89 replies to this topic

[Devils Advocate]

LRMs are, by their nature, extraordinarily frustrating to go up against. They can hit you over cover and pin you into place without an enemy even needing line of sight. They can give you a feeling of powerlessness when they catch you out in the open and make you feel like somebody is ruining your gameplay if you get nailed with one during a brawl. These are 95% of the reasons why people complain about LRMs.

The other 5% is because of how tightly they group up against your torso. That's the thing we need to get fixed.

LRMs are supposed to be support weapons and as support weapons they should spread damage out across a mech's whole body. This would be useful for crippling and disabling mechs that wandered out into the open without just breaking through their center torso in four volleys without touching their arms and legs. I have no problem with LRMs being powerful, but they don't need to feel like a sniper rifle with homing rounds to be dangerous.

[van Uber]

akpavker, on 29 July 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

with all the attention the dev's have poored into nerfing PPC's i think they have forgoten that LRM's are overpowered in a ******** way. with the current trajectory lrm's move in there is no way of hiding from them and they hit center torso with basicly every missle unlike sreaks which have also been nerfed.

As primarily an Atlas pilot focused on brawling (270m) I disagree with this assessment. I rarely die from LRMs and when I do I usually have myself to blaim. Yes the current trajectory for out of sight LRMs are high and will evade a lot of terrain, but that also means it is pretty easy to break that lock and avoid the lion share of LRMs coming down, the rest being soaked up by those bulky Atlas arms. With my speedier Mechs it's even easier to avoid them.

I'd say LRMs are about right currently. They are not my direct downfall when I hit the dirt, but they play a part in shedding my armour away, just like a supportweapon is meant to do. If would pull a number from my behind I'd say that LRMs count for roughly 10-30% of my damage taken (in my Atlas brawler) in any given game.

[Sheraf]

Devils Advocate, on 31 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

LRMs are, by their nature, extraordinarily frustrating to go up against. They can hit you over cover and pin you into place without an enemy even needing line of sight. They can give you a feeling of powerlessness when they catch you out in the open and make you feel like somebody is ruining your gameplay if you get nailed with one during a brawl. These are 95% of the reasons why people complain about LRMs.

The other 5% is because of how tightly they group up against your torso. That's the thing we need to get fixed.

LRMs are supposed to be support weapons and as support weapons they should spread damage out across a mech's whole body. This would be useful for crippling and disabling mechs that wandered out into the open without just breaking through their center torso in four volleys without touching their arms and legs. I have no problem with LRMs being powerful, but they don't need to feel like a sniper rifle with homing rounds to be dangerous.

The enemy need line of sight, just not of the LRM mech, kill the spotter, it is 1 down for the other team, and render the LRM useless.

[MaddMaxx]

Sheraf, on 31 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

The enemy need line of sight, just not of the LRM mech, kill the spotter, it is 1 down for the other team, and render the LRM useless.

And it seems to have been forgotten. Pressing "P" while under cover immediately breaks a Lock. So after one volley is targeted at you, move to cover and press "P" twice real quick.

[Burakumin1979]

Did they take the following things out of the game?

1. Torso twisting?
2. Jumping?
3. Moving behind cover?
4. Withdrawal from lrm range?
5. AMS?
6. Light mech harassment of LRM boats?

Before you go on a tired post about how you've already addressed these issues....you haven't. The simple fact remains that LRM's are very, very easy to avoid.

If you are getting tagged....that's on you. If you have been NARC'd, sweet god is that on you. If you continue to poptart against a team obviously outfitted with an amount of LRMS that can specifically counter that tactic...that's on you. Caught in the open...you. Not taking AMS or deciding to run off Stallone style outside of an AMS web...you.

TLDR: You.

LRMS are at a great point right now. They punish poor play and reward good piloting/gunnery.

After 4500 drops...I'm only around 3k-sh myself, LRM avoidance/mitigation should really be a non-issue.

Note: The people who die in matches and say things like: "F-in LRM pu*sy boaters"...are usually the ones who thought it was a great idea to perform some super tardo tactic like a direct charge or think something they can see over is "cover". Anything as tall as your mech that you can faceplant...will stop LRMs.

[LordBraxton]

In my experience, the cover has to be about half again taller than your mech to block LRM trajectory^^^^^

not saying they need a nerf though

[Taemien]

akpavker, on 30 July 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

well maby your not up to scratch...ive taken 2 on 1 before and beat the odds.yes its not often you win on 2v1 but it can be done.but eather way i wouldnt class a spider siting 500 meters away out of sight with a tag on me while his mate fires his missiles over most forms of cover a fair 2 on 1 fight. so sorry bud but even if you are behind cover for a whole fight ....if your taged your going to get hit by lrm's no matter where u stand and very much lily die!!

Not up to scratch? Who's dying to a gimp weapon like LRMs. Not me. So the problem is on your end. As is the situation for anyone calling for their nerfs, fixes, or toning down. LRMs are weak, plain and simple. There is no other weapon in the game that can be totally neutralized by simple piloting like LRMs can be.

The people capable of getting kills with them are simply way better than their targets. But thats a fact people in this community aren't willing to admit.

