167 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

The6thMessenger, on 06 August 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

True, but for a role maybe. But lets face it, Lasers would just work better for that certain guy that gets their own locks. Dang Clan ER Lasers are just the best.



I agree, if we're balancing it with our static Fire-Rate, and that is exactly the problem I am pointing it out. It should have been percentage base, such as 20%/AMS.

As in if it's an LRM5, it's just 1 missile down, or if it's LRM20 it's 4 missiles down -- LRM80 is 16 missiles.



Hey, remember the time when you said to me that there shouldn't be hard-counters?

Of course if it's 20%/AMS, 3x AMS even 4x AMS would still down 36 to 48 missiles down, and that's still a LOT of missiles being downed.

I apologise I don't remember the exact context of the hard counters thing. I am guessing you meant the conversation about streaks wiping out lights?

That said, if PGI adopted a percentage based approach to AMS I wouldn't object. Truthfully I actually kind of like the idea because it'd be better balanced against ATM's as well. I struggle saying that though cause I am finding the ATM's to be a bit cancerous right now and personally feel if they are left in their current state, PGI should then consider giving us back some of the ppc nerfs, and also ppc/gauss poptarting as well.

[The6thMessenger]

Feral Clown, on 06 August 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

if PGI adopted a percentage based approach to AMS I wouldn't object. Truthfully I actually kind of like the idea because it'd be better balanced against ATM's as well. I struggle saying that though cause I am finding the ATM's to be a bit cancerous right now and personally feel if they are left in their current state, PGI should then consider giving us back some of the ppc nerfs, and also ppc/gauss poptarting as well.

I'm pretty sure that ATMs are rather kind of more vulnerable to AMS, as the point before.

The real problem of ATMs is that they are doing ALL of the ammunition types into one, and balanced as one. I mean supposed that we nerf the Close-Range (HE) Performance, inevitably we also nerf the Mid-Range (STD) and Long-Range (ER) use, hell even the Long-Range use has piss-poor ammo-efficiency.

Had it been three ammo-types with three "different weapons", we could balance the weapon accordingly. Hell, we had dual-arc system, maybe we could just change ammo consumption and max-range depending on target when launched right?

We could also approach a different volley-duration, like right now ATM is at 0.05s interval or 20 shots/second -- why not increase shot-interval to 0.12 for STD ammo, 0.06s for ER ammo, and 0.18s for HE Ammo. Although the Damage/Volley is the same, the varying interval means simmilar DPS burst with only a difference of which is longer -- which means even if the HE ammo is doing monstrous damage, it will at least be a bit more spread.

PGI just ****** up the ATMs in their attempt of making it high-risk high-reward BS.

[Feral Clown]

The6thMessenger, on 06 August 2019 - 10:18 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that ATMs are rather kind of more vulnerable to AMS, as the point before.

The real problem of ATMs is that they are doing ALL of the ammunition types into one, and balanced as one. I mean supposed that we nerf the Close-Range (HE) Performance, inevitably we also nerf the Mid-Range (STD) and Long-Range (ER) use, hell even the Long-Range use has piss-poor ammo-efficiency.

Had it been three ammo-types with three "different weapons", we could balance the weapon accordingly. Hell, we had dual-arc system, maybe we could just change ammo consumption and max-range depending on target when launched right?

We could also approach a different volley-duration, like right now ATM is at 0.05s interval or 20 shots/second -- why not increase shot-interval to 0.12 for STD ammo, 0.06s for ER ammo, and 0.18s for HE Ammo. Although the Damage/Volley is the same, the varying interval means simmilar DPS burst with only a difference of which is longer -- which means even if the HE ammo is doing monstrous damage, it will at least be a bit more spread.

PGI just ****** up the ATMs in their attempt of making it high-risk high-reward BS.

No my comment was that if AMS was percentage based they wouldn't be completely shut down by two or three AMS. As much as I am not liking the super high damage they are putting out, especially on jumpy mechs, that they can be 100% shut down is kinda off to me.

People don't really see it quick play, but against some teams ATMs are completely nullified in CW. Those that say we shouldn't balance around CW don't get that especially with IS v Clan, you can see imbalance issues a lot clearer than you can in quick play.

[Dimento Graven]

Feral Clown, on 07 August 2019 - 12:02 PM, said:

No my comment was that if AMS was percentage based they wouldn't be completely shut down by two or three AMS. As much as I am not liking the super high damage they are putting out, especially on jumpy mechs, that they can be 100% shut down is kinda off to me.

People don't really see it quick play, but against some teams ATMs are completely nullified in CW. Those that say we shouldn't balance around CW don't get that especially with IS v Clan, you can see imbalance issues a lot clearer than you can in quick play.

"Completely shut down by two or three AMS"... What a SINGLE 20 launcher MIGHT be shut down completely with an appropriately arrayed 2 or 3 AMS's as long as the target was far enough enough way and the AMS's were linear to the path.

Otherwise it sounds like a false passive aggressive pleading for MORE buffs to computer guided weaponry.

The fact is, you rarely see a single missile pod installed on a 'mech, no more likely you're going to 3 or more, and very quickly no amount of AMS will provide a shield verses computer guided weaponry, especially since the durability and velocity is still significantly higher than originally implemented.

Yeah, if you're a LRM boat and are being "shut down" by "2 or 3 AMS's", you're doing it very, VERY wrong.

Again, the only way that's even 'barely' possible is if you're firing your missiles at near maximum range and the AMS's are in line with the flight path of the missiles.

