56 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

Devotees of the LRM weapons platform argue passionately for further buffs and enhancements to LRMs, particularly relative to energy weapons. Their threads often contain very useful facts which help people understand LRM mechanics, and how to optimize the damage caused by LRMs.

However, unfortunately, there is often opinion and misinformation about energy weapons mixed in with the LRM advice. This misinformation is sometimes put forward to support the view that ''LRMs are the hardest weapon system to use''.

I've created this thread is to provide a broader, factual context on the relativity of energy weapons to LRMs. I hope that it will help everyone come to a broader, balanced and unbiased view on the genuine tradeoffs between LRMs and energy weapon systems.

Myth: ''LRMs are unique in that a piece of equipment, AMS, exists purely to counter them.''
Fact: That is only half the story. LRMers also benefit from specialised equipment designed to help them hit targets - TAG, NARC, Artemis. Energy weapons have no specialised equipment to help them hit targets. More broadly, all weapons have counters. AMS counters LRMs as ''cover'' counters any direct fire weapon.

Myth: "LRMs are unique because users need to be able to dictate engagement ranges''.
Truth: LRMs are not unique in this regard. Users of energy and other weapons also need to carefully dictate engagement ranges. Eg. PPC users do decreasing damage at less than 90m. Eg. LBX users need to get very close to target to reduce particle spread. Eg. even ERPPC users have to consider that the further the range to a moving target, the more lead time they need to factor and the more chance that a moving target will jink away from a shot.

Myth: ''LRMers are unique in needing to find special optimal firing positions''
Truth: All good pilots, including those using PPCs, need to find optimal firing positions. In the case of direct fire weapons, such as PPCs, the smart pilot usually needs needs to be able to see a target and from a position where they can both shoot and also return to cover. And, if an LRMer has locked them in the time they were exposed, that cover needs to be about 2 storeys high in order to avoid the guided munitions inbound.

Myth: "LRMs suffer from highly limited ammunition.''
Truth: Ammo limits on LRMs are a balancing item for LRMs in the same way that other weapon systems have other balances. Beyond the obvious examples - Gauss and ACs and LBX and their ammo limitations - energy weapons like PPCs are balanced by the need to allocate valuable tonnage to heat sinks, and the amount of heat generated over time limiting their frequency of fre. Besides that, it is clearly observable that many LRM users take more than enough ammo to get them through a full match, as remote fired LRMs often deliver the finishing blows to final Mechs at end of matches.

Myth: "LRMs uniquely suffer from the time it takes to lock a target''
Truth: Again, this is a balance to the fact that LRMs can lock targets they can't even see, A PPC user is balanced by the time it takes them to leave and return to cover, exposing themselves to both direct fire and being locked up for guided LRM fire. Of course, SSRM users also need to lock targets.

Myth: ''LRMs don't work with indirect fire.''
Truth: Indirect fire - using the locks of other players - does work... it just yields much lower damage than direct locks. It is entirely possible to sit behind a rock landing LRMs on targets you cannot see. However, the resulting damage will be much lower than direct locks with all the technical enhancements. Ability to indirect fire is actually a key advantage of LRMs vs other platforms.

Myth: ''Indirect fire is pointless.''
Truth: While the damage from indirect fire will likely be lower than from direct fire with technical enhancements, from a MWO scoring perspective, it can still be quite valuable to some players. Eg. Players seeking to level up a chassis will be awarded a Kill Assist XP bonus if a solitary LRM hits a target. While indirect fire may not very beneficial to the team, it certainly helps PUGs trying to grind XP and level up.

Myth: ''LRMs need dedicated spotters for indirect fire to work.''
Truth; Any brawling Mech in melee, who has locked their target, is effectively a spotter for an LRMer. Further, because the target is currently in close quarters combat, the target will usually continue to melee rather than find cover from the LRMs, giving the LRMer easy hits at zero risk of return fire.

Myth: ''LRMs are unique in that they scatter damage instead of concentrating it.''
Truth: Lasers usually scatter damage because of the need to hold the beam on a location for a duration, often while both the shooter and target are moving. LBXs scatter damage due to increasing spread over distance. ACs may in effect scatter damage over time depending on the aiming skill of the user. PPCs do not scatter damage.

Myth: ''LRMs uniquely require a dedicated build and lots of extra equipment''
Truth: LRM users can choose to enhance their damage delivery, by adding TAG and Artemis and NARC Energy weapon users can choose to enhance their damage delivery by adding heat sinks and Cool Shots etc to manage their heat. But these are choices, and the opportunity to make that choice is not unique to LRMs.

