effective' way to play missiles. (People will still boat though, of course.) (Reminder, numbers are mostly placeholders to relay the idea, not actual exact figures.)

[Kubernetes]

It's not your technical information that's at issue, it's your blind belief in the effectiveness of AMS. I have dropped in 12-mans before loaded up with 15+ AMS. Yes, it works against a small number of boats.

Quote

As for your bullet points, it seems like LRMs need to become less feast or famine somehow. I'd also like to mention, in those FP drops... did you have anyone with AMS? Did your who team take AMS? Or did you all drop AMS off your mechs for "more important things"? Also, AMS is only helpful if people stay together. (I highly doubt your FP drops went as you describe, and I don't think anyone has tried to compare and LRM team with an AMS team. Might make for a fun experiment if we could round 24 players together to give it a try.)

You highly doubt? YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE. Why tf are you weighing in still? It's been done over and over. I don't care how many AMS you bring because 10 Awesomes or Supernovas will drill through any AMS coverage in seconds. Many many players better than you (or me) have demonstrated this over and over. This post is another example of you imagining that you know what you're talking about.

Edited by Kubernetes, 08 March 2019 - 03:22 PM.

[K O Z A K]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

It's not your technical information that's at issue, it's your blind belief in the effectiveness of AMS. I have dropped in 12-mans before loaded up with 15+ AMS. Yes, it works against a small number of boats.



You highly doubt? YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE. Why tf are you weighing in still? It's been done over and over. I don't care how many AMS you bring because 10 Awesomes or Supernovas will drill through any AMS coverage in seconds. Many many players better than you (or me) have demonstrated this over and over. This post is another example of you imagining that you know what you're talking about.

This has definitely been done, a 10+2 LRM team smokes through 12 ams mechs (with some dual ams), it takes a little more time, but not by much

[Kubernetes]

The disparate performance in SQ vs FW is what makes LRMs so difficult to balance. No other weapons system allows you to stack damage so easily. It's hard to get 10+ direct fire mechs shooting at one target. It only happens if you're set up in a defensive line and the enemy strolls into your perfect kill box. But 10 LRMers can simply switch to one target without repositioning. So in SQ, LRMers in ones or twos are largely ineffectual: there's no guaranteed spotter support, your team won't necessarily play to your strengths, there are many counters, and your ability to kill just on your own is fairly limited. But on a team that's built around LRMs it's nearly OP. AMS is put in a weird place too as a result. If you make it strong enough to resist mass boating, it will be too strong against solo boats in SQ.

[Daurock]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

The disparate performance in SQ vs FW is what makes LRMs so difficult to balance. No other weapons system allows you to stack damage so easily. It's hard to get 10+ direct fire mechs shooting at one target. It only happens if you're set up in a defensive line and the enemy strolls into your perfect kill box. But 10 LRMers can simply switch to one target without repositioning. So in SQ, LRMers in ones or twos are largely ineffectual: there's no guaranteed spotter support, your team won't necessarily play to your strengths, there are many counters, and your ability to kill just on your own is fairly limited. But on a team that's built around LRMs it's nearly OP. AMS is put in a weird place too as a result. If you make it strong enough to resist mass boating, it will be too strong against solo boats in SQ.

The "overall" solution to that is to make them a little less powerful, but more consistent, and more reliable at things other than it's "ideal case."

Thus, if you have a team full of them, they don't dish damage as fast, but a single user has a better time of it. The upcoming changes are steps in that direction. For example - velocity helps make them more reliable, but doesn't really help mass waves of them, since they're generally all going to be on target. Thus, improving velocity helps reliability, but not overall power. Another example is the upcoming IDF "Spread" nerfs. This lowers the effective Power of the weapon, but not the consistency. Thus, a single user still goes down a little, but a mass of them gets a bigger bite due to be large mass of them.

The targeting changes and DF trajecotry changes also play into this general theme of "a little less power, but more reliable"

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

It's not your technical information that's at issue, it's your blind belief in the effectiveness of AMS. I have dropped in 12-mans before loaded up with 15+ AMS. Yes, it works against a small number of boats.



You highly doubt? YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE. Why tf are you weighing in still? It's been done over and over. I don't care how many AMS you bring because 10 Awesomes or Supernovas will drill through any AMS coverage in seconds. Many many players better than you (or me) have demonstrated this over and over. This post is another example of you imagining that you know what you're talking about.

If my technical information isn't wrong... then why was I told my information was wrong? (And then have my stats thrown into my face.)