Otherwise, you're pretty much ignoring the fact that these days everyone should be loading up on AMS's. So if you're firing at a target that's in the center of a group of 'mechs, well, HOPEFULLY there are significantly more than 2 or 3, and hopefully more like 9 or more AMS's, in which case, only two or three ATM12/LRM20/SSRM6's will probably be significantly curtailed, AND SHOULD BE IN THAT CASE...

However, again, when loading up with 3 or more ATM12/LRM20/SSRM6/et al, some missiles will still get through, BUT at NO POINT should computer guided weaponry be considered equal or as efficient as other weapons systems, AFTER ALL, this is a SKILLS BASED game, and computer guided weaponry eliminates the requirement for a significant portion of skill, and risk, required by all other systems.

So it is GOOD that a system like should be significantly "less good".

I call BS on anyone claiming that 2 or 3 AMS's spread among a team of 12 'mechs completely defeats all the various missiles (which could be 20 more missile pods of various types) brought by an opposing 12 'mechs, which is pretty much a direct word for word interpretation of many of the posts here seems to be implying.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 August 2019 - 01:00 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

"Completely shut down by two or three AMS"... What a SINGLE 20 launcher MIGHT be shut down completely with an appropriately arrayed 2 or 3 AMS's as long as the target was far enough enough way and the AMS's were linear to the path.

Otherwise it sounds like a false passive aggressive pleading for MORE buffs to computer guided weaponry.

The fact is, you rarely see a single missile pod installed on a 'mech, no more likely you're going to 3 or more, and very quickly no amount of AMS will provide a shield verses computer guided weaponry, especially since the durability and velocity is still significantly higher than originally implemented.

Yeah, if you're a LRM boat and are being "shut down" by "2 or 3 AMS's", you're doing it very, VERY wrong.

And that's the thing -- LRM boating. Do we really want LRM Boats to be the only way to be effective with LRMs? I certainly don't want that, i prefer playing like a proper pilot, thank you.

[Dimento Graven]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2019 - 02:32 PM, said:

And that's the thing -- LRM boating. Do we really want LRM Boats to be the only way to be effective with LRMs? I certainly don't want that, ...

Sorry, but that argument falls short too.

Since when do we see a single of ANYTHING in our design of 'mechs?

Sure you'll have the "one offs" of the occasional Spider sporting a single ERLL, or the gauss Urbie/Cicada/Raven done for the lols...

But pretty much when it comes to configuring a 'mech's weapons systems, "more is better", you'll boat lasers, you'll boat ballistics, you'll boat MG's, you'll boat missiles.

Pure and simple.

OR... to put it ANOTHER WAY: As soon as PGI tunes the game to make a single ERLL, or single Gauss, or Single RAC2 "effective", then tuning AMS so that a single LRM20 is "effective" will be ok.

Quote

... i prefer playing like a proper pilot, thank you.

What?

The only way I can interpret that statement is that you'd prefer to play stock builds.

Otherwise... it's seems overly ambiguous, and very pretentious, and it will probably invoke lots of great comments from everyone else...

[The6thMessenger]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

Sorry, but that argument falls short too.

Since when do we see a single of ANYTHING in our design of 'mechs?

No, your argument is the one that falls short. As in since when do I advocate only a SINGLE of anything within that simple statement?

Wouldn't it makes better sense that I'm actually advocating for more reasonable LRM builds than basic boats -- as in as opposed of LRM60 to LRM80s, why not LRM40s with 6x ERMLs?

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

Sure you'll have the "one offs" of the occasional Spider sporting a single ERLL, or the gauss Urbie/Cicada/Raven done for the lols...

But pretty much when it comes to configuring a 'mech's weapons systems, "more is better", you'll boat lasers, you'll boat ballistics, you'll boat MG's, you'll boat missiles.

Pure and simple.

What about HGRs on heavies or Mediums? AC20s on Mediums? etc. etc. But nevermind that -- lets just ignore anything that is opposed to your argument, it's just so convenient.

The thing is that, we shouldn't make the paradigm with LRMs "more the better", that is exactly what scrubs do. They wouldn't bring proper direct-fire as backup, now when there's AMS boats or ECM, now they can't participate -- so much for boating lrms.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

OR... to put it ANOTHER WAY: As soon as PGI tunes the game to make a single ERLL, or single Gauss, or Single RAC2 "effective", then tuning AMS so that a single LRM20 is "effective" will be ok.

What?

The only way I can interpret that statement is that you'd prefer to play stock builds.

Otherwise... it's seems overly ambiguous, and very pretentious, and it will probably invoke lots of great comments from everyone else...

Seriously? Your entire quip is about taking the other extreme, which isn't what I hold. Your entire response is basically a raging tangent.

The fact that you only assume stock-builds is what is exactly wrong with your thinking. Can I assume that you're the type that plays LRM90 Nova-Cat?

[Dimento Graven]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

No, your argument is the one that falls short. As in since when do I advocate only a SINGLE of anything within that simple statement?

Wouldn't it makes better sense that I'm actually advocating for more reasonable LRM builds than basic boats -- as in as opposed of LRM60 to LRM80s, why not LRM40s with 6x ERMLs?

Three AMS's aren't 100% effective against a "LRM 40" build, and besides, most 'mechs can only sport 1 AMS, and definitely the way things currently are, ONE single AMS against 40 missiles is laughable.

Also, AGAIN, given that LRMs take less skill and remove risk that most other weapons systems require, they should be less effective anyway.

Quote

What about HGRs on heavies or Mediums? AC20s on Mediums? etc. etc. But nevermind that -- lets just ignore anything that is opposed to your argument, it's just so convenient.

I don't see many mediums sporting JUST a HG. It's typically an HG with some number of ML's, both having similar ranges.

If any 'mech is sporting just ONE HG, again, it's for the LOLs, not as a serious build.