Myth: ''AMS is over-powered.''
Truth: AMS is a minimum investment of 1.5 tons. On Light to Medium Mechs, that is a not a trivial amount of tonnage. That tonnage could otherwise have been allocated to, say, a ML, yielding 5 points of damage for each shot, every few seconds. That adds up to lot of foregone damage over time, vs the zero damage yield and score of the AMS. For Heavy and Assault Mechs, this is less of a concern.

Myth: ''LRM boating should not be a concern.''
Truth: LRM boats are already high scorers in some matches, particularly when there are several of them. While this is not a problem at the highest levels of coordinated team play, PGI have to be careful not to break the basic game while catering to the preferences of LRM devotees. (I will note here that Energy Boating also clearly works and in my opinion is ''bad''. However adding new LRM boats is not the way to address it. PGI should reduce incentives for existing PPC boats, not add new incentives for more LRM boats.)



I hope that the above will prove helpful to helpful to everyone - including LRM devotees - in aiding a broader consideration and perspectives on the merits - and tradeoffs - of our individual preferred weapon platforms.


EDIT: fixed an error on PPC damage dropoff helpfully pointed out by Ningyo.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[z3a1ot]

Hehehehe!

I see you already responded to lrm thread . Must be a devoted lrm hater (just kidding).

One claim blew my head off in other thread saying "LRMs are hardest weapon to use in game" by Victor Morson. I mean seriously bro!? I can understand reasoning for positioning, tag, artemis and so on but hardest weapon to use , hardly.

I completely agree that boating energy and missiles needs to be addressed properly and that buffing lrms even more wont solve energy boating problem (PPCs). In fact I think lrms are in very good state right now and further buffing would increase imbalance with other platforms. Now that changes for moving mechs around high slopes are coming it will be even harder to find cover and lrms will rule again. Imagine situation on Canyon Network where you wont be able to move around without jj mech to escape incoming lrm fire.

Edited by z3a1ot, 29 June 2013 - 02:30 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Devotees of the LRM weapons platform argue passionately for further buffs and enhancements to LRMs, particularly relative to energy weapons. Their threads often contain very useful facts which help people understand LRM mechanics, and how to optimize the damage caused by LRMs.

I hope you didn't think you could have an LRM thread without me.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

However, unfortunately, there is often opinion and misinformation about energy weapons mixed in with the LRM advice. This misinformation is sometimes put forward to support the view that ''LRMs are the hardest weapon system to use''.

Information observed on your own in lone wolf environments with no community research or support might be the less accurate route to take, but you seem to believe it is a worthwhile method.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

I've created this thread is to provide a broader, factual context on the relativity of energy weapons to LRMs. I hope that it will help everyone come to a broader, balanced and unbiased view on the genuine tradeoffs between LRMs and energy weapon systems.

Just to frame reference, again, Appogee is the poster that endorses LRM/10 and LRM/5 with no Artemis as a Jenner build and believes it's "effective" because he gets kill bonus XP. I do not believe he is trying to mislead you, but his views come from a place of deep, deep misinformation combined with a very skewed picture of MW:O matches in higher ELO brackets or 8v8.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMs are unique in that a piece of equipment, AMS, exists purely to counter them.''
Fact: That is only half the story. LRMers also benefit from specialised equipment designed to help them hit targets - TAG, NARC, Artemis. Energy weapons have no specialised equipment to help them hit targets. More broadly, all weapons have counters. AMS counters LRMs as ''cover'' counters any direct fire weapon.

At what point do these things become a benefit, and stop being instead a hindrance and a tax? While you do not want to believe it, without TAG and Artemis you cannot track or group fast and hard enough to do anything about fast movers. These are absolutely vital and required pieces of equipment to run an LRM 'mech with even remote efficiency, and to upgrade the weapons from "trash" to "almost alright" status.

Also cover counters LRMs pretty well, both physically and the fact indirect fire is ungrouped and unfocused, with a terrible track speed, meaning any shots that spent the last part of their flight time with the target under cover are practically wasted ammo. But we've been through this.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: "LRMs are unique because users need to be able to dictate engagement ranges''.
Truth: LRMs are not unique in this regard. Users of energy and other weapons also need to carefully dictate engagement ranges. Eg. PPC users do zero damage at less than the prescribed minimum range. Eg. LBX users need to get very close in order to reduce particle spread. Eg. even ERPPC users have to consider that the further the range to a moving target, the more lead time they need to factor and the more chance that a moving target will jink away from a shot.

