358 replies to this topic

[Valore]

Gen Kumon, on 22 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Guess what? Just because you boat five copies of one weapon doesn't mean you should get an instant kill with one attack. Those 6 x AC/2 Jagermechs mount six six ton weapons. Guess what? They don't oneshot people either.
LRMs especially *spread damage* all over the target. Sorry, you're not gonna one shot people that way. No one mounting four LB-X ACs should expect to oneshot people either. Four gauss into four different body parts also wouldn't oneshot the guy. Boating does not equal instant win. You were spoiled by a bugged weapon. Sorry, but LRMs were never intended to be that effective.

You should get an instant kill, because someone approaching anyone straight on is really rubbish at playing, and should receive a strong message that they're doing it wrong. Preferably in terms of a swift death.

There's a reason why no one uses 6 AC2s. Its because they're crap. Let's face it, yours is a common point of view, you just want LRMs to be as equally unviable and crap, because you want a chance to show off your twitch reflexes and skill, and not have to worry about the tactical side of things like using cover and playing as a team.

Not to mention 6 AC2s do 12 damage. Compared to around 70 which is what 100 LRMs should have done if you're factoring in splash, etc. Don't make nonsense arguments.

Not only that. Artemis + Tag is meant INTENTIONALLY to reduce spread. So yes, those missiles should have aced him right in the torso, and turned that phract into a smouldering hulk.

Then maybe that phract pilot would realise 'yeah, running right at an LRM boat with 5 X LRM20s, I probably shouldn't do that.' and become a better player.

Edited by Valore, 22 March 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[AnEnragedGamer]

So, you put 100 missiles on target, and didn't kill him?

Boo. *******. Hoo.

You were aimed at him for all of five seconds. Wanna know how AC/20's you'd need to use to get that much damage in under five seconds? About five .

Please, tell me more about how useless your LRMs are now that you can't just murder everything within 900 metres with them. They're SUPPORT weapons, NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.

SRM are assault weapons.

STREAKS are assault weapons. LRM's are designed to damage mechs at distance. They're not meant to deliver the killing blow. They harrass the enemy. They make them stay behind cover or risk losing a FUCKTON of armor all over their mech. At no point should they just destroy you instantly.

I think you lost this 'omg these weapons are underpowered' when you absolutely MURDERED a heavy mech with HALF A TON OF AMMO.

Can you show me any other weapon that can deliver that kind of damage in that short space of time, HOMES IN ON ENEMIES, and has 180 rounds a ton?! Not to mention that with Artemis, tag, and narc, you can kill them in ONE volley from that boat.

Or even just fire from a safe spot behind cover and get decent damage on targets! How is this underpowered?!

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

StryfeDiesel, on 22 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

LRMs were fine before Tuesday's patch. Now they are useless. You can easily close on a boater with little damage. I don't understand all the opposition against them. LRMs are the easiest weapon to avoid. All these gun-ho pilots just want to walk out in the open with no cover. Then cry when they get lit up. Even in my in my Atlas I out maneuvered LRMs. The fact that you had ECM to negate the LRMs makes the criticisms less valid. ECM is useless now.

We want a quick, decisive battle, not a 15 minute war of attrition fought from behind cover on opposite ends of the map.

[ZnSeventeen]

StryfeDiesel, on 22 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

LRMs were fine before Tuesday's patch. Now they are useless. You can easily close on a boater with little damage.

Okay. So boaters no longer are the be all and end all. What is your point?

(I run LRM's on my Atlas, and I still get kills and substantial damage with my LRM's.)

[Valore]

AnEnragedGamer, on 22 March 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

LRM's are designed to damage mechs at distance. They're not meant to deliver the killing blow. They harrass the enemy. They make them stay behind cover or risk losing a FUCKTON of armor all over their mech. At no point should they just destroy you instantly.

I'd argue that making someone keel over when they derp out into the open, then try to RUN UP TO A LRM BOAT WITH 5 X LRM20s, is a good way to make them stay behind cover.

Imagine this argument in a WWII game:

'I think bunker emplacements are OP. I attempted to assault an emplacement MG nest by running straight up to it through open ground, but was killed almost instantly. Please nerf, I should at least survive 5 seconds of MG fire so I can reach the bunker to grenade them.'

Yeah, this is what most of the QQers about LRMs want.

Only the equivalent idiots on the pro-LRM side wanted LRMs to stay the way they were post Tuesday/pre hotfix.