Quote

The thing is that, we shouldn't make the paradigm with LRMs "more the better", that is exactly what scrubs do. They wouldn't bring proper direct-fire as backup, now when there's AMS boats or ECM, now they can't participate -- so much for boating lrms.

That's completely incorrect. In this game that's the whole design paradigm, period and that's because PGI's implementation of the game, ignoring heat effects and inventing some ******** "ghost heat" solution actually encourages boating.

That and the fact that 'meta' design is typically always going to orient around biggest punch or highest sustained DPS possible.

Quote

Seriously? Your entire quip is about taking the other extreme, which isn't what I hold. Your entire response is basically a raging tangent.

The fact that you only assume stock-builds is what is exactly wrong with your thinking.

Then you best explain yourself and what "...I prefer playing like a proper pilot..." actually means, because it sounds like unless PGI lets a single/double missile loadout work as effectively as the 4/6/8 missile loadouts then you and everyone else in the game is somehow doing it "improperly".

That's what I find pretentious.

My assumption you might have been referring to desiring to play only stock builds was the best possible spin I could put on the statement.

Quote

Can I assume that you're the type that plays LRM90 Nova-Cat?

Well, it's obvious you've never dropped with me, nor watched my streams.

You don't know how f'ing funny that statement is to me.

[The6thMessenger]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

Three AMS's aren't 100% effective against a "LRM 40" build, and besides, most 'mechs can only sport 1 AMS, and definitely the way things currently are, ONE single AMS against 40 missiles is laughable.

You know what else is laughable, when you're conveniently ignoring details, such as why would 1 AMS be even problematic? No, the point was, it's the iron-domes that is the issue.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

Also, AGAIN, given that LRMs take less skill and remove risk that most other weapons systems require, they should be less effective anyway.

Lol. K.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

I don't see many mediums sporting JUST a HG. It's typically an HG with some number of ML's, both having similar ranges.

If any 'mech is sporting just ONE HG, again, it's for the LOLs, not as a serious build.

If that's the case. Why would you assume that people would just bring LRM20s or LRM40s without lasers? Since when do we base our balancing decision on poor builds?

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

That's completely incorrect. In this game that's the whole design paradigm, period and that's because PGI's implementation of the game, ignoring heat effects and inventing some ******** "ghost heat" solution actually encourages boating.

That and the fact that 'meta' design is typically always going to orient around biggest punch or highest sustained DPS possible.

Do you know normative/perscriptive is?

Nevermind the boating-meta on the LRMs, it just promotes cancerous play -- you got idiots without backup weapons, ranting about not supporting them when they aren't in front line with the team.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

Then you best explain yourself and what "...I prefer playing like a proper pilot..." actually means, because it sounds like unless PGI lets a single/double missile loadout work as effectively as the 4/6/8 missile loadouts then you and everyone else in the game is somehow doing it "improperly".

That's what I find pretentious.

Tells a lot more about you really.

How about this? Proper pilots bring a healthy mix of direct-fire with lrms.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

My assumption you might have been referring to desiring to play only stock builds was the best possible spin I could put on the statement.

Of course it is, and I pity you for it.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 03:48 PM, said:

Well, it's obvious you've never dropped with me, nor watched my streams.

You don't know how f'ing funny that statement is to me.

I really don't care.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 August 2019 - 04:01 PM.

[Feral Clown]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 12:59 PM, said:

"Completely shut down by two or three AMS"... What a SINGLE 20 launcher MIGHT be shut down completely with an appropriately arrayed 2 or 3 AMS's as long as the target was far enough enough way and the AMS's were linear to the path.

Otherwise it sounds like a false passive aggressive pleading for MORE buffs to computer guided weaponry.

The fact is, you rarely see a single missile pod installed on a 'mech, no more likely you're going to 3 or more, and very quickly no amount of AMS will provide a shield verses computer guided weaponry, especially since the durability and velocity is still significantly higher than originally implemented.

Yeah, if you're a LRM boat and are being "shut down" by "2 or 3 AMS's", you're doing it very, VERY wrong.

Again, the only way that's even 'barely' possible is if you're firing your missiles at near maximum range and the AMS's are in line with the flight path of the missiles.

Otherwise, you're pretty much ignoring the fact that these days everyone should be loading up on AMS's. So if you're firing at a target that's in the center of a group of 'mechs, well, HOPEFULLY there are significantly more than 2 or 3, and hopefully more like 9 or more AMS's, in which case, only two or three ATM12/LRM20/SSRM6's will probably be significantly curtailed, AND SHOULD BE IN THAT CASE...

However, again, when loading up with 3 or more ATM12/LRM20/SSRM6/et al, some missiles will still get through, BUT at NO POINT should computer guided weaponry be considered equal or as efficient as other weapons systems, AFTER ALL, this is a SKILLS BASED game, and computer guided weaponry eliminates the requirement for a significant portion of skill, and risk, required by all other systems.

So it is GOOD that a system like should be significantly "less good".

I call BS on anyone claiming that 2 or 3 AMS's spread among a team of 12 'mechs completely defeats all the various missiles (which could be 20 more missile pods of various types) brought by an opposing 12 'mechs, which is pretty much a direct word for word interpretation of many of the posts here seems to be implying.

Not my intent. Have 45 games in the Vapour Eagle 3 to level it, make sure I could play it, and to complete the event that required ATM 12's. Promptly put it away cause I think the thing is cancer.

Why I kind of like 6th Messenger's idea about making AMS shoot a percentage is even though it'd be less effective against cancer, I don't like that even AMS x3 is absolutely **** on by LRM 60 or 90 which is common. I would like to see my Nova and Crabbie good for something other than my current favourite passtime bum rushing cancer Veagles.

