120 replies to this topic

[Anomalocaris]

Verilligo, on 27 June 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

I mean, it's your decision to add whatever you like to your config file, but this actively makes the job for the rest of the team harder. I want your targeting data so that I can make informed targeting choices and I don't even use LRMs.

How do you guys keep missing the point? He's talking about an auto lock on a mech he's stalking for a backshot (for example) causing LRM boats 1000m away to start firing at the target and spook it, making his attempt at a sneaky backstab that much harder (or impossible).

Yeah, he's tweaking LRMers' noses in the process, but if you're that sensitive about your loadout choice, seek help.

[Novakaine]

No what he really means I'm 2400 out sniping supporting my cannon fodder...er I mean team.
Don't spook my targets because I got yur back wink wink.

Edited by Novakaine, 27 June 2019 - 11:10 AM.

[Tesunie]

Verilligo, on 27 June 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

I mean, it's your decision to add whatever you like to your config file, but this actively makes the job for the rest of the team harder. I want your targeting data so that I can make informed targeting choices and I don't even use LRMs.

Largely, this is my point.

[Verilligo]

Anomalocaris, on 27 June 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:

How do you guys keep missing the point? He's talking about an auto lock on a mech he's stalking for a backshot (for example) causing LRM boats 1000m away to start firing at the target and spook it, making his attempt at a sneaky backstab that much harder (or impossible).

Yeah, he's tweaking LRMers' noses in the process, but if you're that sensitive about your loadout choice, seek help.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure you don't auto-lock onto something under your crosshairs until after you shoot it while having no other target locked.

[Tesunie]

Anomalocaris, on 27 June 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:

How do you guys keep missing the point? He's talking about an auto lock on a mech he's stalking for a backshot (for example) causing LRM boats 1000m away to start firing at the target and spook it, making his attempt at a sneaky backstab that much harder (or impossible).

Yeah, he's tweaking LRMers' noses in the process, but if you're that sensitive about your loadout choice, seek help.

Tesunie, on 27 June 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:

PS: You can also press R to drop the lock manually. Also, if you have a lock on someone else, you wont acquire an autolock on what you are looking/shooting at actively.
Note: If you are also talking about "first locks" being automatic, I might also remind that if you are the first one to lock a target, you get scouting bonuses for that lock. Also, as the lock data is shared, other people on your team now would know where someone from the enemy team is, and either start to counter position or move to engage... (which can be good and bad.)

Basically, just target someone else, or flicker the lock (as most people you'd be back stabbing don't have Radar Dep) so it's not steady enough for the LRMs to ruin the surprise.

However, most LRM attempts take longer to lock missiles and to give the enemy a warning (there normally is a delay between the missiles shooting an the incoming missile warning) than it typically does to stab them in the back. If it's well timed enough, you stab them in the back and, if you don't kill them, they turn around and get pummeled again in the back from LRMs hitting them. Normally a win-win situation from my experience. (Though, this is not always the case, of course.)

My problem is not with the disabling of autolock (as mentioned above: )

Tesunie, on 27 June 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:

Now, this isn't to say anything about "autolock", as people should become adjusted to getting locks manually anyway...
...So, honestly, autolock should not be needed anyway, as people should be getting locks themselves.

My issue is with the opening title of "say no to LRMs" with the mentioning of disable of autolock. It's an instant "hyperboil" remark that is either being used falsely to garner attention to the subject, or it's meant to insult LRM pilots, to garner attention and arguments to the subject, which keeps it in the top of the forums longer.

If the remark was in relation to "autolock messing assassination back stab attempts by revealing their presence before they can strike", the more appropriate title might have been: "Say yes to back stabs: Disable auto targeting". But, that wouldn't generate as much attention, now would it?


