193 replies to this topic

[Viges]

Quote

Lrms Are Still To Good

[Blurry]

Drasari, on 11 November 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

This {Scrap} is why snipers take nerfs, people that have no idea how to use the abundance of cover on EVERY MAP.

why should I take cover? I am a big stompy Robot who shoots guns. I need no cover and should never be hit.

Ya I agree - when I hear incoming, I move out and my ams goes off.

The only time u get it is if you are stuck in a corner and 2 boats lock on and cant move.

[Charons Little Helper]

LRMs aren't OP. They need a bit of a boost in fact. (not a lot - just a 20-30% speed buff would probably do it - maybe up the damage to 1.2 as well) Though I would prefer if the screen shake actually varied by the number of missiles that hit you. (1 missile shouldn't shake you as much as 50)

Also - screen shake in general should vary by the size of your mech. (an atlas shouldn't be as shook up as a spider by the same hit)

Edited by Charons Little Helper, 12 November 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Cimarb]

Victor Morson, on 12 November 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Except it will also burn itself out from ghost heat, be easily thwarted by AMS and also that is impossible unless you are shooting at stationary light mechs.

Realistically they are still underpowered, largely due to the AMS bubble where AMS will assist allies. It's a huge shut down in any serious games.

AMS are nice counters to LRMs, but ECM is the real OP counter. Until ECM is fixed, LRMs have zero chance of ever being overpowered. I enjoy my missile boats, but if there is even a single ECM in a semi-intelligent enemy group, my score is halved instantly, with zero work on their part, and almost non-existent if they stay grouped the whole time. Point out any other weapon system that is affected like this by a single 1.5 ton piece of equipment... Just silly...

[Artgathan]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

Are LRMs to good or are to many launchers to good? Even then 6 LRM 5 are no better than 2 LRM15 with the exception of having faster load times.

Acutally there are a few reasons the 6 LRM5 is superior to 2 LRM15:

• Smaller missile clusters group better (getting more hits on CT)
  
• 6 LRM5 = 12 Tons, 2 LRM15 = 14 Tons
  
• Screen Rattle from 6 LRM5 chain fired is super annoying

[Joseph Mallan]

Artgathan, on 12 November 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Acutally there are a few reasons the 6 LRM5 is superior to 2 LRM15:

• Smaller missile clusters group better (getting more hits on CT)
  
• 6 LRM5 = 12 Tons, 2 LRM15 = 14 Tons
  
• Screen Rattle from 6 LRM5 chain fired is super annoying

I still hunt the 6 LRM 5 Mechs with plenty of success in my Atlases. I don' rattle easily and My AMS reduce 5s to powder puffs.

[Cimarb]

Artgathan, on 12 November 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Acutally there are a few reasons the 6 LRM5 is superior to 2 LRM15:

• Smaller missile clusters group better (getting more hits on CT)
  
• 6 LRM5 = 12 Tons, 2 LRM15 = 14 Tons
  
• Screen Rattle from 6 LRM5 chain fired is super annoying

Having actually tried the LRM5 boat on my SHD, I have to agree with this. If you have enough hardpoints to make it worth it, the LRM5 is very good for this type of boat. Anything larger, though, and you just don't have enough hardpoints compared to tonnage, and if you have to start equipping LRM10+, you really should take Artemis, which drastically reduces the effectiveness of the LRM5 due to the extra weight/slots (and doesn't benefit the spread from what I have read).

[Artgathan]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

I still hunt the 6 LRM 5 Mechs with plenty of success in my Atlases. I don' rattle easily and My AMS reduce 5s to powder puffs.

I didn't mean to suggest that either LRM setup actually made LRMs useful - simply that one is more effective than the other. The LRM5 can also be linked to group fire so that they can get a few rounds past AMS, without tempting the Ghost Heat gods.

[Joseph Mallan]

Artgathan, on 12 November 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I didn't mean to suggest that either LRM setup actually made LRMs useful - simply that one is more effective than the other. The LRM5 can also be linked to group fire so that they can get a few rounds past AMS, without tempting the Ghost Heat gods.

The Ghost Heat gods need to die as all false deities eventually do. I recognize the perk of LRM5s over larger racks, it is why I go after them. You aren't competitive if you don't try to beat the FotM/Meta with what you like to drive!

