86 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Danjo San, on 19 March 2019 - 02:15 AM, said:

to reduce lock on time you need to invest in either Tag 1t, Command Console 3t, Beagle Active Probes 0.5-1.5t and Targeting Computers 1-7t.

Okay, some slightly incorrect information here, that is often confused.
TAG reduces missile lock times.
Command Consoles, BAP and Targeting computers do not affect missile lock on times, but only affect data gathering times (the time it takes to get your target's data, such as damage doll and equipment list).

BAP is often taken with missile locking weapons for the sole purpose of disabling nearby enemy ECM units. It does have the side effect of longer lock on ranges (which will be more helpful in the latest patch as of today).

Besides sensor ranges (which are now actually going to be helpful for getting locks as of today's patch), CC and TC were of no value to mechs that required missile locks (such as LRMs and SSRMs).


With the latest patch, a lot of these system interactions will actually come into effect for missile locks. Longer lock on ranges (sensor range) now means shorter lock on times for indirect missile locks. How much the sensor range boosts for the CC, TC, and BAP will be compared to their tonnage investment will be an interesting metric to follow. I suspect their sensor boosts will not be seen as good enough to make an actual solid impact for their tonnage when considering indirect fired lock on missiles.

[Void Angel]

Beagle is also useful for the increased sensor range when dealing with missiles and scouting.

Also, I must check out the patch notes! LRMs have needed a revamp for a long, long time.

[KursedVixen]

HammerMaster, on 14 March 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

For the billionth time.
The problem is not the map.
Or LRM.
IT's the players.
PGI's issue was the free c3 from the beginning but that's another thread.

Actually it's C3i to be more accurate but yeah point taken.

[Void Angel]

Actually he's just referring to the equipment from tabletop, which was simply called C3. It was a tonnage/space system with a master control computer that could network three other one-ton slave computers - you could link up to a company by slaving the 'mechs carrying the command console to a fourth console. MWO's target data sharing is different, since it doesn't affect accuracy; in actual fact target information was shared between players on a same team (even in double-blind format,) exactly like MWO with the exception (I think) of missile spotting. I'd have to dig out the book and check. But there's a certain class of MWO critic who like trying to shore up their wants for this game with rules from a different game.

Frankly, if you have to resort to supporting your ideas with a fallacious appeal to the authority of a rulebook for a different game in an entirely different format, you probably just need better ideas - but that's another thread.

Edited by Void Angel, 20 March 2019 - 12:21 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

I love how people are still arguing that a flat land of land with slightly undulating terrain and shacks randomly plonked down by PGI, is a "map", and has "no problems". LOL

[Void Angel]

Needing to resort to straw men - while demonstrating a total lack of comprehension about how the map functions when used as designed - definitely means you need new ideas.

[Thrudvangar]

Come on....

Ppl still defend this s.hithole called "map" and talking about cover there as a counter... ridiculous.

Everybody here knows that the OP is right...

There is no cover behind "hills" since lrms seems to ignore even buildings on other maps wich are greater/bigger/higher than those "cover spots" on polar highlands....

That map should be thrown into trash and never return...

[Tesunie]

Thrudvangar, on 21 March 2019 - 01:12 PM, said:

Come on....

Ppl still defend this s.hithole called "map" and talking about cover there as a counter... ridiculous.

Everybody here knows that the OP is right...

There is no cover behind "hills" since lrms seems to ignore even buildings on other maps wich are greater/bigger/higher than those "cover spots" on polar highlands....

That map should be thrown into trash and never return...

Funny... I've found enough cover to block LRMs... And the point of cover is often to break LoS, not the LRMs themselves. Breaking LoS breaks the lock, which then breaks the missile lock, which then breaks the missiles ability to track you as a target. (Then again, a team worth of AMS, sticking together, ECM, Radar Deprivation, etc also helps with this as well.)

I'm sorry if not every map has an LRM umbrella for you, or high and tall buildings.