So no I don't want a passive aggressive buff to lock ons and I have no plays on joining any paragon sects.

What I would like is for AMS to shut down and be effective and useful against lurms because quick play is full of them. The missile health buff being reverse truthfully would also work for me.

[Dimento Graven]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

You know what else is laughable, when you're conveniently ignoring details, such as why would 1 AMS be even problematic? No, the point was, it's the iron-domes that is the issue.

That's MY point, there is NO "iron dome" UNLESS you have VERY FEW missiles firing into VERY MANY AMS's.

This "iron dome" you keep referring to as something supposedly making missiles completely useless BS, is a lie.

Quote

Lol. K.

It's true. Wanna know how I got my first Ace of Spades? LRM boat stalker with ERLL. (It's in my youtube channel)

It was too stupidly easy, to the point I have never played with LRMs seriously ever again.

So yeah, MUCH less skill, MUCH less risk, the computer delivers the damage, randomly, to the target as long as you've got minimal capability to keep a small circle in a big square long enough for a large circle to appear, and maintain that for the duration of the flight of the missiles to the target.

It.is.not.hard. Especially when you're in the back of your team not having anyone shoot at you...

Quote

If that's the case. Why would you assume that people would just bring LRM20s or LRM40s without lasers? Since when do we base our balancing decision on poor builds?

And yet, it is common for players in the Tier's 1, 2, and 3 to load up an ATM/LRM only 'mech and stand in the back. I saw this nearly EVERY.SINGLE.DROP tonight. It was damned annoying...

That's part of the reason that LRM/ATM 'mech pilots are looked down upon. Their builds encourage them to sit in the back, piss and moan about holding locks, not share armor, and die when the lights come around and start chewing them up with their MG/light laser boats.

Quote

Do you know normative/perscriptive is?

Nevermind the boating-meta on the LRMs, it just promotes cancerous play -- you got idiots without backup weapons, ranting about not supporting them when they aren't in front line with the team.

Which is why it's great to have all the various anti-missile/anti-locking mechanics work MORE STRONGLY...

When you nerf those, the tendancy for ATM/LRM only builds actually increases because now those weapons ARE SO MUCH BETTER with less effective counters. Hence what we see now after the last bit of missile durability/speed changes and the nerfs to AMS. MORE LRM/ATM centric builds, MORE people sitting in the back not sharing armor, bitching about nobody protecting them from the lights and mediums.

You make the counters stronger, people will be less inclined to take so many of them.

Quote

Tells a lot more about you really.

It tells you I'm calling you on your BS.

Quote

How about this? Proper pilots bring a healthy mix of direct-fire with lrms.

Not with the ineffectiveness of AMS, they'd rather have more tonnage for another one or two racks and tons of ammo than another weapon system that forces them to face the enemy to use it...

Why bother with other weapons systems when LRM/ATM counters are so pathetic?

Quote

Of course it is, and I pity you for it.

LOL... It's a pity party then, because I've been pitying your need to try and passive aggressive your way into getting another LRM/ATM buff/AMS nerf.

The need/desire to have the computer deliver your damage for you, and the subsequent reliance on RNGesus to kill your target is just laughable.

Quote

I really don't care.

Then walk away.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 August 2019 - 08:51 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

That's MY point, there is NO "iron dome" UNLESS you have VERY FEW missiles firing into VERY MANY AMS's.

This "iron dome" you keep referring to as something supposedly making missiles completely useless BS, is a lie.

Okay, so where in my post I ever said that Iron Domes make missiles completely useless?

No, my point was is low-tube LRMs are nullified by Iron-Domes which forces players to go larger just so they could properly participate, hence the 60-80 LRMs, builds which just perpetuates cancerous builds and playstyles.

So I don't know what are you arguing at or for, but that's certainly not me.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

It's true. Wanna know how I got my first Ace of Spades? LRM boat stalker with ERLL. (It's in my youtube channel)

It was too stupidly easy, to the point I have never played with LRMs seriously ever again.

So yeah, MUCH less skill, MUCH less risk, the computer delivers the damage, randomly, to the target as long as you've got minimal capability to keep a small circle in a big square long enough for a large circle to appear, and maintain that for the duration of the flight of the missiles to the target.

It.is.not.hard. Especially when you're in the back of your team not having anyone shoot at you...

Please cite the fact that I am challenging their ease of use? Nevermind the differences of what I assume to be 3+ years of LRM development after your achievement, nor your personal achievement isn't that relevant to begin with.

No, my concern is that if they are easy but isn't effective, then there's no point in bringing them, right? All about balance.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

And yet, it is common for players in the Tier's 1, 2, and 3 to load up an ATM/LRM only 'mech and stand in the back. I saw this nearly EVERY.SINGLE.DROP tonight. It was damned annoying...

Not relevant, no really it's not. Why would that lead to my argument into just single-launchers being used? So backrground-lurmers generally boat a LOT of missiles to go through Iron-Domes -- why would "proper pilots" be automatically be "single-launchers"?

That's some mental gymnastics you got there, you should stream it so the world could see.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

That's part of the reason that LRM/ATM 'mech pilots are looked down upon. Their builds encourage them to sit in the back, piss and moan about holding locks, not share armor, and die when the lights come around and start chewing them up with their MG/light laser boats.

Which is why it's great to have all the various anti-missile/anti-locking mechanics work MORE STRONGLY...

When you nerf those, the tendancy for ATM/LRM only builds actually increases because now those weapons ARE SO MUCH BETTER with less effective counters. Hence what we see now after the last bit of missile durability/speed changes and the nerfs to AMS. MORE LRM/ATM centric builds, MORE people sitting in the back not sharing armor, bitching about nobody protecting them from the lights and mediums.