100 LRMs SHOULD one shot you if you try a stunt as stupid as what that phract was trying. But that's not the same as what happened post Tuesday, where about 30 LRMs would leg/headshot you even as you tried to flee. People need to realise there's a very distinct line between the two, and most of the more rationale players are asking LRMs to be returned to the pre-Tuesday levels.

Which is exactly the view PGI seems to have, so thank god for once they seem to have more sense than most of the posters in this place.

Edited by Valore, 22 March 2013 - 09:41 PM.

[Dracol]

Nightcrept, on 21 March 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

He's boating 100 lrms.

If your not a boater why would you take lrms?

Two examples a single lrm can be used to the benefit of one's team.

- when in a battle line formation (happens along frozen city's drop ship often) a lrm can be used to provide additional dmg to a focused target on the opposite of the battle line. The indirect fire ability allows one to remain in position while still providing damage against an exposed mech.

- a mech designed to engage from behind the front line of mechs can equip a lrm to ensure the ability to apply damage to a target even when the front line is blocking line of sight.

[Vrekgar]

Pre-Tuesday: LRM's were fine. Even the developers acknowledge that Splash damage was an issue that disproportionately affected smaller mechs. They even said they tested out removing it entirely and discovered just how horrible that idea was. (Can Anyone say Guided AC/2 Rounds all hitting the CT?) The Patch introduced a bug that exacerbated the problem, combined with the traditional new mech head hitbox bug that keeps coming up time and again.

"But LRM's are support weapons!" -- ********. Plain and pure Bovine Excrement. Even if you supposed there are "Support" weapons. What is the weapons intended purpose? "It strips a fuckton of armor and forces people to take cover!" If that is the case then why does it do ANY damage to structure at all instead of just removing only armor? Thats right. Because NO WEAPON is a "Support" weapon. By your logic you can define every single weapon as a support weapon. Gauss rifles are for sniping only! They should have 300m Minimum ranges! Lasers arent intended for long range and so they shouldnt go further than the optimal range anyway! PPC's are noskill weapons and should make twice the heat and the projectile should be a sphere and travel slowly!

Anyone Stupid enough to cross open ground should take signifigant damage if not die from ANYTHING. Not in one hit, but since hes crossing open ground you dont get just one shot anyway.

[Dracol]

Valore, on 22 March 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

I'd argue that making someone keel over when they derp out into the open, then try to RUN UP TO A LRM BOAT WITH 5 X LRM20s, is a good way to make them stay behind cover.

Imagine this argument in a WWII game:

'I think bunker emplacements are OP. I attempted to assault an emplacement MG nest by running straight up to it through open ground, but was killed almost instantly. Please nerf, I should at least survive 5 seconds of MG fire so I can reach the bunker to grenade them.'

Yeah, this is what most of the QQers about LRMs want.

Only the equivalent idiots on the pro-LRM side wanted LRMs to stay the way they were post Tuesday/pre hotfix.

100 LRMs SHOULD one shot you if you try a stunt as stupid as what that phract was trying. But that's not the same as what happened post Tuesday, where about 30 LRMs would leg/headshot you even as you tried to flee. People need to realise there's a very distinct line between the two, and most of the more rationale players are asking LRMs to be returned to the pre-Tuesday levels.

Which is exactly the view PGI seems to have, so thank god for once they seem to have more sense than most of the posters in this place.

I would disagree with you. MWO is not shaping up in a way that a lrm boat is filling the same role as a mg emplacement. Nor is it being designed that if a player is foolish enough to walk straight at a boat, they're dead.

IMHO, mwo is shapping up so that a skilled player, who can account for minute variables and have precise aim, can land an alpha shot on a very small part of the mechand be rewarded with a one shot kill.

A skilled player that can hold their quarter sized targeting recticle over the target for an extended period of time is rewarded with the targeted be messed up all over, the CT more so then the rest of the mech.

Different skills with different weapons achieve different results. If one can not master the skills of a weapon, one should not expect the same results from a weapon with a different play style.

[Valore]

Dracol, on 22 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I would disagree with you. MWO is not shaping up in a way that a lrm boat is filling the same role as a mg emplacement. Nor is it being designed that if a player is foolish enough to walk straight at a boat, they're dead.

IMHO, mwo is shapping up so that a skilled player, who can account for minute variables and have precise aim, can land an alpha shot on a very small part of the mechand be rewarded with a one shot kill.