I still don't see the problem with the map besides people's expectations of it "being the same" as every other map in the game. I personally would like to see different maps with even more varied terrain, such as the sparseness of this map and ones even more congested (like Solaris). More varied maps means more varied tactics possible. (Of course, with map voting, it kinda shuts down a lot of varied map selection, as people tend to select the same style of maps over and over again. Right on down to death threats when the vote goes to an unusual map (such a Terra Therma, actually happened).

We currently have two problems with maps:
- We need more maps. We need more varied maps. No one wants more varied maps and wants maps that all can be played with the same formulaic approach and tactics.
- We need more maps, but people make cries to remove any map they don't like (Alpine, Polar, Therma, Caustic, etc). Then, these same said people will decry that we don't have enough maps. Yet, if all these collective people got their way, we'd have a couple maps, or no maps at all, because they would all be removed because "someone" didn't like it.

I have currently seen cries to remove basically every map in the game so far. How can we get new maps, if we get rid of all the maps we currently have? I mean, I don't exactly like HPG (mostly because I see it too often), but I'm not calling for it's removal. I feel Crimson Straights is lopsided and unbalanced, typically always giving one side an advantage over the other, but I'm not calling for it's removal.

As stated in one of the many previous alternative versions of this style of threads, it was recommended to place strewn dropship wreckage across the Polar Highlands for possible added terrain and cover (half buried in the snow). It is a far more reasonable suggestion compared to "I hate this map, remove it now".


(Personally speaking, I'd love to see a spaceport map. Sadly for some, it would actually be mostly a desolate map, with hole depressions for landing pads, some support vehicles and maybe a tower or two with a landed dropship here or there.... Because, you know, a space port was something often fought over in BT, and it can't be to cluttered or it's useless as a landing spot for Dropships...)

[Void Angel]

If you need to resort to a fallacious appeal to common opinion to shore up your ideas... you need better ideas.

It'd be amusing how many people respond to advice on how to actually play the map with rebuttals that mostly serve to demonstrate their own incompetence - if it didn't make me so tired.

"You know, you can move into a range where your non-LRM weapons are effective by using the map terrain to move out of sight from the enemy."

"There's no LRM cover in this map, because my normal tactic of just backing up behind a mesa doesn't work here!"

"Well, there's not a lot of places where you can just hide behind terrain and avoid all LRM damage, but you can use terrain defilade to - "

"I can't believe there's still people defending this so-called 'map!' Wake up, Sheeple! Vaccines ki- er, PGI REMOVE THIS MAP!"

Edited by Void Angel, 21 March 2019 - 05:49 PM.

[Thrudvangar]

Tesunie, on 21 March 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

Funny... I've found enough cover to block LRMs... And the point of cover is often to break LoS, not the LRMs themselves. Breaking LoS breaks the lock, which then breaks the missile lock, which then breaks the missiles ability to track you as a target. (Then again, a team worth of AMS, sticking together, ECM, Radar Deprivation, etc also helps with this as well.)

I'm sorry if not every map has an LRM umbrella for you, or high and tall buildings.

Oh ... never heard about "Target Decay".. sorry, my bad.

You guys always bringing the same "Tatics" someone should use when playing this map against LRMs... B.ullshit!
The ONLY tactic wich works against LRMs there is a solid push if you can get close enough to start it.


Oh, just saw your LRM guide... bahaha ok, you're out *****!

[Lily from animove]

Thrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 01:42 AM, said:

Oh ... never heard about "Target Decay".. sorry, my bad.

You guys always bringing the same "Tatics" someone should use when playing this map against LRMs... B.ullshit!
The ONLY tactic wich works against LRMs there is a solid push if you can get close enough to start it.


Oh, just saw your LRM guide... bahaha ok, you're out *****!