You make the counters stronger, people will be less inclined to take so many of them.

I never said that AMS or other anti-locking mechanics should work more strongly. I suggested that they work consistently between tube counts -- that's right, I suggested a rework.

Do you know what is Positive Reinforcement? If you do, you should know that people will keep doing what works -- and when Iron Domes = LRM40 is not working, but LRM80 Is working, what would that tell you? Do you think players will keep using the sensible LRM40 build? No obviously they will just up the ante because that is what works. Like you said, they would rather just go bigger because the reality is that larger tubes means more useless AMS.

MATH AHEAD (Note I'm working on memory stats):

LRM 20 HP = 14
LRM Vel = 210 m/s
AMS DPS = 6
AMS Range = 190 m

The idea of fixed-percentage means AMS will be useful regardless of tube-count, with merely 15% missiles/AMS, you could be looking at 27 to 36 missiles downed from LRM 60 to 80, when current AMS of 6 DPS with 190m radius vs 210 m/s = 0.9048 exposure or 5.4286 damage/AMS = or 16.2857. That means an LRM80, its only going to down 29.082%, or 17.4492 to 23.2656 downed missiles.

You do realize that if we made AMS down a fixed AMS percentage of at least 15% of missile/second, a 3x AMS would down 45% of missile/second, it will down 40.714% of missiles from an LRM80, which if you don't know 29.082% < 40.714% therefore if anything the Fixed-Percentage AMS is a buff for the high-tube count -- imagine if that was 60% missile/sec (20% per-ams) instead.

Sure percentage-based means AMS is less-effective at low missile-count, but it also means it's more effective with higher missile-count, and those are the ones we are worrying about -- not some bloke with LRM20, no the LRM80 ones are the threat and the annoying ones.

But hey, you know, keep treating this as a nerf and an indirect-buff to LRMs/ATMs. I hope you could sleep at night.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

It tells you I'm calling you on your BS.

Keep telling yourself that.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

Not with the ineffectiveness of AMS, they'd rather have more tonnage for another one or two racks and tons of ammo than another weapon system that forces them to face the enemy to use it...

Why bother with other weapons systems when LRM/ATM counters are so pathetic?

Okay, cite the part where I want AMS to be pathetic? Is reworking AMS just too hard for you to grasp?

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

LOL... It's a pity party then, because I've been pitying your need to try and passive aggressive your way into getting another LRM/ATM buff/AMS nerf.

It's a pity because your cognitive faculties only allows you so far as "stock builds", this party is all on you.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

The need/desire to have the computer deliver your damage for you, and the subsequent reliance on RNGesus to kill your target is just laughable.

Keep laughing. No really, keep laughing, I'll laugh with you too.

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

Then walk away.

You must enjoy connecting random things do you? Me not caring about your personal and anecdotal statements is far from my willingness to participate at a discussion.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2019 - 02:49 AM.

[Kroete]

Dimento Graven, on 07 August 2019 - 08:48 PM, said:

The need/desire to have the computer deliver your damage for you, and the subsequent reliance on RNGesus to kill your target is just laughable.

RNG says you get around 1 kill for every 4 kmdd with lrms.
RNG says you will get not much more then 40% accuracy with lrms.

You wanted lrms nerfed but you get not less lrms in the matches, but more lrms to couter the nerfs
and boats with less direct fire to get the room and tons for more tubes and ammo for more spamm.
Lot less fun for me ...

LRMs were ok until all the buffs and nerfs, it startet with the lrms ammo buff and get more worse with every patch.

[Prototelis]

lrms didn't really get nerfed tho.

LOS mechanics were all buffs.

What got nerfed was sub back line, leech lock, sand bagging, ********.

[Dimento Graven]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2019 - 09:27 PM, said:

Okay, so where in my post I ever said that Iron Domes make missiles completely useless?

No, my point was is low-tube LRMs are nullified by Iron-Domes which forces players to go larger just so they could properly participate, hence the 60-80 LRMs, builds which just perpetuates cancerous builds and playstyles.

So I don't know what are you arguing at or for, but that's certainly not me.

Using the term "iron dome" implies "completely useless", and yeah, you're agreeing that "enough" AMS makes the people who either go with stock builds (where you frequently see only one, maybe two tube systems on a 'mech with a mix of other weapons -- again, reasoning for why I thought your 'proper pilot' statement might be referring to piloting only stock bulds) or try to keep their missile counts low and load other weapons, are going to end up having a hard time registering damage with their missiles.

BUT AGAIN, they are low skill, computer delivered, RNGesus dependent weapon systems, so YEAH, it makes sense that they'd have a serious counter in a game that's supposed to be player skill-vs-player skill.

What you're arguing for, a scaling percentage effectiveness for AMS, would NOT result in people saying, "Oh I just need to bring less missile tubes." Depending on the scale it would either result in MORE missiles, or, it would result in NO missiles (except for those players who can truly only play LRMs because of other reasons).

I'm against anything that would bring MORE missile tubes to this game.

Quote

Please cite the fact that I am challenging their ease of use? Nevermind the differences of what I assume to be 3+ years of LRM development after your achievement, nor your personal achievement isn't that relevant to begin with.

Your response of "LOL k" after my statement was oh so communicative, it could only be assumed you were being sarcastic, not actually agreeing.

Quote

No, my concern is that if they are easy but isn't effective, then there's no point in bringing them, right? All about balance.

But trying to balance a weapon system that allows "easier play" with computer delivered, RNGesus dependent, low risk damage, should NOT be "on par" with other weapon systems that require face time, and the ability to hold a steady cursor on a target.