Last time I played FP, and it's been a couple weeks, LRMs were not as prevalent as you have indicated. Sure, there are some teams that run LRMs, but I don't find it to the extreme often presented on the forums in discussions. Many times, people seem to flip-flop on the topic of LRMs. Either "LRM teams are useless and easy to destroy" or "OMG they kill everything". I think this depends upon each team's makeup, as well as how effectively each team works with each other.

As I mentioned, I doubt you've had so many FP matches against LRM teams. Then again, maybe you have. Most of my FP matches recently (which are few now-a-days) involved more Gauss/laser combos, with maybe a brawling wave. Maybe there is a stray LRM user here or there. And yes, I have come across the few LRM centric teams in FP. They, much like the snipers, can be a problem.


On notation of LRM vs AMS, there was a reason I mentioned I'd love to see how effective a team composition as you described (a NARCer or two, some brawler screens, and some LRM boats) would fair against a full team of AMS equipped mechs. Would it be effective at countering the LRM spam? I believe it would take a good chunk, especially with good positioning with the some AMS units, of their damage out of the fight. AMS shouldn't remove all the damage.

On the notation of AMS, you might be expecting some unreasonable outcomes. As I said, AMS takes out on average 5-8 missiles per AMS, considering position and all. Say, everyone took a single AMS and remain in range of each other. So, 12 AMS. 12 x 6 missiles average (rough guess) still equals 72 missiles knocked out (as an estimate). Going by more relevant tonnage launchers, your 18 ton investment as a team has taken out roughly three LRM20s and an LRM10 (70 missiles), a 30 ton investment (excluding ammo) on the enemy team. Sure, if 800+ missiles are heading right at you, 70 missiles being taken out doesn't seem like much... But that's just working with averages and presuming everyone is staying in range of each other's AMS. (There are ways to get more millage out of AMS as well.) For the trade off of about 18 tons to kick out 30 ton (IS version) investment on the other team seems rather worth while... but that's as a team. And recall, that's if everyone only took a single AMS. (Clan investment for LRMs would be less.)

As most people consider things in a solo, non-team fashion, the numbers look far worse. A single AMS blocks an LRM5 launcher headed at you (without consideration to the team and positioning, just you). So 1.5 ton investment to block a 1-2 ton enemy investment... seems like short change. Of course it looks less impressive then. When aimed at an ally though, with good positioning, it starts to look like a better investment, blocking a 2.5-5 ton investment (LRM10) for a 1.5 ton on your side. But... why take an AMS when you can have this new, shiny ML and deal 5 damage to the enemy! People would rather take things that deal damage, than "maybe" prevent damage. The problem with AMS is it's great and useful IF someone takes missiles on the enemy team, and if no one took any missiles on the enemy team, it's a useless expenditure of tonnage.

So, it still begs the question, what are you expecting out of your AMS? Why is it not worth it to you? Is it because it's only useful if your enemy took missiles to the fight? (And I'll admit, I don't have many mechs that take AMS myself. Probably very much for the same reasons many other people don't.)


This information, with a warning of being just estimates, should not be affected by my personal stats. I still don't see how the information on how AMS operates and it's effectiveness (but only against missiles) is related to my stats. The two are not related.

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

The disparate performance in SQ vs FW is what makes LRMs so difficult to balance. No other weapons system allows you to stack damage so easily. It's hard to get 10+ direct fire mechs shooting at one target. It only happens if you're set up in a defensive line and the enemy strolls into your perfect kill box. But 10 LRMers can simply switch to one target without repositioning. So in SQ, LRMers in ones or twos are largely ineffectual: there's no guaranteed spotter support, your team won't necessarily play to your strengths, there are many counters, and your ability to kill just on your own is fairly limited. But on a team that's built around LRMs it's nearly OP. AMS is put in a weird place too as a result. If you make it strong enough to resist mass boating, it will be too strong against solo boats in SQ.

This I agree with.

I will presume you are lumping FP and GP together though, and SQ as it's own distinct grouping as it's all randomized.

I will also mention that tuning to make direct fired LRMs better than indirect fired LRMs will help with some of this. Sure, the 10 LRM mechs can still shoot on the same target easier than 10 direct fired mechs, but they will be less effective if IDF had more spread. Then, direct fired LRMs are more useful. That is what is being implemented, or did I misread something?