Yeah Tesunie is a horrible pilot, but for someone labelled T1 your stats aren't great, but it shows prpetty nicely whats not good at PSR, because if you play a few thousends of games and you are above a K/d of 1 you usually you end up T1.

The need to push only exists if you have closer ranged weapons, otherwise you let your long range snipers just snipe, if they are skilled they know how to poke and not get lrm'd due to preventing locktimes and breaking lock before the missiles arrive. And even if I have medium ranged equip I let lrm mechs often enough lock nd shoot at me, because I can break the lock and their missles go to nowhere, yet the direction their missiles come from indicate teammates where they are.

[Thrudvangar]

Lily from animove, on 22 March 2019 - 02:10 AM, said:

Yeah Tesunie is a horrible pilot, but for someone labelled T1 your stats aren't great, but it shows prpetty nicely whats not good at PSR, because if you play a few thousends of games and you are above a K/d of 1 you usually you end up T1.

The need to push only exists if you have closer ranged weapons, otherwise you let your long range snipers just snipe, if they are skilled they know how to poke and not get lrm'd due to preventing locktimes and breaking lock before the missiles arrive. And even if I have medium ranged equip I let lrm mechs often enough lock nd shoot at me, because I can break the lock and their missles go to nowhere, yet the direction their missiles come from indicate teammates where they are.

Yeah, flame my stats... disqualified yourself, thanks

My stats has zero impact on what i said, seriously.

[Tesunie]

Lily from animove, on 22 March 2019 - 02:10 AM, said:

Yeah Tesunie is a horrible pilot,...

You do realize, if you want to throw "stats" onto the table, that I use to be in the top 70-80% according to the Jarls list from Nov 2017 and back some ways. Which basically was before I started playing with a group of T5 "new to the game players"... Sure, my stats have slipped a little, but I also am not overly concerned about my stats to be honest. I like to experiment a lot, and most of my friends are T5. When I'm T1 with 3-4 T5 players fighting against 228 or Emp in GP... There really is only so much that can be done. (Among other reasons for my decline.)

I mean, unless I need to be in the top 90% to be classified as "reasonably" or "not horrible"...

Thrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 06:04 AM, said:

Yeah, flame my stats... disqualified yourself, thanks

My stats has zero impact on what i said, seriously.

People like to do that. For some reason, stats can make some technical information wrong somehow, without ever explaining what portion of the technical information presented was incorrect. Just went rounds with someone else in another thread about the effectiveness of AMS (before the recent patch), and was told I was wrong because of my stats...

You are correct that stats have no impact on this discussion. Especially generalized stats... Now comparing people's average map performance stats might have a reasonable impact on the discussion if a case could be made. But your total average pilot stats contain a lot of "irrelevant" information. (Plus, total average pilot stats also includes learning new mechs, experimenting with alternative weapons, trying different builds and weapons... I mean, I don't always play my handful of star performing mechs 100% of the time. I like variety. I also like figuring a build for a mech that isn't working for me (such as having a different build for every Huntsmen I have).

This actually leads to my current experiment I'm performing. Due to the current event going on, I've been using mechs that I know can get the damage scores, such as my pulse laser Huntsmen, Jeggermech, ballistic Night Gry... Been shelving my recent experimentations with Lt Gauss, ATMs (still can't seem to get the hang of them), and other alternative weapon combos. I've been doing on average for the event matches about 300+ damage. And now that "kill assists" are the running event, I've been getting 2-3 kills a match it seems... so I am wondering what Jarls will say now for this season.

Thrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 01:42 AM, said:

Oh ... never heard about "Target Decay".. sorry, my bad.

You guys always bringing the same "Tatics" someone should use when playing this map against LRMs... B.ullshit!
The ONLY tactic wich works against LRMs there is a solid push if you can get close enough to start it.


Oh, just saw your LRM guide... bahaha ok, you're out *****!