And again, we're talking about a system that currently is dependent on how many AMS's are brought to the battle, and are in line with the flight path. If there's only one AMS among 12 'mechs, guess what? One or two missile pods will be pretty effective.

Quote

Not relevant, no really it's not. Why would that lead to my argument into just single-launchers being used? So backrground-lurmers generally boat a LOT of missiles to go through Iron-Domes -- why would "proper pilots" be automatically be "single-launchers"?

You're the one implying it.

You said: "LRM boating. Do we really want LRM Boats to be the only way to be effective with LRMs? I certainly don't want that, i prefer playing like a proper pilot, thank you." and "Wouldn't it makes better sense that I'm actually advocating for more reasonable LRM builds than basic boats -- as in as opposed of LRM60 to LRM80s, why not LRM40s with 6x ERMLs? " and "How about this? Proper pilots bring a healthy mix of direct-fire with lrms."

You're the one trying to make change that will somehow encourage people to bring a low amount of missile pods mixed with direct fire weapons, and not boat missiles.

Unfortunately any the types of changes being described won't do that, they'll end up either making missiles, in a 12-v-12 game completely OP, or completely useless.

You want to fight the "iron dome" effect that low pod counts encounter when meeting high numbers of AMS.

I say no, if enough AMS is brought missiles should be ineffective. If we see a LRM80 boat fire into a group of 12 'mechs each carrying at least one AMS with at least one AMS skill point spent, depending on how far away the LRM80 boat was when firing the weapons, that LRM80 should definitely be almost entirely eliminated, if not completely so.

But that's not the scenario we have now days is it? No, typically one team could have brought as many as 320 (or even more) ATM/LRM tubes to the match (with 3 or 4, or more, missile boats), and the other side may, at best, have a total of 6 to 12 AMS's spread across 12 different 'mechs which typically get spread out as the match progresses.

So making any changes to the effectiveness of missiles or anti missile systems needs to be done carefully, lest we incur yet another LRMageddon.

Quote

Are you, or are you not against boating?

Do you, or do you not consider 'proper piloting' as bringing a 'mech that brings direct fire weapons and low counts of missile pods.

That's some mental gymnastics you got there, you should stream it so the world could see.

I am against computer guided, risk reducing, RNGesus dependent weapon systems being made to be "equal" to weapon systems that require more skill and more risk to use.

As far as the concept of 'boating', it is apparently in the eye of the beholder. We have very silly people who consider bringing more than one of anything as boating. Arguments against "gauss boats", lol...

But yeah, my perspective is this: If you're going to bring a build that allows you to sit back tossing IDF, with low risk, computer guided, RNGesus dependent damage, then yeah, if the enemy brings enough AMS, too bad, suck it up buttercup, bring more direct fire weapons instead, and learn to move with the group and share armor.

Quote

I never said that AMS or other anti-locking mechanics should work more strongly. I suggested that they work consistently between tube counts -- that's right, I suggested a rework.

Do you know what is Positive Reinforcement? If you do, you should know that people will keep doing what works -- and when Iron Domes = LRM40 is not working, but LRM80 Is working, what would that tell you? Do you think players will keep using the sensible LRM40 build? No obviously they will just up the ante because that is what works. Like you said, they would rather just go bigger because the reality is that larger tubes means more useless AMS.

MATH AHEAD (Note I'm working on memory stats):

LRM 20 HP = 14
LRM Vel = 210 m/s
AMS DPS = 6
AMS Range = 190 m

The idea of fixed-percentage means AMS will be useful regardless of tube-count, with merely 15% missiles/AMS, you could be looking at 27 to 36 missiles downed from LRM 60 to 80, when current AMS of 6 DPS with 190m radius vs 210 m/s = 0.9048 exposure or 5.4286 damage/AMS = or 16.2857. That means an LRM80, its only going to down 29.082%, or 17.4492 to 23.2656 downed missiles.

You do realize that if we made AMS down a fixed AMS percentage of at least 15% of missile/second, a 3x AMS would down 45% of missile/second, it will down 40.714% of missiles from an LRM80, which if you don't know 29.082% < 40.714% therefore if anything the Fixed-Percentage AMS is a buff for the high-tube count -- imagine if that was 60% missile/sec (20% per-ams) instead.

Sure percentage-based means AMS is less-effective at low missile-count, but it also means it's more effective with higher missile-count, and those are the ones we are worrying about -- not some bloke with LRM20, no the LRM80 ones are the threat and the annoying ones.

But hey, you know, keep treating this as a nerf and an indirect-buff to LRMs/ATMs. I hope you could sleep at night.

Yeah all this is great on paper when considering one 'mech-vs-one 'mech. But we have a game that's 12-v-12 where random number of tubes can be brought, and random number of tubes actually be fired, with random number of AMS being brought. That's on top of the various game modes where this would have actual impact: Solo quick play, group quick play, and CW.

It all breaks down one way, or the other, real fast dependent on that. So while in the solo quick play queue it may "average out" as it's 100% random, the builds each person brings, in group and CW however, teams can coordinate builds to either supersaturate with missiles, or with AMS it becomes really difficult to make change that doesn't make one or the other ineffective.

However, in that case... Maybe one or the other should become ineffective if one team builds their load outs intentionally to do so, and the other team hasn't planned their load outs for that contingency. On this point, I'm not sure how I feel.

Quote

Okay, cite the part where I want AMS to be pathetic? Is reworking AMS just too hard for you to grasp?

I just don't think you're thinking this proposed change through or considering enough actual in-game situations.