There was a reason I made the loose suggestion of having AMS impact a percentage of incoming missiles (per volley), rather than what it is now. It would keep it's power even, no matter how many missiles are coming in. A couple of smaller launchers becomes as effective (against AMS) as a massed swarm. (Of course, mass swarm will still hurt more... but there are more tonnage of launchers being committed to the task...)

[Kubernetes]

Quote

"As I mentioned, I doubt you've had so many FP matches against LRM teams. Then again, maybe you have. Most of my FP matches recently (which are few now-a-days) involved more Gauss/laser combos, with maybe a brawling wave. Maybe there is a stray LRM user here or there. And yes, I have come across the few LRM centric teams in FP. They, much like the snipers, can be a problem."

Why don't you just say outright "I'm pig headed and will automatically disbelieve anything that isn't in accord with my beliefs."?

Quote

Going by more relevant tonnage launchers, your 18 ton investment as a team has taken out roughly three LRM20s and an LRM10 (70 missiles), a 30 ton investment (excluding ammo) on the enemy team. Sure, if 800+ missiles are heading right at you, 70 missiles being taken out doesn't seem like much...

Why bother with this? Get some friends and test it out. Get 23 people on board and try pitting an organized LRM deck versus All-the-AMS. Let us know what happens.
(I already know what happens because I've seen it, but you apparently refuse to believe.)

Quote

So, it still begs the question, what are you expecting out of your AMS? Why is it not worth it to you? Is it because it's only useful if your enemy took missiles to the fight?

I've already explained this.

Edited by Kubernetes, 08 March 2019 - 05:17 PM.

[LordNothing]

did we ever get the mechanics from the pts? seems like they gave up and just buffed everything istead. i dont like the precedent that sets. im all for the depthening of weapon mechanics, ballistics and lasers could use some depth. hell lasers in particular are all pretty much the same in terms of usage and only vary by the numbers, so better differentiating std from er from pulse and so on. perhaps pulse lasers should fire a stream of small hitscan ppflds rather than just having a shorter duration. heavy lasers maybe allow partial burns (release to stop). ballistics also need an overhaul, mainly to better define weapon roles. like the surge damage niche of the uacs isnt actually filled by the uac mechanics. and a four second cooldown on an ac20 doesnt exactly scream cold sustainable dps at me. racs cant even be chainfired (they should run at half dps and fire longer without jamming). theres a lot of depthening to mechanics that can be done and id rather do that than balancing.

or get away from weapons and work on mechs for awhile. balance out the classic mechs, bring in new variants. bring in more equipment options, more armor types, defensive equipment like blueshield. stuff that doesn't require massive retrofit passes to implement. stuff is good.

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 05:13 PM, said:

Why don't you just say outright "I'm pig headed and will automatically disbelieve anything that isn't in accord with my beliefs."?

Funny. I thought that was what you were doing. Considering all I've done was post technical information about things, and then suddenly (because they can't counter the technicals of how things operates) they look at my player stats and use that to claim I'm "wrong".

Still waiting to find where my technical data is incorrect. Still waiting. Any takers?

As I said, in MY matches, I don't seem to see the missile spam as you seem to, or when I do it's an off match that rarely comes up. YOU might, on the other hand due to match times and teams playing, come across the LRM spam every match you play. I can NOT account for your experience. I think it is probably safe to say though that the average player doesn't come across the LRM teams who win 48-12 with only the 12 mechs being ejections from lack of ammo. That's all I was saying.

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 05:13 PM, said:

Why bother with this? Get some friends and test it out. Get 23 people on board and try pitting an organized LRM deck versus All-the-AMS. Let us know what happens.
(I already know what happens because I've seen it, but you apparently refuse to believe.)

I don't exactly tend to just have 23 other friends online to get into a match. If I did, I'd love to test this in several different ways. See what the max effectiveness that can be achieved with perfect AMS positions in relation to the target, and averages of just max AMS available in "normal" team positioning with just being close and low regard to positioning for AMS. (And then, of course, after the tests, the obligatory "see which side can get the other".)

For the record: Not once did I say AMS would solve all your missile problems. But it can cut it down to more reasonable measures. I mean, considering an Assault mech can achieve 80 tube launcher setups that are reasonably sustainable, it's not impossible for 800+ missiles to go onto a target. With that kind of massed missile fire, there isn't enough AMS to stop that. Best I can come up with would be a couple hundred missiles probably being shot down, which still leaves more than enough to damage/kill the target. (Guess why I suggest a change to AMS. Imagine if that 800 volley was reduced down to 80 missiles total? But that isn't how it is currently in the game.)