There is a difference between needing to get into an optimal range to use a weapon, and staying within a buffer zone. 70m on the PPC as a minimum (which DOES do reduced damage, by the way, not 0) is a far cry from 170m on a missile boat that also needs to be under 750m to be effective. 580m isn't a whole lot of range to play with when you're dealing with fast movers.

Also, LRMs are far more of an "all in" weapon system. It can't be easily mixed with a compatible close range system. You can't carry part ER PPC, part PPC - or Gauss and PPC - to leave you with close range support of some kind. The only option with LRMs is to carry entirely seperate backup weapons, but because of their huge size & weight, you won't be able to fit enough to do good on the kinds of designs that can keep you in that bubble.

LRM Stalkers are incredibly easy to pick off from 900-1000 or 170-0 purely because they lack the speed to position themselves where LRMs need to be.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMers uniquely need to find special optimal firing positions''
Truth: All good pilots, including those using PPCs, need to find optimal firing positions. In the case of direct fire weapons, such as PPCs, the smart pilot usually needs needs to be able to see a target and from a position where they can both shoot and also return to cover. And, if an LRMer has locked them in the time they were exposed, that cover needs to be about 2 storeys high in order to avoid the guided munitions inbound.

The problem is that the LRM 'mech needs to be steadily mobile (and rather speedy) and often needs completely different positions from the snipers and brawlers in the rest of the group. It has to operate as a fast moving entity, or not at all; again, the assault LRM 'mechs are awful because they are outranged by ER PPC and simply cannot close the distance against a Highlander jumpgliding away from it - and up close, they are obviously boned without the speed to escape or run for the main line.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: "LRMs suffer from highly limited ammunition.''
Truth: Ammo limits on LRMs are a balancing item for LRMs in the same way that other weapon systems have other balances. Beyond the obvious examples - Gauss and ACs and LBX and their ammo limitations - energy weapons like PPCs are balanced by the need to allocate valuable tonnage to heat sinks. Besides that, it is clearly observable that many LRM uers take more than enough ammo to get them through a full match. Remote fired LRMs often finish off the final Mech in a match.

Damage-per-shot of ammunition, refire rates, etc. also figure into this greatly. You need to carry an excessive amount, in tonnage, of ammo to do the same damage with LRMs that you would with other weapon systems, even 2nd rate systems like the AC/5. There are other factors at work here aside from a flat "1.5x ammo to compensate for 2.0x armor."

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: "LRMs suffer from the time it takes to lock a target''
Truth: Again, this is a balance to the fact that LRMs can lock targets they can't even see, A PPC user is balanced by the time it takes them to leave and return to cover, exposing themselves to both direct fire and being locked up for guided LRM fire.

Nobody is saying lock time should go away. The specific example you are responding to is that snipers can repeatedly peak out and shoot LRM 'mechs that will never, ever have a chance to return fire. This is pointless without context.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMs don't work with indirect fire.''
Truth: Indirect fire, using the locks of other players, does work... it just yields much lower damage than direct locks. It is entirely possible to sit behind a rock landing LRMs on targets you cannot see. However, the resulting damage will be much lower than direct locks with all the technical enhancements

It yields such a low damage per shot that it makes it effectively worthless. If you are doing it, you happen to have ammo to spare for some very, very minor chip damage.

Indirect only works alright if you tracked a target with TAG and it pops out of sight, since it takes a moment for the effects of Artemis / TAG to be lost, so you can still get a good hit. But firing straight from indirect is a mild annoyance at best. I did it for a while thinking it was doing alright, but then I realized I'd burned 3 tons of ammo and hadn't even brought a Stalker to orange, which subsequent controlled environment tests proved to be pretty damning.

CONTINUED IN POST 2

[Appogee]

z3a1ot, on 29 June 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Must be a devoted lrm hater (just kidding).

Well, I thought it would be helpful to have a thread with inarguable facts, not colored by opinions or self-interest.

Fact is, I use LRMs, I use Energy weapons, and I use Ballistics. I'm not biased for or against any of them, and I actually enjoy variety. Hell, last night I loaded up a Cicadas with 4 MGs just to see whether the recent buff made any appreciable difference to their viability. (Answer: no!)

z3a1ot, on 29 June 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

One claim blew my head off in other thread saying "LRMs are hardest weapon to use in game" by Victor Morson.

