474 replies to this topic

[Junkman7mgte]

Not going to get into the fray here, as It's all been said, and argued to death it looks like. That said, Last week I had the " opportunity " to spectate Vic in his Shawk. I honestly laughed when I first saw the build, thinking, that looks like a build I might run. Even so, I originally looked at it as a joke/fun build .... until ..... I watched him destroy 3+ mech's with it. Whether you agree or disagree with Vic, his methods work, and they work well. In closing ... I have zero affiliation with him, or any group for that matter, at this time. The only time I " group " is when my son decides to play at the same time I am, and those are very "interesting" times, lol.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Junkman7mgte, on 11 December 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Whether you agree or disagree with Vic, his methods work, and they work well.

We are not saying his methods do not work:
We are saying there are alternatives where Vic says there are none.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

We are not saying his methods do not work:
We are saying there are alternatives where Vic says there are none.

Well, there are inferior alternatives.

But I can demonstrably point out how much goes wrong when you go one step off the path with LRMs, because LRMs struggle to even have a place in the game otherwise.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

-----------------------

And people have repeatedly shown you wrong (in the sense of there is only one way to play) in the one place science actually cares about: ACTUAL PRACTICE
Actual, functioning, IN MATCH, practice.

Edit:
For the record people?
He dislikes any result from a pug match: the one place you can guarantee the new players are going to be operating, on account of "anything can happen there".

Edited by Shar Wolf, 11 December 2013 - 05:38 PM.

[Victor Morson]

I just posted a video of it in practice, so what?

Also yes, the end score screens don't mean jack in pug games. There's too many people that just stand around oblivious that inflate damage numbers, and too big of odds stacked against you if you have a bad team. A spider on the winning team with the worst config ever can pull more damage than a Highlander with some luck.

Multiply this if you include premades into the factor, for or against you.

So yeah, screenshots aren't worth anything in judging 'mechs or tactics. At all.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

I just posted a video of it in practice, so what?

And there you have it:
Vic holds a double standard:
HIS videos are proof, whereas anyone else's videos are cherry picked and thus meaningless.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Tesunie, on 10 December 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Basically, Nick worded it well:

"A pure LRM boat outside of a 4/12 man is suicide, so no argument there. "

All I'm saying, especially to new players, would be to pack a few close range weapons if you can, at least till you become more familiar with LRMs in general and how the game plays.

Why thank you.

An expert can make just about any build work, *cough*Koniving*cough*, but for us mere mortals running a pure boat can be dangerous, especially one that is helpless in a common situation. It's not like you will never be in brawling range and running just PPCs or LRMs means you are going to have a bad day.....

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 11 December 2013 - 06:11 PM.

[Junkman7mgte]

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

We are not saying his methods do not work:
We are saying there are alternatives where Vic says there are none.

And, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am saying I got to see his methods work, and very well at that. On that note, I don't use all he "requires" and .... it shows. If anything, this thread has made me at least - think - about changing the loadouts, and the way I do things. Will I follow all of Vic's advice ... Nope. Do I believe he is absolutely correct ... Nope. I don't believe anyone here is totally correct. That said, you all are more hard headed than the guys I deal with on car forums, where I -- AM - the guru, and very seldom wrong .... think about that last bit if you will

[Alaskan Nobody]

Junkman7mgte, on 11 December 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

And, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am saying I got to see his methods work, and very well at that. On that note, I don't use all he "requires" and .... it shows. If anything, this thread has made me at least - think - about changing the loadouts, and the way I do things. Will I follow all of Vic's advice ... Nope. Do I believe he is absolutely correct ... Nope. I don't believe anyone here is totally correct. That said, you all are more hard headed than the guys I deal with on car forums, where I -- AM - the guru, and very seldom wrong .... think about that last bit if you will

Problem I have is: Vic treats it as there is only the one way to play - and that there are no exception to that.
You might not be saying anyone is right or wrong, but VIC IS.

My first post in this thread was posting almost entirely in agreement with him - but pointing out exceptions to the rules he set.
His response: NO EXCEPTIONS POSSIBLE FOR I AM GOD.

And I am sorry, but that is wrong.

Am I bullheaded?
Yes - quite frequently - but you have yet to see me tell someone their build is a terrible build, because it did not fit my understanding of the meta.
That is the sum of the bulk of Vics posts here.
Your build is terrible, because it does not fit his rules, or his play style.

[Junkman7mgte]

Shar ... first off, nothin' but love I do agree, Vic is wrong in his - My way or the Highway - mentality. But, he - is - trying to help, and better the community with his input. I personally, understand that passion, as I'm that way about the cars I play with. I also agree with you, he needs to take a step back, and realize that people have different playstyles, and things work differently for each individual. I also believe that all of those arguing with Vic, need to take that same - step back - and consider what he is saying. Vic seems to be after the - ultimate - build"s" in my opinion. That is neither good or bad. The issue is, IMO, are you a competitive " Meta " MechWarrior, or someone who is here for fun, and a bit of completion added in, or someone who that isn't quite there yet, but want to be a " Meta " MechWarrior, or even something in the - middle - . Personally, I'll never be a - competitive - player, as far as being in the top 10-20% even. You want competition with me, bring it to the track But, I look at all options, and read these forums for ideas, and as a way to get to know the people and the mechs just a bit more. End of the day --- you are all right, yet you are all wrong ..... We are here to have fun, first and foremost, anything above and beyond that, is just icing on the cake.