The other portion I have an issue with for this current conversation is the remarks against teamwork and the promotion of selfish game play ("Don't steal my kills" and other remarks against LRMs in general). It shouldn't be seen as "kill stealing", but rather as "kill securing". Every dead enemy is one less threat to your team. Every downed or hindered teammate is one less potential asset to be used against the enemy.

Verilligo, on 27 June 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure you don't auto-lock onto something under your crosshairs until after you shoot it while having no other target locked.

I can't recall those specifics at this time, which was why I did not mention those mechanics (yet).

I can't recall if it's when you shoot (which is what I believe it to be as well), or if its when you've left your crosshairs over/near a target visually for a certain amount of time.

If it's the former, then this shouldn't be an issue. If it's the latter, then the remarks on Auto-lock makes more sense as it can ruin a potential ambush.

[thievingmagpi]

Tesunie, on 27 June 2019 - 11:24 AM, said:

Basically, just target someone else, or flicker the lock (as most people you'd be back stabbing don't have Radar Dep) so it's not steady enough for the LRMs to ruin the surprise.

However, most LRM attempts take longer to lock missiles and to give the enemy a warning (there normally is a delay between the missiles shooting an the incoming missile warning) than it typically does to stab them in the back. If it's well timed enough, you stab them in the back and, if you don't kill them, they turn around and get pummeled again in the back from LRMs hitting them. Normally a win-win situation from my experience. (Though, this is not always the case, of course.)

My problem is not with the disabling of autolock (as mentioned above: )

My issue is with the opening title of "say no to LRMs" with the mentioning of disable of autolock. It's an instant "hyperboil" remark that is either being used falsely to garner attention to the subject, or it's meant to insult LRM pilots, to garner attention and arguments to the subject, which keeps it in the top of the forums longer.

If the remark was in relation to "autolock messing assassination back stab attempts by revealing their presence before they can strike", the more appropriate title might have been: "Say yes to back stabs: Disable auto targeting". But, that wouldn't generate as much attention, now would it?


The other portion I have an issue with for this current conversation is the remarks against teamwork and the promotion of selfish game play ("Don't steal my kills" and other remarks against LRMs in general). It shouldn't be seen as "kill stealing", but rather as "kill securing". Every dead enemy is one less threat to your team. Every downed or hindered teammate is one less potential asset to be used against the enemy.



I can't recall those specifics at this time, which was why I did not mention those mechanics (yet).

I can't recall if it's when you shoot (which is what I believe it to be as well), or if its when you've left your crosshairs over/near a target visually for a certain amount of time.

If it's the former, then this shouldn't be an issue. If it's the latter, then the remarks on Auto-lock makes more sense as it can ruin a potential ambush.

do that with any other weapon, fine.

sitting back behind a hill doing absolutely nothing other than putting your crosshairs over a big red box? nope.

lrms are trash.

you want to shoot enemies? fine, shoot enemies. get into the fight, find targets, shoot them. then we won't have to worry. I don't feel like working for someone who is doing the bare minimum to contribute. If there's a target I think would be good for you to shoot based off of work I've done, I'll make that choice.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 27 June 2019 - 11:35 AM.

[Nightbird]

Verilligo, on 27 June 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure you don't auto-lock onto something under your crosshairs until after you shoot it while having no other target locked.

Nope, just need to put your cross hair over someone.

Easy to test

[Tesunie]

thievingmagpi, on 27 June 2019 - 11:26 AM, said:

do that with any other weapon, fine.

sitting back behind a hill doing absolutely nothing other than putting your crosshairs over a big red box? nope.

lrms are trash.

You say that, but the recent changes seem to be seeing more "experienced" players utilizing them. The key for them is typically not to shot them indirectly, where they have worse spread and take longer to hit the target (giving them more time to respond) as well as take a longer arc, meaning more flight time, meaning more time for any AMS to shoot down more missiles. (Not to mention longer lock on speeds, especially the farther out from a target you are especially when considering indirect locks.)