Yeah, not hard to use, just hard to get a high score from at high levels of the game. Quite an important difference.

z3a1ot, on 29 June 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Now that changes for moving mechs around high slopes are coming it will be even harder to find cover and lrms will rule again.

It will certainly make a change. I for one will be equipping a lot more JJs than I used to.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 02:56 AM.

[Victor Morson]

INTERMISSION ROUND!

z3a1ot, on 29 June 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Hehehehe!

I see you already responded to lrm thread . Must be a devoted lrm hater (just kidding).

One claim blew my head off in other thread saying "LRMs are hardest weapon to use in game" by Victor Morson. I mean seriously bro!? I can understand reasoning for positioning, tag, artemis and so on but hardest weapon to use , hardly.

OK, one question for you, because I've heard two people say this now: Name one weapon that is harder to use. I don't mean is just brokenly terrible (Flamer), I mean harder to actually maximize damage out of.

One other weapon. Name it. If you cannot, I'm afraid my point stands.

AND WE'RE BACK!

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMs need dedicated spotters for indirect fire to work.''
Truth; Any other brawling Mech in melee, who has locked their target, is effectively a spotter for an LRMer. Further, because the target is currently in close quarters combat, the target will usually continue to melee rather than find cover from the LRMs, giving the LRMer easy hits at zero risk of return fire.

Not one person said this. I said, in fact, that dedicated spotters CANNOT work with LRMs, because they would get obliterated by sniper fire and that brawlers are the only viable indirect locking platform.

While the LRM pilot can stay out of sight for "zero risk return fire" - which might even be advisable if they were entirely crit - they will be dealing the single worst tonnage of ammo-to-damage ratio you can possibly have in the process. "Staying safe and doing a LITTLE damage" is a crappy option when for the same tonnage you could have taken "Be direct and do a way more damage." In particular when you run dry on ammo doing this.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''Indirect fire is pointless.''
Truth: While the damage from indirect fire will likely be lower than from direct fire with technical enhancements, from a MWO scoring perspective, it can still be quite valuable to some players. Eg. Players seeking to level up a chassis will be awarded a Kill Assist XP bonus if a solitary LRM hits a target. While indirect fire may not very beneficial to the team, it certainly helps PUGs trying to grind XP and level up.

He is now stating LRM indirect fire isn't worthless because it helps PUGs gain XP. I really should end it here.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMs are unique in that they scatter damage instead of concentrating it.''
Truth: Lasers usually scatter damage because of the need to hold the beam on a location for a duration, often while both the shooter and target are moving.

The exception being it is fully in control of the gunner, which LRMs are absolutely not. This is not even a sane comparison. I am going down the rabbit hole every time I read one of your posts. They are a Lovercraftian nightmare of misinformation.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRMs uniquely require a dedicated build and lots of extra equipment''
Truth: LRM users can choose to enhance their damage delivery, by adding TAG and Artemis and NARC Energy weapon users can choose to enhance their damage delivery by adding heat sinks and Cool Shots etc to manage their heat. But these are choices, and the choice is not unique to LRMs.

Do you want to make your 'mech walking wasted tonnage kids? Don't take Artemis, TAG and BAP and then load up on LRMs. That one ****** running a NARC beacon will love you. Everyone else on your team will hate you. The enemy team will mock you.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''AMS is OP''
Truth: AMS is a minimum investment of 1.5 tons, and on Light to Medium Mechs, that is a not a trivial amount of tonnage. That tonnage could otherwise have been allocated to, say, a ML, yielding 5 points of damage for each shot, ever few seconds. That adds up to lot of foregone damage over time, vs the zero damage yield and score of the AMS. For Heavy and Assault Mechs, this is less of a concern.

I was speaking specifically of allied AMS clusters being too powerful, because allies can hit ceiling height (instead of during the LRM dive), and LRMs took a huge power boost to compensate for the high damage LRMs, but they aren't doing enough damage to warrant it now. Thus, I believe AMS range should be reduced, specifically to prevent scenarios where 'mechs brawling somewhere along the flight path shooting down half your missiles before they even get to the target. Allied in-path AMS is way way more effective than having your own AMS, which I think is broken.