You may have seen it, but I have not. I've seen very few teams that sported that much AMS. Normally, for what I see, if there is AMS on the team it's provably a triple AMS Nova/kitfox or two, and no one else has any AMS. So, pardon me if I'm a little incredulous about an all AMS team having faced off against an LRM giant team already. I mean, it certainly could have happened, but I don't think it's the norm (as you've said yourself) for people to bring that much AMS.

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 05:13 PM, said:

I've already explained this.

I don't know what you've already explained, as there are other people here and it's been a long topic. So far, I seem to be seeing a lot of people who either go "There are better things to do with the weight" or "it doesn't destroy all the missiles coming in, so it's useless". I believe you where the former, and you probably don't take it because good positioning and hard cover can counter LRMs rather well, and you find supporting your offensive abilities to be more worthwhile than spending it on defense that might not have any effect on some matches. (As stated, if there were no missiles on the enemy team, then the AMS is wasted tonnage.)

LordNothing, on 08 March 2019 - 05:17 PM, said:

... theres a lot of depthening to mechanics that can be done and id rather do that than balancing.

or get away from weapons and work on mechs for awhile. balance out the classic mechs, bring in new variants. bring in more equipment options, more armor types, defensive equipment like blueshield. stuff that doesn't require massive retrofit passes to implement. stuff is good.

I would like to mention, many of your suggestions would actually not only be adding depth between weapons, but also would be points of balancing and could be used to better balance (and distinguish) different weapons.

However, adding in more gear without balancing current gear leads to more difficulty balancing all gear normally. So, I wouldn't recommend adding in gear without considering balance of existing gear typically. But, currently, I think we've hit a reasonable balance, compared to the past. I mean, I see all the weapon types in matches now, rather than just the same "meta" ones over and over again. That's a good sign.

[LordNothing]

changing mechanics inevitably comes with some degree of rebalance. that goes without saying. but at least theres a point to it, increasing depth, rather than 'weapon op pls nerf'.

Edited by LordNothing, 08 March 2019 - 07:16 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Tesunie: "I don't know what you've already explained, as there are other people here and it's been a long topic."

You've literally quoted me. This may be a tad bit harsh, but you're an imbecile. That or deliberately obtuse. I'd ask you to tell me which, but I'm pretty sure you'd dissemble.

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 08 March 2019 - 09:50 PM, said:

Tesunie: "I don't know what you've already explained, as there are other people here and it's been a long topic."

You've literally quoted me. This may be a tad bit harsh, but you're an imbecile. That or deliberately obtuse. I'd ask you to tell me which, but I'm pretty sure you'd dissemble.

Q: Did I get it right where you where the one who said you take AMS off as the first thing to trade out for something else "more beneficial"? If so, then my "obtuseness" was clearly mentioned as "I believe you where the former", or did you just gloss over that portion of the paragraph? I mean, we have how many other people posting in this thread? Over the course of how many pages?

But... I mean.. I guess... I never mentioned what you thought of AMS. Right?

Tesunie, on 08 March 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

I don't know what you've already explained, as there are other people here and it's been a long topic. So far, I seem to be seeing a lot of people who either go "There are better things to do with the weight" or "it doesn't destroy all the missiles coming in, so it's useless". I believe you where the former, and you probably don't take it because good positioning and hard cover can counter LRMs rather well, and you find supporting your offensive abilities to be more worthwhile than spending it on defense that might not have any effect on some matches. (As stated, if there were no missiles on the enemy team, then the AMS is wasted tonnage.)

Oh wait. Did I cover it? Or was I incorrect? Do I need to go back pages here and re-quote as a mega post the whole conversation?

I might also remind you, I only presented how something functioned in a technical manner and then was promptly told I was wrong because my K/D rate wasn't very high. Then told I was wrong with my information again because my survival rate was too low (that I believe was you?). Then was told I was wrong again... and yet...
NO ONE HAS TOLD ME WHAT PORTION OF MY TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF GAME MECHANICS WAS WRONG.
My stats within the game has no bearing on rather my technical information presented here is incorrect.