No. The trick to using LRMs well in today's game is to shoot them with direct line of sight, where they have improved stats. You typically also want to do this around 600m or closer (still), especially if fired directly. Artemis only makes this better when in direct LoS. (TAG is only useful for two things now, indirect LoS spotting from teammates (bringing affects besides arc and "velocity" to direct fire results), and cutting through ECM a bit better.) (I can't recall if TAG still improves cluster/spread anymore.)

LRMs have the option to fire indirectly as needed, but similar to shooting ATMs outside their 3 damage/missile bracket (but not as much of a hindrance), they aren't strongest in that aspect anymore.

I might also mention, they have increased lock times (especially on note for indirect locks) and shrank the locking "sweet spot" within the "red box". Then we might want to consider Stealth armor's effects on it, ECM's effect especially on note with indirect lock times...

So, you can insinuate their lack of skill as much as you want. You can make claims about how they are "a cancer to this game" (might not be your claim, but I've heard the expression enough) in relation to their "lack of skill" and "indirect fire from 1000+m away". All you mention are it's weakest aspects in the current game edition.



Might I assume that your obvious distaste for lock on weapons spreads to ATMs as well, even inside their 3 damage/missile bracket? I'm going to guess they are as "trash" as LRMs in your opinion? I mean, "doing absolutely nothing other than putting your crosshairs over a big red box", right?

[Tesunie]

Nightbird, on 27 June 2019 - 11:37 AM, said:

Nope, just need to put your cross hair over someone.

Easy to test

Q: In those times where your ambush was wrecked by an ally utilizing your auto-lock mechanic, how many of them could you have locked a different target than the one you where trying to ambush? Was that an option?

Q: Could you have made this topic's title (and thus, core direction of the conversation) without mentioning LRMs in the title? Couldn't you have mentioned Radar Dep as a potential problem giving away your location? Or just the fact that Auto-lock for advanced players is not necessary?

I feel you could have not even included LRMs into your conversation, and probably done well anyway. There are many reasons for the Auto-lock to potentially hinder an ambush, and LRMs are but one potential aspect for it. Your inclusion of LRMs within your title has, unfortunately, moved the dialogue in a direction that may be distracting from your main discussion: Auto-locking can give away your position when attempting to perform an ambush to attack an enemies back.

To be honest, I could agree with Auto-lock being a feature that should be able to be disabled (like throttle lock, arm lock, that little ground arrow, etc). More advanced players normally do not require the auto-lock, as they manually perform this action anyway. (I've actually had auto-lock mess up a lock on the target I wanted a few times, because it locked it, and then I manually press R for a lock, and it switched locks to someone else or dropped the lock if no one else could be locked.)

[Tesunie]

thievingmagpi, on 27 June 2019 - 11:26 AM, said:

you want to shoot enemies? fine, shoot enemies. get into the fight, find targets, shoot them. then we won't have to worry. I don't feel like working for someone who is doing the bare minimum to contribute. If there's a target I think would be good for you to shoot based off of work I've done, I'll make that choice.

You edited...

Anyway... As I've stated, when I'm using LRMs, I try to obtain my own locks. Always have. Then again, I tend to favor LRM builds with significant direct fire weapons, and I desire to utilize all my weapons in a match, not "minimum participation effort". Unless I'm significantly damaged, I rarely fire only indirectly upon targets. As mentioned before, LRMs are best with your own locks, for many reasons. Some of it with LRMs, some of it with the quality of the lock so you know you're more likely to hit said target.

You may be talking to the wrong LRM player...

[Nightbird]

Tesunie, on 27 June 2019 - 11:52 AM, said:

snip

No, I also wanted to say LRMs are bad

The team with more LRMs usually loses

[Prototelis]

Surprising lack of people bragging about how they front line lrm.

[Tesunie]

Nightbird, on 27 June 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

No, I also wanted to say LRMs are bad

The team with more LRMs usually loses

Is that why I've been seeing some "better players" using LRMs within a team in GP more recently?