I won't derail this with that, though.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

Myth: ''LRM boating should not be a concern work.''
Truth: LRM boats can already be highest scorers in some matches, particularly when there are several of them. While this is not a problem at the highest levels of coordinated team play, PGI have to be careful not to break the basic game while catering to the preferences of higher level LRM users. I will note here that Energy Boating also clearly works and also is ''bad''. However adding new LRM boats is not the way to address it. PGI should reduce incentives for existing PPC boats, not add new incentives for more LRM boats.

LRMs only work against terrible players on any serious level. It's just a sad fact. You have people who post those stupid screenshots of 1200 damage runs with MGs too, when you are playing in low brackets, you can get away with really awful stuff. It's skewed results from the kiddie pool, pretty much, and there's not much getting around it.

Stalker LRM boats aren't something to fear because, again, they can't dictate their engagement ranges. They're really bad. LRMs are the exclusive domain of the 50-65 ton crowd in their current form.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

I hope that the above will prove helpful to LRM devotees, aiding them in considering in more broad way, perspectives on the merits of their preferred weapon platform vs energy weapons.

I like LRMs, but I am devoted to balance. LRMs are apart of that balance. It may be your Yang, but the Yin needs it and it doesn't matter if you like that fact.

PS: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but for the original thread (with actual facts in it), go here. It is likely to provide you with way more reasonable information that more experienced players tend to lean towards.

So yeah, don't buy the knock-off LRM hate thread. Stick with the source.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 02:48 AM.

[Appogee]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

Just to frame reference, again, Appogee is the poster that endorses LRM/10 and LRM/5 with no Artemis as a Jenner build and believes it's "effective" because he gets kill bonus XP.

To other readers: this is a straight up lie, and Victor knows it. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself for trying to discredit other posters - and through lying about them, no less - rather than discussing facts and ideas.

The fact is, I recently experimented briefly with LRMs on a Jenner K, for my own personal enjoyment, and to see how it changed the experience of piloting a Jenner.

Victor has several times now tried to mislead people by portraying my one-off experiment as 'advocating LRM Jenners', and attempting to discredit me personally. Rather than sticking to the facts of the post, he tries to make it seem like I haven't used LRMs in traditional and sensible ways, over a long period - which I have.

In case it matters, I have played 1700 matches of MWO over six months, and I have played every iteration of BT and MW over the past three decades. I use all weapon types, including LRMs. However, I think that should be irrelevant. The OP is about facts, not opinions. I would prefer everyone to consider the facts on their merits, unclouded by deliberately misleading character attacks.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 03:16 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

In the interests of factuality... I recently experimented for two weeks with LRMs on a Jenner K, for my own personal enjoyment, and to see how it changed the experience of piloting a Jenner. Rather than discuss the facts of LRMs, Victor prefers to cite my experiment in isolation, misportraying it as if I am 'advocating LRM Jenners' and making it seem like I haven't used LRMs in traditional and sensible ways..

Apogee recommended a Jenner K with an LRM/10 and LRM/5, jammed through the Streak ports, without Artemis as a "effective support 'mech. He believes this to be true not because it does damage, but because it makes his "reticule flash" and he gets "kill assist XP" for the 3 missiles that hit.

Seriously. He thinks LRMs are OK because it makes lights go off and give small bonus XP you get for landing even a single shot. I am sorry if this is construed as a character assault, but I think I absolutely have to establish his experience level before I let him used this thread to pied piper a bunch of impressionable newbies, frankly.

He may want to downplay it now but this one thing says more about his experience and understanding of game mechanics more than any single other thing I could say. And if you don't see what is wrong with that build, you badly need to read up on some actual meta builds and try them for a few days.

PS: His other "good" designs include a frakenmech LBX/10 build. This is not an isolated incident.

EDIT: I believe his heart is in the right place, but he needs to do a little research beyond his own personal experience or at least be willing to consider the fact he is talking about things he does not fully yet understand.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 02:55 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

In case it matters, I have played 1700 matches of MWO over six months, and I have played every iteration of BT and MW over the past three decades.

You say this, yet you also think MW4 missile boats were limited to slow moving assaults and that LRMs are a "softening up, not a kill weapon" in TT. 1700 matches in terrible builds with a terrible understanding of the meta means absolutely nothing. If you'd adapt to the higher tier meta for a bit, you'd probably look back at everything you've said and just sigh.

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

I use all weapon types, including LRMs. However, I think this is actually irrelevant. The OP is about facts, not opinions. I would prefer everyone to consider the facts on their merits, unclouded by deliberately misleading character attacks.