A skilled player that can hold their quarter sized targeting recticle over the target for an extended period of time is rewarded with the targeted be messed up all over, the CT more so then the rest of the mech.

Different skills with different weapons achieve different results. If one can not master the skills of a weapon, one should not expect the same results from a weapon with a different play style.

This is exactly the problem, everyone has a different idea of what this game should be, and obviously everyone wants to shape it to the way they prefer.

I fall on the side of the tactical. I don't value the skills of having a steady hand, good twitch reflexes over the coming together of a well thought out plan with good teamwork.

LRMs in my mind are an area denial weapon. They're there to punish people who INSIST on taking open ground, despite their presence, so a more defensive minded team can beat off an all aggressive team who tries to rush them. If they can't do this, then I don't think there's much of a point.

Whether you want LRMs nerfed or not seems to correlate directly with whether you want game to be more tactical, or you want all out shooter and mech brawling skills to win above all else.

[Vrekgar]

[Ravingdork]

Tempered, on 22 March 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Damage in this game has been screwed up since day one. Much of the damage inflicted is not registered all the time. You can have a match and find your mech to be almost unkillable, next match find it to feel like it has paper armor and is shooting spit balls.

I've experienced this. Fortunately, it's just a beta and problems like that (if they're real) can be fixed.

I've generally attributed it to fighting different mechs with different load outs. I can fight another medium and last quite a while. Against an assault though, I generally go down in only a few seconds.

[Shadowsword8]

Valore, on 22 March 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

100 LRMs SHOULD one shot you if you try a stunt as stupid as what that phract was trying.

If we were speaking about a light or medium mech, yes. But heavy and assault mechs compensate their slow speed with armor.

Be honest,finding your CT armor gone with a single salvo (and both side torsos in red) is already a pretty impressive and worthwhile result.


A mech that could one-shot an heavy mech in the CT should not exist. I don't care if we speak about missiles, AC or PPC, it should never exist.

Even a splatcat, who'se heavily specialised and harder to use efficiently than a LRM-boat, doesn't get to do that. Besides, SRM needed a nerf anyway. Even with the current nerf it's still pretty good.

[Valore]

Shadowsword8, on 22 March 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

If we were speaking about a light or medium mech, yes. But heavy and assault mechs compensate their slow speed with armor.

Be honest,finding your CT armor gone with a single salvo (and both side torsos in red) is already a pretty impressive and worthwhile result.


A mech that could one-shot an heavy mech in the CT should not exist. I don't care if we speak about missiles, AC or PPC, it should never exist.

Even a splatcat, who'se heavily specialised and harder to use efficiently than a LRM-boat, doesn't get to do that. Besides, SRM needed a nerf anyway. Even with the current nerf it's still pretty good.

If that's what you're saying, then we're in agreement, we only need to decide where we're going with the drawing of the damage line.

So 100 LRMs is okay for one shotting a light/medium, but not a heavy, fine.

But what if the Stalker in question here had both TAG and Artemis, and was firing in direct LOS?

And that the victim, a heavy mech, is facing down to an ASSAULT mech, a chassis one weight class above him?

Who has obviously stripped off tons of armour, is mounting an XL engine, making him remarkably fragile glass cannon?

Many people just don't see beyond the obvious when they call for nerfs and changes. That's the problem.

That Stalker must have tossed out a crapload of other things like armour to get his 100 LRM one shot. That sacrifice obviously should have some kind of benefit.

In my eyes, the current state of LRMs is slightly unbalanced in that such a sacrifice is not bringing the gain it should, and LRMs need a slight buff from current numbers. Pre-Tuesday, like I've said over and over, seemed to be a good spot. And from what the devs have stated, they agree, which means for once they seem to be talking sense.

Edited by Valore, 22 March 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[Mjolnir]

This is pretty much best case scenario for the LRM user. Your reactions should not be "So? Looks fine to me."

The chances of encountering an enemy like this, with you carrying this many LRMs, are low. This is an unusually good situation for the LRM user and it STILL SUCKED.

If you think this is fine, you're either trolling or there's something wrong with you.

When you usually have two LRMs at best, when there's ECM, when there's cover, when the mech isn't sitting in the cream range, what do you think is going to happen then?