Realize some of my remarks are people I've heard a lot of complains about LRMs from people who refuse to take an counter measure (including breaking LoS). They don't want to commit to Radar Deprivation (which can achieve 100% when maxed, unlike "additional time" from Adv Target Decay) or even AMS.

The tactics to avoid LRMs remain the same: Break LoS, Break their lock, mass AMS, get within their minimum range, use tall terrain to block their flight path, etc. This is different from "combat tactics", which is what you use when playing specific maps. Sadly, most people's "combat tactics" revolves around running to the center (large feature) of the map and then going counter clockwise around the center/feature. This works on most maps, such as Caustic, Therma, Rivercity, etc. Some maps, such as Polar Highlands, has no such "large feature" to go around. It's got lots of gullies that can be used instead. Thus, the tactics to counter LRMs remain the same, but how you play Polar requires different "combat tactics" compared to other maps, and people certainly can't do the default "Nascar" on this map. Thus, there are many reasons people do not like this map.

Do recall, one of the "counter LRM tactics" is to get close, within their minimum ranges. But there are more available tactics to work on Polar, even against a high LRM team.

I might also mention that things just changed for LRMs and a lot of other lock on missile behavior (including AMS). So this map may need to be played differently now. Still to early to tell.


I'm also not sure what you mean about my "Old" LRM guide. It's also been basically rendered obsolete by the recent changes.

[Tesunie]

PS: Though I'm not sure of it's relevance, but Polar does seem to have a good W/L rate for me compared to other maps... And no I don't always use LRMs for the record, despite what some people might think. 345 matches played there with a w/l of 1.21. Just for the sake of it, I do wonder what other people might have, not that it actually is indicative of anything.

[Void Angel]

Thrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 01:42 AM, said:

Oh ... never heard about "Target Decay".. sorry, my bad.

You talk like you haven't - or you've chosen to ignore how Target Decay interacts with Radar Deprivation. You dismiss any cover that doesn't physically block all incoming LRMs as having no effect, then claim that "the only counter to LRMs" is a concerted push - forget that you're objecting to being told that the cover you're dismissing allows you to close with the boats to do that. So are the countermeasure tactics you're being given bad ideas, or are they "the only counter to LRMS?" Which is it? Which one of you am I talking to right now? You are literally flipping your argument upside down to "rebut" different people, depending on what you think lets you dismiss their arguments. You do the same thing when you tried to dismiss Tesunie's arguments based on your personal opinion of her LRM guide - then outrageously declared Lily to be "disqualified" when she brought up actual hard data about your skill level - so if she's disqualified, so are you. Well done; you've declared yourself the loser in your own argument.

The problem here is you, not the map. The map's lack of blocking cover for LRMs is a weakness - but it's not a game-breaking problem, because counterplay exists. It doesn't stop existing because you don't want to use it. It's your failure to adapt, your stubborn refusal to change your desired tactics to fit the actual map - to fight on the map you have, not the map you want. No amount of unsupported insults about your critic's skill level (while in the next breath hypocritically "disqualifying" an opponent you failed to rebut for mentioning your own skill metrics) will let you out of the fact that other people get these tactics to work. Your failure is your own, and none of the ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies, or any of the other sophistry you've started in with will disguise the fact that you're simply refusing to adapt.

Nor that you have lost the argument.

Edited by Void Angel, 22 March 2019 - 08:25 AM.

[ImperialKnight]

no one is arguing about having a "right way" to play the map, of course there is. no one is arguing about how to counter LRMs, saying "just close the distance and punch their face in" is easy, when you're not the one getting focused. no one is arguing there are ways to "manage" the map, sure bring ALL your ECM and AMS

But all these does not stop it from being an objectively badly designed map

[Lily from animove]

Thrudvangar, on 22 March 2019 - 06:04 AM, said:

Yeah, flame my stats... disqualified yourself, thanks

My stats has zero impact on what i said, seriously.

yeah I should start to tell that High classed NBA Team Trainers if they flame my horribel stats at their strange game called basketball as well. Sorry stats are stats if you think they mean nothing why would they differ on players? And why du coincidently player with lower stats have more issues with lrm's than those with good stats? pure coincidence right?