Establishing the credibility of the person presenting the "facts" is an important part of this process. You are simply not qualified in your understanding of game mechanics to be presenting often very inaccurate facts in a multi-thread campaign against LRMs.

In fact, all you have ever offered is the completely subjective opinion of someone who primarily PUGs with no community input or reflection idea off anyone that plays a more serious, organized game. You could not be further from qualified to present facts on LRMs or any other weapon system, to be entirely honest.

PS: You never answered me in the other thread about my invitation to our 1v1 live streamed tournament tomorrow. I think someone of your background and drop experience should bring their creative builds to fight some of the best in the game. Details are in my sig.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 03:24 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Person A - LRM fan and will do anything to enhance that style of play.

Person B - barely has relevant experience or factual evidence to counter.

Conclusion: both threads are flawed, and thus unconclusive.

My opinion as someone who uses LRM's and other weapon systems and as someone who has played a great deal of organised 8 man games.
LRM's at this time are IMO perfectly balanced, dangerous, considerable damage for the low risk to use. They have counters to weaken them, if only every other weapon system was balanced in such a way.

[The Cheese]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Establishing the credibility of the person presenting the "facts" is an important part of this process. You are simply not qualified in your understanding of game mechanics to be presenting often very inaccurate facts in a multi-thread campaign against LRMs.

Well let's be fair here. The way you're going about your little crusade screams "CREDIBILITY" about as much as a politician going on a smear campaign.

[Victor Morson]

The Cheese, on 29 June 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

Well let's be fair here. The way you're going about your little crusade screams "CREDIBILITY" about as much as a politician going on a smear campaign.

I actively encourage people I am discussing this with to check with the best players in the game - the tournament winners, the best league teams, you name it - and get second, third, forth opinions.

I offer all of my opinions from not just my own POV, but from consensus among this crowd - a crowd which, mind you, have done many controlled tests in 16 player environments and also have poured through all of the data and put a great deal of thought into the problems of LRMs.

I'd like to think many of my opinions on the problems with LRMs - perhaps not the solutions - are representive of players that understand the game in general. I think the poll represents that in my original thread this one is clearly knocking off, including in title.

I feel the fact that the rival "facts" are presented purely from perspective of someone who is going purely off of what they personally see with no thought deeper than that.

To bring it to politics, a good example would be the global warming debate. One side has armies of scientists and leaders with mountains of research and the other side has a bunch of people who go "It gets cold here in the winter still so global warming is a lie lolololol." They don't feel the temperature drop, so clearly, those "eggheads" are just going on about nothing, right?

Worse yet the comparison can continue if PGI caters to the later crowd's equivalent here on the principle that the masses "make more money" instead of thinking about the long term effects that the players who operate at a higher level of play have been trying to warn them about, which is terrible for everyone.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[z3a1ot]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

INTERMISSION ROUND!



OK, one question for you, because I've heard two people say this now: Name one weapon that is harder to use. I don't mean is just brokenly terrible (Flamer), I mean harder to actually maximize damage out of.

One other weapon. Name it. If you cannot, I'm afraid my point stands.

Well it wasn't my intention to get this much involved but have you tried for example using SRMs in a high speed brawl, using SRMs against fast moving lights? For that matter did you try using energy weapons or ballistic trying to destroy specific component of an enemy mech like HBK 4P side torso to destroy its lasers, or side torso of an ac40 Jagermech, or side torso of an Atlas and so on. Thing is all of this requires good aim and even better moving and positioning, even loathed PPCs require decent aim. In my opinion this is way harder than using LRMs by far.

[Appogee]

Victor, if you keep blatantly lying about what I have said, and putting things in quotes which I have never said, then I will report you to the moderators and let them impose on you the discipline of not lying that you apparently are are unable to impose on yourself.

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

Apogee recommended a Jenner K with an LRM/10 and LRM/5, jammed through the Streak ports, without Artemis as a "effective support 'mech. He believes this to be true not because it does damage, but because it makes his "reticule flash" and he gets "kill assist XP" for the 3 missiles that hit.

I have NEVER recommended that to anyone. I have made clear on several occasions now, including in this thread, that I experimented with it once recently for fun.

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

PS: His other "good" designs include a frakenmech LBX/10 build. This is not an isolated incident.

Again, you willfully and knowingly misrepresent a one-off experiment that i mentioned as an example of how I sometimes experiment for fun.