I believe that this change will end up being a bad thing, it more or less reduces the effectiveness of AMS as the way you have described it seems to guarantee that missiles, especially missiles fired from low tube count carriers, will always get through AMS. So, how does it work if instead of alpha'ing missiles, they cycle their tubes one at a time? One happens when more than one AMS is present? What happens when more than one 'mech brings missiles? What happens when more than one 'mech brings AMS, and more than one AMS?

Quote

It's a pity because your cognitive faculties only allows you so far as "stock builds", this party is all on you.

Yet you refuse to consider that 'ghost heat' was supposed to be, in part, discouragement to all boating (not just missiles).

I assumed stock builds because of what YOU stated, as a best case scenario.

It seems like arrogant ignorance on your part to not factor human nature and all the game modes in play, and or to keep in mind the complete randomness of builds brought.

Quote

You must enjoy connecting random things do you? Me not caring about your personal and anecdotal statements is far from my willingness to participate at a discussion.

Yeah well, ignore the real in game experience, sure that will ensure a real working solution. Ignore the experiences that seems to indicate flaws in your theory, that's fine.

You'll always get the BEST results doing that...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 August 2019 - 05:31 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

Using the term "iron dome" implies "completely useless", and yeah, you're agreeing that "enough" AMS makes the people who either go with stock builds (where you frequently see only one, maybe two tube systems on a 'mech with a mix of other weapons -- again, reasoning for why I thought your 'proper pilot' statement might be referring to piloting only stock bulds) or try to keep their missile counts low and load other weapons, are going to end up having a hard time registering damage with their missiles.

Lol. You should join the olympics for mental gymnastics, you'd win first prize, stream it too. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

BUT AGAIN, they are low skill, computer delivered, RNGesus dependent weapon systems, so YEAH, it makes sense that they'd have a serious counter in a game that's supposed to be player skill-vs-player skill.

I'm not really invested on whether it's easy or not easy. While it makes sense to have serious counter -- it's nothing we already don't have, you got AMS, ECM, Stealth Armor.

But it's a concern of having the place in the game. What you're asking, you might as well remove LRMs -- while in the realm of possibility, but if that's the case we won't really just have a productive discussion. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

What you're arguing for, a scaling percentage effectiveness for AMS, would NOT result in people saying, "Oh I just need to bring less missile tubes." Depending on the scale it would either result in MORE missiles, or, it would result in NO missiles (except for those players who can truly only play LRMs because of other reasons).

I'm against anything that would bring MORE missile tubes to this game.

I never said that it would make people think "I just need to bring less tubes", I just said that "I just need to bring more tubes" wouldn't be their go to just to defeat AMS.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

Your response of "LOL k" after my statement was oh so communicative, it could only be assumed you were being sarcastic, not actually agreeing.

Whatever you say. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

But trying to balance a weapon system that allows "easier play" with computer delivered, RNGesus dependent, low risk damage, should NOT be "on par" with other weapon systems that require face time, and the ability to hold a steady cursor on a target.

Never said that it should be, I just said it should be balanced, that there should be a place for LRMs here. I don't really like the current homing system either, and i would be more than happy to have it reworked.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

And again, we're talking about a system that currently is dependent on how many AMS's are brought to the battle, and are in line with the flight path. If there's only one AMS among 12 'mechs, guess what? One or two missile pods will be pretty effective.

You mean boats or individual launchers? Because I have math to prove that it's not going to be that effective with the current balance.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

You're the one implying it.

Lol no. It's just a strawman for you. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

You said: "LRM boating. Do we really want LRM Boats to be the only way to be effective with LRMs? I certainly don't want that, i prefer playing like a proper pilot, thank you." and "Wouldn't it makes better sense that I'm actually advocating for more reasonable LRM builds than basic boats -- as in as opposed of LRM60 to LRM80s, why not LRM40s with 6x ERMLs? " and "How about this? Proper pilots bring a healthy mix of direct-fire with lrms."

You're the one trying to make change that will somehow encourage people to bring a low amount of missile pods mixed with direct fire weapons, and not boat missiles.

Unfortunately any the types of changes being described won't do that, they'll end up either making missiles, in a 12-v-12 game completely OP, or completely useless.

You want to fight the "iron dome" effect that low pod counts encounter when meeting high numbers of AMS.

Here you go again twisting my words, Stock Build.

No, I just wanted to have low tube count to be an equally viable form of play for LRMs against AMS. I don't want the proper play in dealing with AMS is just bringing more tubes.

Granted as the AMS won't cut down AC shells, PPC bolts, or laser-beams which results in mixing LRMs with direct-fire have less cut down of firepower as a result, if anything it will have a better result.

Such as 6x ERML + 2x LRM20 vs 4x LRM20A. The 45% AMS,though with only 0.90s of exposure would down 16 missiles, and 24 missiles will go through + 39 damage = 79.774% of damage retained; the LRM80A would have 48 missiles going through or just 60% of damage retained. If you don't know 79.74% > 60% so yeah, Fixed-Percent AMS rework mixing LRMs with Direct Fire would be a better course of action and should be encouraging.

If they aren't encouraged to do that, well, it's their problem. God knows PGI tried to encourage Hiders with getting their own locks via Dual-Arc rework yet we still have hiders. That's not our fault though.

"79.74% > 60% - Aha! It's a buff to lrms after all!" - Stock Build

39 of your damage is direct-fire and not the-bane-of-your-existence easy-mode LRMs. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

I say no, if enough AMS is brought missiles should be ineffective. If we see a LRM80 boat fire into a group of 12 'mechs each carrying at least one AMS with at least one AMS skill point spent, depending on how far away the LRM80 boat was when firing the weapons, that LRM80 should definitely be almost entirely eliminated, if not completely so.