[JingleHell]

LordBraxton, on 31 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

In my experience, the cover has to be about half again taller than your mech to block LRM trajectory^^^^^

not saying they need a nerf though

LordBraxton, on 31 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

In my experience, the cover has to be about half again taller than your mech to block LRM trajectory^^^^^

not saying they need a nerf though

Eh, there's some clipping on some, but I generally would say about 25%. Which, despite all protest by the OP and other people who can't figure out how to hide when it isn't "Press X to superglue *** to impregnable chest-high wall", is readily accessible from roughly a third of River City, closer to halfall of Forest Colony (unless you're intentionally avoiding cover), literally 95% of the surface area you should even contemplate traversing on Tourmaline, 60% of the parts of Alpine that aren't suicide... In fact, Caustic is really the best map for LRM, because you have to surrender the high ground to have direct physical cover in a lot of spots, which is where all the oh-so-advanced-and-clever tactics like breaking LOS and standing near other mechs with AMS come into play.

And then there's the new map, which has me seriously considering re-acquiring Q3A because playing it in a light gave me flashbacks to better days.

[JohnnyWayne]

Burakumin1979, on 31 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

1. Torso twisting?
2. Jumping?
3. Moving behind cover?
4. Withdrawal from lrm range?
5. AMS?
6. Light mech harassment of LRM boats?

1. Yes.
2. What? All mechs have jumpjets?
3. Widely
4. ... No words for that idea xD
5. Why should I, cover has to be a hard counter for every weapon. It's not for lrm, no.
6. This is about me vs lrms. Im no light mech.

It's not just cover itself. It's also losing los and that fuc... missiles follow you around half of the match. Yes without los... No not half the match but still way too long, ******** it... Nitpickers... ^^

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 31 July 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Devils Advocate]

Sheraf, on 31 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

The enemy need line of sight, just not of the LRM mech, kill the spotter, it is 1 down for the other team, and render the LRM useless.

We're not acknowledging modules like extended lock-on duration and increased sensor range in this and we have to assume anyone toting LRMs is going to have both (As I do). Once you're locked onto I can get a full volley off without even a spotter at a solid distance. This isn't a criticism of how LRMs work as much as it's an explanation and another reason why LRMs are inherently aggravating to go up against. ECM should not be required to counter LRMs and breaking line of sight does not always break lock.

[JohnnyWayne]

Waking One, on 31 July 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

You're just bad.

I can't remember to have dropped with you. You can't know.

Thats the old story: If you have no arguments then insult the person that thinks differently. Good job, bro.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 31 July 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[JingleHell]

Devils Advocate, on 31 July 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

We're not acknowledging modules like extended lock-on duration and increased sensor range in this and we have to assume anyone toting LRMs is going to have both (As I do). Once you're locked onto I can get a full volley off without even a spotter at a solid distance. This isn't a criticism of how LRMs work as much as it's an explanation and another reason why LRMs are inherently aggravating to go up against. ECM should not be required to counter LRMs and breaking line of sight does not always break lock.

Name quite fitting. Regardless, will continue to lay blame for LRM related problems at the feet of the one thing those complaints have in common. The tiny percentage (according to the miserly sampling represented within the forums at least) of players who feel LRM's are too strong.

[JingleHell]

JohnnyWayne, on 31 July 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

I can't remember to have dropped with you. You can't know.

Thats the old story: If you have no arguments then insult the person that thinks differently. Good job, bro.

Valid arguments have been made. Just because people who want an LRM nerf refuse to accept those arguments does not change the facts. I can argue all day that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is real, but when there is zero evidence, expecting others to agree is foolish.

[JohnnyWayne]

Well the same can be said about the other side. Obviously you have to accept that other people have other opinions.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 31 July 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Devils Advocate, on 31 July 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

We're not acknowledging modules like extended lock-on duration and increased sensor range in this and we have to assume anyone toting LRMs is going to have both (As I do). Once you're locked onto I can get a full volley off without even a spotter at a solid distance. This isn't a criticism of how LRMs work as much as it's an explanation and another reason why LRMs are inherently aggravating to go up against. ECM should not be required to counter LRMs and breaking line of sight does not always break lock.

After reaching said cover, pressing "P" does unlock you 100% of the time. Press again to carry on.

[Wolfways]

Devils Advocate, on 31 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

LRMs are supposed to be support weapons

Can you tell me where you got this info? Or is it another case of "MG's are anti-infantry weapons" rubbish?

[Suri Curume]

It's funny seeing constant complaints of both LRMs being OP and useless all the time. LRMs require thought/skill to use effectively and teamwork to cause devastation. LRMs also require thought/skill to mitigate and teamwork to almost completely negate.

Sounds like pretty good balance.

The one thing I can agree with is they could stand to spread a bit more.

[FupDup]

Devils Advocate, on 31 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

LRMs are supposed to be support weapons...

Everything is a support weapon, because they support your team by killing enemy robots.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[JingleHell]

JohnnyWayne, on 31 July 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Well the same can be said about the other side. Obviously you have to accept that other people have other opinions.

I in no way suggested that the means of mostly invalidating LRMs are opinions. In fact, my example was to suggest that you're arguing against facts. All of the basic anti-LRM tactics work quite reasonably. The primary tactic that sucks against LRMs is what I like to call "being in the wrong place at the wrong time, namely, ever". If you derp, you die. Against most things.

Also, tired of hearing about the spotter+boat > you. That's two mechs concentrating on you. That should spell trouble. This is not Call of Mechwarrior.

[Bilbo]

Suri Curume, on 31 July 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

It's funny seeing constant complaints of both LRMs being OP and useless all the time. LRMs require thought/skill to use effectively and teamwork to cause devastation. LRMs also require thought/skill to mitigate and teamwork to almost completely negate.

Sounds like pretty good balance.

The one thing I can agree with is they could stand to spread a bit more.

I'd say that makes them about right. Though, once they get the CT fixation sorted, they are probably going to need an increase in damage again.