You are behaving disgracefully. You claim to be an expert and championing the interests of new players, when you should be absolutely ashamed of the poor behavior you are demonstrating.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 03:49 AM.

[Appogee]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

Person A - LRM fan and will do anything to enhance that style of play.
Person B - barely has relevant experience or factual evidence to counter.

Facts remain facts, regardless of who states them. Only opinions are subjective.

My OP contains facts, not opinions. If you can find any errors of fact errors in my OP, please point them out.

Separately, please do not believe the blatant misinformation being put forward about me. I am counting on fellow forum users to be able to see and filter Victor's reprehensible and self-interested lies. We should judges the issues on their merits, not on the basis of Victor's self-proclaimed expertise, or indeed his misrepresentations about the experience levels of those with whom he disagrees.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[The Cheese]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

I'd like to think many of my opinions on the problems with LRMs - perhaps not the solutions - are representive of players that understand the game in general.  I think the poll represents that in my original thread this one is clearly knocking off, including in title.

Yeah yeah, you linked that in my thread too. The one that you didn't read before deciding my views were wrong and pointing me to your clearly superior thread, even though the two are not focused on the same thing. Even though you came back to update post with your recommendations for stat changes to LRMs and associated gear and STILL didn't read enough of the opening post to realise that specific stats are beyond the scope of that discussion. There's that credibility again.

Edited by The Cheese, 29 June 2013 - 03:53 AM.

[soarra]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

I actively encourage people I am discussing this with to check with the best players in the game - the tournament winners, the best league teams, you name it - and get second, third, forth opinions.

I offer all of my opinions from not just my own POV, but from consensus among this crowd - a crowd which, mind you, have done many controlled tests in 16 player environments and also have poured through all of the data and put a great deal of thought into the problems of LRMs.

I'd like to think many of my opinions on the problems with LRMs - perhaps not the solutions - are representive of players that understand the game in general. I think the poll represents that in my original thread this one is clearly knocking off, including in title.

I feel the fact that the rival "facts" are presented purely from perspective of someone who is going purely off of what they personally see with no thought deeper than that.

To bring it to politics, a good example would be the global warming debate. One side has armies of scientists and leaders with mountains of research and the other side has a bunch of people who go "It gets cold here in the winter still so global warming is a lie lolololol." They don't feel the temperature drop, so clearly, those "eggheads" are just going on about nothing, right?

Worse yet the comparison can continue if PGI caters to the later crowd's equivalent here on the principle that the masses "make more money" instead of thinking about the long term effects that the players who operate at a higher level of play have been trying to warn them about, which is terrible for everyone.

lol at so called top players in an extremely inbalanced game. I know some amazing players who will not participate in any tournaments or leagues until things are fixed.. Until then your so called top players can enjoy their boating and cheese mechs, and when things get fixed we will see how they do.

Edited by soarra, 29 June 2013 - 03:50 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Did you see my invite btw?

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

Victor, if you keep blatantly lying up what I have said, putting things in quotes that I have never said, then I will report you to the moderators and let them impose on you the discipline of being factual that you apparently are unable to impose on yourself.\

Alright, redemption round. Post what you consider to be 3 actually good, competitive builds. One of which should try to include LRMs. Let's see what you come up with.

I am still waiting for 1 reason you consider your views to be "fact." Just one. How are you so certain, given you literally haven't even tried to enter a dialogue with anyone outside of your own little bubble of casual players who don't like getting shaken around?

I've explained how I've reached my conclusions. Hard testing, speaking with other units that have also done hard testing and discussing these things with some of the most skilled pilots in the game.

You have, so far, provided the anecdotal first person perspective experience of a Lone Wolf.

I have no idea why it you cannot see the problem here, even if you will get other Lone Wolfs that simply hate LRMs defending you purely on their hate of LRMs.

Again, just check the opinions and views in the other thread that isn't written from a completely unfounded LRM hate thread.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Please do not believe the misinformation being put forward about me by Victor in his self-interested crusade.

Besides, facts remain facts, regardless of who states them. If you can find any errors of fact errors in my OP, please point them out. I remain open to new information and also to points of view.

Oh i don't believe Victor, not by a longshot, anyone who has a personal biased crusade and there are many not just him will have issues conveying unbiased views on balance.
The good thing is, it's painfully obvious.