Tesunie, on 08 March 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

- AMS: This thing shoots down any missile, be it SRMs, MRMs, SSRMs, ATMs or even LRMs. They are most effective on longer ranged missiles, such as LRMs and ATMs and a bit for MRMs, than they are for shorter ranged engagements simply due to time able to take their effects on their counters. A single AMS can shoot down upwards of 20+ LRM/ATM missiles with perfect positioning. With good positioning, it can take down 15 without much difficulty, but average 5-8 missiles for the most part. Now, that's a single AMS unit on a single mech... Imagine what might happen on those dual, triple or the quad AMS mechs? 40+ missiles with perfect position, average pf 10-16 missiles with you being the target, with just two AMS on only yourself. Get a few teammates, or even a whole team, with AMS and suddenly you just don't care about LRMs/ATMs anymore. With enough, MRMs, SRMs and even SSRMs become rendered near useless. (However, most people who claim the toxicity of LRMs neglect AMS from my experience.)
- LAMS: Same as above, but not limited to ammo counts, nor ammo explosion chances. Produces heat as it's trade off, and normally can't be taken on hot running mechs or in massed amounts. Best paired off with normal AMS for a "best of both worlds".
- ECM: Get close enough and it disables a homing missile user's ability to get locks. (Countered by AP or another ECM unit. Travel in packs!) At a range, it permits you to get close before a lock can be obtained as well as makes getting a missile lock harder to do. A team full of these is very difficult to deal with for homing missiles, and can effectively, it send in on a target in packs, make it impossible for missile locks to even be acquired once things get rolling.
- Stealth Armor: Needs ECM, sure. Once you engage Stealth though, all missile locks are instantly dropped. Hear the warning, turn on your stealth and laugh. I've also noticed that, even if I managed to disable the ECM with an AP, it appears as though Stealth Armor continues to be engaged... Maybe it's changed since I last saw that effect, but I've had times where I couldn't disable their Stealth, despite doing tactics that disabled ECM (PPC hit, AP, ECM in counter mode, etc).
- Size. Yes, the very size of your mech and it's hit boxes have an impact on LRMs and ATMs. The smaller the mech, the less missiles that will hit, due to how spread works. The larger the target, the more missiles will land. LRMs are actually most effective against Assaults such as the King Crab, than light mechs, such as the Locust, Flea or Commando. This is actually true for any homing missile (except SSRMs).
- Shape: Not really a counter, but... The shape of the mech also helps determine where homing missile damage is placed. That spread means a mech with a wide CT hitbox will take more damage there, or a mech with high shoulder guards that twists very well will take more damage to the arm.
- Speed: Speed can counter LRMs/ATMs fairly well. Just running perpendicular to the launcher/flight path of the missiles will shed some of the damage into the ground. Being fast also means more likely chance to seek cover. Speed is a minor counter to SSRMs, as if you can duck in and out of cover (with Radar Deprivation, if not ECM as well) to prevent locks completely. Also, if you can spin around a target well enough, some mechs can't track very well, meaning that they can't get a missile lock from failure to keep themselves on target long enough to do so.
- Radar Deprivation: It's a pain to locking weapons. If you really don't like lock on weapons, take maxed Radar Dep.

Is any of the information I presented here incorrect, and if so, what is incorrect? My stats have no bearing on this. Still. So, who's up for this? If I am wrong, say what it is I am incorrect about, rather than saying my STATS are bad... STATS still have no bearing (worth repeating apparently) on the technical information presented. STATS do not make my information incorrect. my STATS have nothing to do with that. Thus, I can not be wrong because of anything involving my player STATS.

[Smutty]

Just kiss already God damn

[YueFei]

Technical info only goes so far. You can know every last minutiae about some piece of military hardware, that doesn't mean you know how to apply the correct tactics to use it to full effect, or that you understand that certain limitations or counter-tactics can undo all your fancy plans.

And of course, practical experience trumps theory-crafting.

Just ask the USN crews who kept futilely lobbing torpedoes at targets to no effect, reporting these equipment failures to higher ups, and then being repeatedly told that they were full of crap because the local tests state-side indicated that the torpedoes should be working. Those crews out there fighting and dying were basically told they were lying pieces of crap by dudes safely sitting at their desks.

[Alienized]

all i want is a buff to most of the players brains.

then we would not have endless senseless discussions on weapon systems that dont need any buffs or nerfs.

im disgusted by how most of the players are flat out awful when it comes to teamplay.
"ermagerd lrms are too stronk!" no you are too stupid to get in the face of the mech.
"ehrmagerd lazors are OP!! NEEERF" if you stare too much then yeah. you deserve to get ur face melted.


this game has no problems weapon wise at this point. its players unwilling to learn, adapt and teamplay is the problem.



i was kinda speechless there.