LRMs can be a good weapon, depending upon how it's used. They are one of the few weapons that can become "over saturated" within a team. An LRM mech (or boat I guess, because I know people do that) or two can be useful. A whole team of them (which tend to stick together too close at that point) typically become easier pray to more conventional tactics. (Also, in general, I see a lot of people use LRMs poorly more than any other weapon system in the game. Standing still. Shooting only indirectly. Shooting LRMs at targets outside/inside-minimum range, sometimes ignoring their secondary weapons that they actually took, producing useless heat on targets they can't hurt...)

It also depends upon the map and the skill levels of the players involved.


I'm not about to say LRMs are "the greatest weapon in the game". I've never said that and never will. But they aren't horrible either.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 27 June 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Surprising lack of people bragging about how they front line lrm.

I've been busy with work. I'll weigh in and included something about the alpha-boats hiding behind hills at a later date. I'll even chuck in a bonus "OP is a try-hard" while I'm at it.

[Tesunie]

Prototelis, on 27 June 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Surprising lack of people bragging about how they front line lrm.

Useless gesture to do so. All that does is bring out the "stat warriors", which then brings in "your seasonal standing says" and then "you should have a 1.0 W/L to be reasonable", which then changes to "you actually need a 5.0 W/L to be able to say anything" or a mentioning of K/D... and then people look at your seasonal stats or Jarl's list, and act like you "always play LRMs every match, or only serous mechs that are fully skilled out"....

It leads to useless confrontation and a bad cycle of discussion. Been there, done that. No thanks. I don't like my goal posts moving once I achieve them... (and only way to prove anything would be to submit vidoes, which I still haven't figured out how to do yet as it's rather intimidating. Which still would be a one off match result, possibly "cherry picked" and still as useless as before.)

This is, of course, not saying that Nightbird would or wouldn't do this. Nor anyone in this thread currently. But I've seen too many conversations go down that road. It's useless to everyone involved.

[Prototelis]

The bar for being able to comment on skilled aspects of play is a lot lower than you think.

[Nightbird]

Prototelis, on 27 June 2019 - 12:23 PM, said:

The bar for being able to comment on skilled aspects of play is a lot lower than you think.

Bar? Where?

[Prototelis]

VonBruinwald, on 27 June 2019 - 12:17 PM, said:

I've been busy with work. I'll weigh in and included something about the alpha-boats hiding behind hills at a later date. I'll even chuck in a bonus "OP is a try-hard" while I'm at it.

Translation; I don't understand how trading works.

[Tesunie]

Prototelis, on 27 June 2019 - 12:23 PM, said:

The bar for being able to comment on skilled aspects of play is a lot lower than you think.

The "you need to be this high to qualify" bar tends to move or be set to "anywhere the opposition wants it to be, as long as it's at or just beneath their own standings", or "wherever it needs to be to exclude you".

I've seen that bar move from "a W/L of 1+ means you are contributing to your team on average" to "a W/L of 5 is required to say you are even remotely good". Then it can change from W/L on a whim to "you need a positive K/D rate" and then shift to "you need a K/D rate of above X", X typically being 5 or even higher.

I mean, I could present some stats on my long standing LRM mechs here. They would no longer reflect just the latest changes to LRMs though, but would show my average performance within a set mech and loadout (that hasn't changed in a very long time). It normally ends up being pointless thread filler in the end as I'm only a single person and not considered "the average". My builds are also rarely "LRM boats".

As stated, I've seen and been in enough of those conversations to not bring it up anymore. Goalposts move and things turn ugly.

Nightbird, on 27 June 2019 - 12:26 PM, said:

Bar? Where?

I don't think he means that kind of bar...

[Prototelis]

That sounds like a bunch of hyperbole to me.

The bar is more like; "Don't say stupid **** about the game."

Edited by Prototelis, 27 June 2019 - 12:53 PM.