My point about you was, that your both drawing your conclusions from opposing ends of the spectrum, and it's unlikely either of you will change the others opinion.
Your basing alot of your on counter arguments from single person play, i can't stress enough how different actual organised team vs team play is (usually alot more cautious) and that's partly why LRM's suffer at that scale, people are not willing to take unnecessary damage, they aren't willing to give that advantage.

It's one of those things, it's a hard weapon system to get absolutely right, but LRM's ARE a support weapon, that is their function, but they have the ability in the right hands and circumstances to cause high amounts of damage, they are a weapon that is a total double edged sword.

They are not the easiest weapon system to play, but they certainly aren't the hardest either. They are more than just point a click from behind cover if you want to get the best from them however.

[Appogee]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Oh i don't believe Victor, not by a longshot, anyone who has a personal biased crusade and there are many not just him will have issues conveying unbiased views on balance. The good thing is, it's painfully obvious.

Thank you. That is reassuring. It's frankly scary to see someone put ridiculous lies in quotes and then attribute them to you.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Your basing alot of your on counter arguments from single person play, i can't stress enough how different actual organised team vs team play is (usually alot more cautious) and that's partly why LRM's suffer at that scale, people are not willing to take unnecessary damage, they aren't willing to give that advantage.

You are correct. I do play in premades as well, and I do watch team matches for fun. But the OP is more from the perspective of the weapon systems standalone, without the team factors.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

It's one of those things, it's a hard weapon system to get absolutely right, but LRM's ARE a support weapon, that is their function,

That is how I remember them from TT. Others think that, given the tonnage investment, they should be more than than support. I can see their point of view. Certainly, in teams I played in during the early 90s, we had dedicated LRM boats playing specific roles at times. Even in MWLL at times.

Edited by Appogee, 29 June 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[Victor Morson]

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Oh i don't believe Victor, not by a longshot, anyone who has a personal biased crusade and there are many not just him will have issues conveying unbiased views on balance.
The good thing is, it's painfully obvious.

Yes, I'm entirely biased towards LRMs above all other weapons.

That's why, in the last week, I've suggested: Buffing AC/10 and LBX/10 with a 33% ROF increase, decreasing heat on the AC/2 and AC/5 by half as well as increasing projectile velocity on the AC/5, increasing SRMs to a true 2.0, cutting discharge time on pulse lasers by at least a third in addition to damage and heat buffs, and increasing the recycle at a vastly decreased discharge and increased effective range on ER Large. I've also made two separate threads on Machine Guns and Flamers.

It's just none of you notice this because nobody gets annoyed with these guns because they don't shake you around. Except the AC/2 on macro, which is awful, but - surprise - is complained about. It's not that the guns are good, it's that they annoy you, and that is why they draw such ire.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

My point about you was, that your both drawing your conclusions from opposing ends of the spectrum, and it's unlikely either of you will change the others opinion.

One side has, literally, the research of "I drive an LRM 'mech in some PUGs sometime." There isn't really a contest here in merit, even if people would like to pretend there is.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Your basing alot of your on counter arguments from single person play, i can't stress enough how different actual organised team vs team play is (usually alot more cautious) and that's partly why LRM's suffer at that scale, people are not willing to take unnecessary damage, they aren't willing to give that advantage.

They are definitely more usable in PUGs than organized play, sure, but they are also still crappy for even that comparative to other weapon options.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

It's one of those things, it's a hard weapon system to get absolutely right, but LRM's ARE a support weapon, that is their function, but they have the ability in the right hands and circumstances to cause high amounts of damage, they are a weapon that is a total double edged sword.

I agree with this. They should be a situational weapon, but like you say - they need to cause high amounts of damage to do fill that role, and they currently aren't doing quite enough. I think the ROF increase to LRMs would be a good way to help balance it in addition to the small damage increase, because this would further punish exposed targets with more DPS, but still allow 'mechs that make it to cover to negate most of the damage.

DV McKenna, on 29 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

They are not the easiest weapon system to play, but they certainly aren't the hardest either. They are more than just point a click from behind cover if you want to get the best from them however.

People keep saying "they aren't the hardest, either." What is the hardest? Not one person who has made this statement has answered this question.

Large Lasers? Point & click with a brief hold? PPCs, with a slight lead time and fire? I'm not talking something like MGs or Flamers that are just broken, I'm talking about difficulty to use optimally. If there is a harder weapon to use, I am all ears. (Does the NARC count maybe? lol)

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 04:22 AM.