But that's not the scenario we have now days is it? No, typically one team could have brought as many as 320 (or even more) ATM/LRM tubes to the match (with 3 or 4, or more, missile boats), and the other side may, at best, have a total of 6 to 12 AMS's spread across 12 different 'mechs which typically get spread out as the match progresses.

Lol, just lol. How many 15% does it take to make a 100%? That's right 7 -- thats all it takes to nullify LRMs. Versus 4x LRM20 with 56 health that will take 9.34 AMS with Overload.

If you're still not getting this, again, the AMS rework if anything would be a buff. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

So making any changes to the effectiveness of missiles or anti missile systems needs to be done carefully, lest we incur yet another LRMageddon.

Lol. K.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

I am against computer guided, risk reducing, RNGesus dependent weapon systems being made to be "equal" to weapon systems that require more skill and more risk to use.

You mean the the dual-arc rework that made it harder to do IDF and rewarded use of LRMs by launching missiles with LOS made it less riskier?

Erhmegerd!

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

As far as the concept of 'boating', it is apparently in the eye of the beholder. We have very silly people who consider bringing more than one of anything as boating. Arguments against "gauss boats", lol...

Don't look at me. PGI restricted to two-charge.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

But yeah, my perspective is this: If you're going to bring a build that allows you to sit back tossing IDF, with low risk, computer guided, RNGesus dependent damage, then yeah, if the enemy brings enough AMS, too bad, suck it up buttercup, bring more direct fire weapons instead, and learn to move with the group and share armor.

And my perspective is this: Listen to what the people are saying to you, instead of assuming a position that they aren't holding -- such as the false perspective of "buffing" the LRMs by nerfing AMS, which is both false.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

Yeah all this is great on paper when considering one 'mech-vs-one 'mech. But we have a game that's 12-v-12 where random number of tubes can be brought, and random number of tubes actually be fired, with random number of AMS being brought. That's on top of the various game modes where this would have actual impact: Solo quick play, group quick play, and CW.

Well, here's the thing. We can scale the perceived effectiveness, with on-paper effectiveness. Even if it's a buff from 29% to 40% downed missiles, the thing is that law of associative multiplication -- that you still have the gist of having a stronger AMS regardless.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

I just don't think you're thinking this proposed change through or considering enough actual in-game situations.

Sure, whatever you say. Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

I believe that this change will end up being a bad thing, it more or less reduces the effectiveness of AMS as the way you have described it seems to guarantee that missiles, especially missiles fired from low tube count carriers, will always get through AMS.

And I believe that it will be a good thing, considering that it will help more with higher tube-count weapons. Why would the low tube-count missiles be an issue? They aren't the one doing 80 alpha a pop.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

So, how does it work if instead of alpha'ing missiles, they cycle their tubes one at a time? One happens when more than one AMS is present? What happens when more than one 'mech brings missiles? What happens when more than one 'mech brings AMS, and more than one AMS?

Seriously? Fixed percentage, that means regardless of whether you chainfire or alpha it, it will down a fixed percent of the volley with an alloted exposure time.

Mechanically, I assume it could be done as "Ghost Missile Health", where the individual health of missiles are reduced or increased depending on the size of volleys.

Lets say, LRM20 would have 1 HP/Missile with AMS having fixed 4 DPS. If you only launch an LRM5, that missile-health would go up 4 HP/Missile, while if you launch LRM40 that would go down to 0.5 health/missile, LRM80 would have 0.25 health/missile. In all cases, the collective HP of the volleys are retained -- they stayed at 20.

Of course, Stream-Fired Clan tech might have different health scaling per-volley and per-launcher to account for the stream. Likewise SRMs, ATMs, and MRMs should have different HP and scaling.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

Yet you refuse to consider that 'ghost heat' was supposed to be, in part, discouragement to all boating (not just missiles).

Lol. K. Believe what you want, Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

I assumed stock builds because of what YOU stated, as a best case scenario.

Because your cognitive faculties goes only as far as "stock build", Stock Build.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

It seems like arrogant ignorance on your part to not factor human nature and all the game modes in play, and or to keep in mind the complete randomness of builds brought.

It's not my ignorance, but its your fallacious reasoning. I mean strawmen, really? Either you're a hopeless idiot, or a pathetic bullshitter.

Dimento Graven, on 08 August 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

Yeah well, ignore the real in game experience, sure that will ensure a real working solution. Ignore the experiences that seems to indicate flaws in your theory, that's fine.

You'll always get the BEST results doing that...

Whatever. Good Luck on your streams. Stock Build.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 August 2019 - 04:09 PM.

[Prototelis]

JUST **** ALREADY

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 08 August 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

JUST **** ALREADY

**** is pretty ambiguous.

Do I poop?

[Lightfoot]

Humble Dexter, on 29 July 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

LRMs have become more likely to be shot down, to crash in the background when used in direct LOS, and to not be fired at all when used with no direct LOS...

So they behave just as before when they do manage to hit something, because what changed is their ability to hit anything.

I'd say their efficiency (damage per game) has been ~halved, between 2018 and 2019.

Well no. They just require skill at positioning now to get the most out of them. I am getting kills with LoS like back in 2014. Rather that than the previous version that required an LRM boated assault, which is a waste of an assault if you ask me. You want LRMs used by fast harassers or a good secondary weapon for an assault. IMHO. That's more like BattleTech functionality. I mean now that LRM20 on an Atlas or 2x LRM20 on a Mad Cat have value.

Edited by Lightfoot, 10 August 2019 - 08:54 AM.

[JediPanther]

Is my cptl-a1 with six lrm 5s still meta now? I know my lct-3s with lrm ten is meta. That's weird.