[Bobdolemite]

Otto Cannon, on 11 November 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Break LOS, move for 4 seconds- tadaaa! You've avoided the missiles!

It's not that hard.

^+1

I am always surprised in a 60 kph atlas or Stalker when I can break the lock and move away before any missiles hit me (700-1000 meters)

I realized how easy it can really be on the 10th when I was able to break locks and dodge 60 LRM salvos in a legged catapult (48 kph) . If your moving in and out of cover paying even a medium amount of attention you can easily negate 80-90% of LRM fire with cover / ams on most maps.

Only time people get into trouble is if they are pinned down, or attempting to cross open terrain (which will draw more than just LRM fire most of the time)

Ghogiel, on 11 November 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

ALRM 60 with tag will basically 2 shot everything under 75tons.

This is true...... in the testing grounds where mechs dont ever move. When you see the missile warning scramble for good cover and you will very rarely if never have a problem. Hell some maps have enclosed areas / bridges / gullies in which you can completely ignore LRM fire.

LRM's effectiveness are extremely situational, IF they have: Advanced Sensor Range + Advanced Lock + Artemis + Spotter + No Enemy ECM cover then yes they can actually pose a threat. The threat being area of denial, forcing your team to switch tactics or face oblivion trying to cross open territory full-well knowing an LRM boat is out there (not smart). If however you have at least 1 ECM you can negate all of that simply by sticking within the "bubble"

And the above is only true of boats sending the dreaded LRM5 stream or traditional salvos of 45 or larger. LRM's as a side-weapon (single 10-20) are utter garbage, you'd be better off with heatsinks or streaks to use that space. (Edit) I guess the fact I dont have luck with it doesnt make it "utter" garbage heh (edit)

I tend to agree that if LRM's are to be correctly billed as long range, they should get at least a speed buff, if not a range buff as well. 1000 meters is not "long range" IMO half the weapons I equip reach out to that range with MUCH higher efficiency. If anything LRM's are really MRM's (the word not the canonical function)

Dodging missiles at or near 1000 meters is a joke, you could sneeze yourself out of the way.

Edited by Bobdolemite, 12 November 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[Ngamok]

Ghogiel, on 11 November 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

Works if you change the CPLT to a 733C too.

Works if you headshot the Catapult as well.

Victor Morson, on 12 November 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Except it will also burn itself out from ghost heat, be easily thwarted by AMS and also that is impossible unless you are shooting at stationary light mechs.



Realistically they are still underpowered, largely due to the AMS bubble where AMS will assist allies. It's a huge shut down in any serious games.

So yesterday I was pugging it and was on Alpine. There was a mech shooting 2xLRm10s down at a group of 4 mechs on my team. I was like, AMS got this. But then realised than none of those guys had AMS. So they ate a few LRMs.

Edit: @Bobdolemite I use 1 or 2 LRM15s on 2 of my 4 Highlanders and on one of my Orions. granted they aren't as effective as putting something else there. But if you have multiple people doing it, those add up. Also, helps LRM boats with an extra launcher for stuff in the open. It just softens them up a bit or I get the lucky hit as I am moving in when other peopel are engaged and finish them off. Also helps with some screen shake to who they are shooting at.

Edited by Ngamok, 12 November 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Taemien]

akpavker, on 11 November 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

you forgot to add in the 5d spider spotting for the lrm boat

2v1 means you die, period(well not all vets lose to 2v1s, but obviously you do with that statement). If they have a buddy, where's yours?

[ColonelMetus]

like i said, the problem isnt lrms, its lrm "flooding" and the flooders are going to ruin lrms for all us people that just like to take 1 launcher and call it a day

[ColonelMetus]

like i said, the problem isnt lrms, its lrm "flooding" and the flooders are going to ruin lrms for all us people that just like to take 1 launcher and call it a day

[Metalsand]

I completely agree, LRM's would be fine if it forced you to go into cover...the problem is that 75% of the cover in maps is too shallow to block even half of the LRM's that come at you. The angle is just ridiculously steep for LRM's, they should go at a shallower angle such as even 45 degrees instead of 15 or 30. Otherwise, they are worse than artillery since you don't have to aim, and worse than any gauss sniper could be pre-patch because they don't have to aim, and they don't have to go around buildings to shoot you unless the building is a skyscraper, or you hide behind a mountain or bridge.