And yes your words about radar derp, decay and rushing DO SHOW you do not know the basics and therefore yes your stats show your skill. Skilled players know these basics and utilise them.

I mean come on, where are some facts and even some logic in your words? Improvement is mostly done by critical self reflection, otherwise I would also still be rushing through the open on polar and die, which i do not. And which i never have because I learned that before polar Highland and it doesn't has some magical rules we need to apply to know that won't work there as well.

So please be more realistic, more logic and analytical to the things that happen around you, it solves LOADS of problems not only in PC games.

@Tesunie, screw the map stats page, it surely cannot be right, It's mostlikely as broken as the weapon stats, the game shows me I played Sulferous 59times and only won 6 times. Yet we had more than those in wins sololy on an evening when we played some tukkayyid event games with the CWI. And it also tells me I was only 2x on rubbelite oasis, which I both won. Except I know very well I lost my first match there and had also more matches there.
Funnily Polar Highlands is also my best map, while I mostly main cerml, PEPS and CERLL and CERML combos. Yet it says my W/L there is 2,27.
But as said I do not trust these map stats they cannot be right. Also some maps will have mixed stats due to scouting happening on them as well.

[Tesunie]

Lily from animove, on 22 March 2019 - 09:19 AM, said:

@Tesunie, screw the map stats page, it surely cannot be right, It's mostlikely as broken as the weapon stats, the game shows me I played Sulferous 59times and only won 6 times. Yet we had more than those in wins sololy on an evening when we played some tukkayyid event games with the CWI. And it also tells me I was only 2x on rubbelite oasis, which I both won. Except I know very well I lost my first match there and had also more matches there.
Funnily Polar Highlands is also my best map, while I mostly main cerml, PEPS and CERLL and CERML combos. Yet it says my W/L there is 2,27.
But as said I do not trust these map stats they cannot be right. Also some maps will have mixed stats due to scouting happening on them as well.

Welp. That confirms that. Polar Highlands is best map.

Too bad the map stats do seem to be off. I notice it now that you mention it (I only did a gloss over the other maps till I saw Polar, for this discussion). And yeah, Weapon Stats have always seemed off to me... But Mech Stats seem correct from everything I've been able to discern...?

(Don't forget, those maps may have scouting, FP or QP happening on them. All of which will change things. Much like placing a mech in Solaris will alter it's stats dramatically, throwing off it's damage per match and damage per match per ton counts, etc)

[Lily from animove]

Tesunie, on 22 March 2019 - 09:25 AM, said:

Welp. That confirms that. Polar Highlands is best map.

Too bad the map stats do seem to be off. I notice it now that you mention it (I only did a gloss over the other maps till I saw Polar, for this discussion). And yeah, Weapon Stats have always seemed off to me... But Mech Stats seem correct from everything I've been able to discern...?

(Don't forget, those maps may have scouting, FP or QP happening on them. All of which will change things. Much like placing a mech in Solaris will alter it's stats dramatically, throwing off it's damage per match and damage per match per ton counts, etc)

I wish we had a soft stat that we could reset at will, so that we could easily trakc the performance statswise that a specific build does, like playing it for two weeks, then resetting those stats and using a different build.

[Tesunie]

Lily from animove, on 22 March 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

I wish we had a soft stat that we could reset at will, so that we could easily trakc the performance statswise that a specific build does, like playing it for two weeks, then resetting those stats and using a different build.

I would love that. Would really help me with build performance stat crunching.

Sometimes, I've been known to take a screen of my stats, change the build, then subtract the old stats from the new stats to get the specific build's performance... Of course that's a lot of work to go through. I think I only did it once, with my Stalker... and it ended up being more happenstance than actually intentional...