[SnakeTheFox]

So you're honestly implying that, by being able to strip a 70 ton heavy down to effectively 1-2 hits left of life with 4 seconds of fire, that LRMs are suddenly not working properly? What are you smoking, I honestly want to know, it must be great.

[Hawks]

Valore, on 22 March 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

That Stalker must have tossed out a crapload of other things like armour to get his 100 LRM one shot. That sacrifice obviously should have some kind of benefit.

And it did. That Cataphract was very nearly destroyed. I doubt it survived much longer, or played a particularly decisive role in the match after that. As I said earlier (and which no-one has apparently been willing or able to address) there are few - if any - builds which would be able to inflict such decisive damage, to the CT of such a relatively sturdy mech, in a single alpha-strike.

[Skyfaller]

Gaan Cathal, on 21 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

This. They're for pummeling the enemy before the brawlers hit to soften them up and make the kill quicker for those who can compartment-focus.

Im an LRM stalker too and I agree with this statement.

LRM damage is now FINE.

The problem is this: The warning message is still there. The Artemis is still set to pre-LRM damage change settings (not packing missiles as tight as it should and as it did when first introduced).

Remove the warning, make artemis tighten the missiles more (so very few 'miss' if there is artemis effect) and make TAG give some sort of bonus (small damage boost perhaps?).

[StalaggtIKE]

Absolutivity, on 22 March 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

In the example of the gif, only some damage would need to be applied to the phract in order to render it inoperable.

Expectations: This is the biggest mistake of his puny life.

Result: He lost his center torso armor and his CT internals are at yellow. His left/right torso are now at orange armor. *I'm also near 100% health/armour.

Expectations are still lived up to. If I was the phract, I'd think this would be one of the most grave situations to be in. I'd be backing out, knowing that I wouldn't be able to sustain enough damage to secure a component destruction or kill. Any potential damage on my side would be nulled, knowing this.

Backing out would be the worst thing to do. Surely he would end up eating another volley before getting behind cover. At the most the LRM boat would have 2mlasers, the phract should push forward to exploit LRM minimal range.

Quote

I "boated" LRM10s, 15s, S/SRM2, 4s, and 6, and continue to boat them on catapults. I'm okay with this change. A part of me wishes they'd have a slight damage increase, but as they are now, they're still usable.

The thing is, "builds" are situational. They'll always be situational. General weapon builds are situational. Sure they can be applied to a multitude of situations, but not every situation would be ideal for them. That being said, I'm perfectly okay with 100 LRMs coring a phract.

That's why one should not be boating, however boating is the only consistent way to get success with LRM. With the lowered damage this is even further the truth. At this point it's not worth carrying any LRM at all unless you plan on investing heavily: this includes Artemis, TAG, plenty of ammo, enough LRM for 20+ volleys. Diverse builds simply can not take part in long range support, being only confined to direct fire weapons.

Quote

If you're LRMing within 300M of an opponent, you're really just "doing it wrong". It doesn't matter how many missile you fire, or what build you're using; at 300m, the only question is "why are you using LRMs?" The hegemony behind LRMs is inherent in the name. Sure there are good players that will adapt their circumstances or build to procure a desirable result, but the hardline facts of:

• LRMs being useless in the presence of an ECM
  
• LRMs being useless in the presence of enemies within 180m
  
• not doing damage focused in one area

are countered by the fact that

• damage potential is high without falloff
  
• DLoS is not required for delivering damage
  
• AMS ain't great alone and is easily overwhelmed.
  
• for most parts, lighter and less slot intensive over it's ballistic equivs.

That being said, if you manage to take them down with LRMs at that range, good on you. If they manage to take you down, good on them.

This is partially true. There are things that encourages the use of LRM within 300m:

• Slow travel speed of LRM
  
• Artemis requires los
  
• ECM blocks LRM from up to 200m
  
• TAG requires los to self designate

It seems to me that the devs want to encourage LRM role choice: to be used as either support indirectly at a distance or aggressively through los for focused damage through artemis.


Prior to the hotfix, why would one chose a LRM20 over a AC20 within 300m?
It's because lower heat and tonnage, more ammo, and segmented damage (instead of a miss equals 0 damage). All of this still came at considerable risks, as you have posted. I felt it was a fair trade. The current damage nerf makes LRM not worth it. I am glad this is temporary and hope for a quick solution.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 23 March 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Tenzek]

Mystere, on 21 March 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Which part of TEMPORARY did people not understand?

The part that says "orary"?