Otto Cannon, on 11 November 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Break LOS, move for 4 seconds- tadaaa! You've avoided the missiles!

It's not that hard.

Except most map cover it can go over the missiles. 75% of map cover is useless when being hit by LRMs, not to mention if you get hit by a NARC, it won't matter if you get out of LOS.

[Cimarb]

It hasn't stopped the AC "flooding" that has been going on for months, so I doubt LRMs have anything to worry about. LRMs aren't broke or OP by any means - if anything, they will get buffed next.

[Cimarb]

Metalsand, on 13 November 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

I completely agree, LRM's would be fine if it forced you to go into cover...the problem is that 75% of the cover in maps is too shallow to block even half of the LRM's that come at you. The angle is just ridiculously steep for LRM's, they should go at a shallower angle such as even 45 degrees instead of 15 or 30. Otherwise, they are worse than artillery since you don't have to aim, and worse than any gauss sniper could be pre-patch because they don't have to aim, and they don't have to go around buildings to shoot you unless the building is a skyscraper, or you hide behind a mountain or bridge.

Except most map cover it can go over the missiles. 75% of map cover is useless when being hit by LRMs, not to mention if you get hit by a NARC, it won't matter if you get out of LOS.

You must never use LRMs, or understand how they work, or both. To avoid LRMs, you have to move enough to break line of sight, then move a little more to avoid their path after they lose tracking. The missiles are still going to land (less than 1000 meters, of course), but they stop following you once the lock is broken. If you just duck out of line of sight (LOS) and stop, you can't expect the missiles to avoid falling on your stationary mech just because they lost tracking. If you pay attention to the missiles, they actually curve up near the end of their path, so dodging to the left/right is always better than backing up, also. Not sure why I am giving you pointers on avoiding something I enjoy using, but I'm just that type of guy I guess...

[MadcatX]

Metalsand, on 13 November 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

I completely agree, LRM's would be fine if it forced you to go into cover...the problem is that 75% of the cover in maps is too shallow to block even half of the LRM's that come at you. The angle is just ridiculously steep for LRM's, they should go at a shallower angle such as even 45 degrees instead of 15 or 30. Otherwise, they are worse than artillery since you don't have to aim, and worse than any gauss sniper could be pre-patch because they don't have to aim, and they don't have to go around buildings to shoot you unless the building is a skyscraper, or you hide behind a mountain or bridge.


Except most map cover it can go over the missiles. 75% of map cover is useless when being hit by LRMs, not to mention if you get hit by a NARC, it won't matter if you get out of LOS.

I'm sorry but your really coming at this from the "takes no skill" reasoning for nerfing the weapon as well as what has always been an issue with all weapons in the game: boating.

An LRM boat will usually not be able to outright kill an even semi-skilled player.

There is plenty of cover in the game, and battlefield awareness of knowing where to go, both as the receiver of LRM's to avoid them using terrain as well as the giver of LRM's to use terrain to provide cover from possible return fire from snipers,etc. while you sit there and maintain lock.

[Murphy7]

Blurry, on 12 November 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

The only time u get it is if you are stuck in a corner and 2 boats lock on and cant move.

LRMs like to find me when my mech's feet find a new insurmountable pebble or bit of municipal plumbing in the environment.

[Otto Cannon]

Metalsand, on 13 November 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

I completely agree, LRM's would be fine if it forced you to go into cover...the problem is that 75% of the cover in maps is too shallow to block even half of the LRM's that come at you. The angle is just ridiculously steep for LRM's, they should go at a shallower angle such as even 45 degrees instead of 15 or 30. Otherwise, they are worse than artillery since you don't have to aim, and worse than any gauss sniper could be pre-patch because they don't have to aim, and they don't have to go around buildings to shoot you unless the building is a skyscraper, or you hide behind a mountain or bridge.


Except most map cover it can go over the missiles. 75% of map cover is useless when being hit by LRMs, not to mention if you get hit by a NARC, it won't matter if you get out of LOS.

But that's my whole point- you don't need to physically block them, just break LOS for 4 seconds and they stop tracking you and miss whether you're in cover or not. Nobody uses narc and UAVs are not only very expensive but mean you avoided the artillery strike they could have used instead.