[Kjudoon]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

They're.... >snip<

TL:DR Arrogance filter kicked in. Listen. You have your way of running an LRM boat, but I just spent a match violating pretty much all your rules, killing 5 mechs and getting over 600 damage. I doubt highly even in your metaboats you don't average that either. So you can keep your 'commandments' and your hyper competative meta builds. I'll be in a mech I have fun running horrible horrible things to the enemy and enjoying myself.

Edited by Kjudoon, 11 December 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kjudoon, on 11 December 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

TL:DR Arrogance filter kicked in. Listen. You have your way of running an LRM boat, but I just spent a match violating pretty much all your rules, killing 5 mechs and getting over 600 damage. I doubt highly even in your metaboats you don't average that either. So you can keep your 'commandments' and your hyper competative meta builds. I'll be in a mech I have fun running horrible horrible things to the enemy and enjoying myself.

Except 600+ damage is the average on a proper LRM skirmisher, without the downsides.

I am saying there's no other way to run LRMs effectively not because it's my personal preference, but because there really isn't an effective way to run LRMs outside of this.

For the "hyper competitive" groups, for the record, many would call me crazy for even trying to shoehorn LRMs into a niche at all. Most have just abandon them entirely.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 December 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Except 600+ damage is the average on a proper LRM skirmisher, without the downsides.

I am saying there's no other way to run LRMs effectively not because it's my personal preference, but because there really isn't an effective way to run LRMs outside of this.

For the "hyper competitive" groups, for the record, many would call me crazy for even trying to shoehorn LRMs into a niche at all. Most have just abandon them entirely.

And so self immolates the reason and your assumed claim as an authority for the [LRM Opinions] thread.

/thread.

Edited by Kjudoon, 11 December 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Junkman7mgte, on 11 December 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Shar ... first off, nothin' but love I do agree, Vic is wrong in his - My way or the Highway - mentality. But, he - is - trying to help, and better the community with his input. I personally, understand that passion, as I'm that way about the cars I play with. I also agree with you, he needs to take a step back, and realize that people have different playstyles, and things work differently for each individual. I also believe that all of those arguing with Vic, need to take that same - step back - and consider what he is saying. Vic seems to be after the - ultimate - build"s" in my opinion. That is neither good or bad. The issue is, IMO, are you a competitive " Meta " MechWarrior, or someone who is here for fun, and a bit of completion added in, or someone who that isn't quite there yet, but want to be a " Meta " MechWarrior, or even something in the - middle - . Personally, I'll never be a - competitive - player, as far as being in the top 10-20% even. You want competition with me, bring it to the track But, I look at all options, and read these forums for ideas, and as a way to get to know the people and the mechs just a bit more. End of the day --- you are all right, yet you are all wrong ..... We are here to have fun, first and foremost, anything above and beyond that, is just icing on the cake.

If you haven't noticed, its not that all of us are disagreeing with his statement in pieces, but as a whole and unalterable item, that is where people are differing. The worst part is when he tries to chew out someone who my be disagreeing with his opinion, but respecting it and saying that it is his opinion and not a bad opinion at that, just not the way one likes to play. Or when he shoves facts in but doesn't listen to what the other peoples facts also state. For an example, he tries to yell at me, because I said I disagree with most of what he says but it is still helpful, and stated that last I had known was that Tag provided no improvements to artimis missiles with the only exception of cutting through ECM. Now if I am wrong in this fact, then I would like to know it, and maybe it would be nice if someone would send me a link leading me to the info that would correct me (a much nicer response then telling me I'm just wrong with no links or any facts, just that I'm wrong).

Second seeing as this is in the new players forum, I would imagine it being aimed at new players, and an all LRM mech in the hands of a newbie is never a good sight. For NEW players, I would ALWAYS recommend some good medium lasers, as you can sweep them and still hit, considering that the accuracy of new players tend to be horrible, and the light mechs are the hardest to hit. As also sated, was to use the medium lasers to sweep the legs on lights, as that is the most effective means of scaring off a light is by breaching the armor on their legs.

Third, is my problem with him saying that everyone who disagrees with him must obviously be piloting a sub par mech, but yet he doesn't even know what mech I pilot, how well I pilot it, or even what its set up is. I tend to have a problem when someone thinks they are better then someone else without even knowing who or how good they really are.

The fourth thing would be BAP. Is it good? yes. is it great? not the greatest... It depends on the situation at the time, how good your opponent is (assuming ECM is involved) and how good your team is (if they will now target and shoot at the now disabled ecm mech). Other then cutting through ECM at close range, and assuming its not the target, with an LRM boat, it will provide no further benefit to the LRM's target lock mechanics.

Now as a side note. I have used all the gear he has talked about and only state my opinion of them, not to bash against his head and make him admit he is wrong, but to inform any other 'NEW' players (seeing as it is in the new players forum...) of other possible routes to take that might work better for them till they get the hang of the game. His reaction is out of place in this thread, and he should learn to respect other people's opinions on the matter and leave it at that, as opposed to "dissecting" other peoples posts (including mine that stated my opinion only) I just want this stupid argument to stop (for the sake of my sanity and the new players.... but mostly my sanity as Tesunie keeps reading this more then playing the game....)

(Edited for clarity as censorship garbled non sensitive language.)

Edited by Nathan Bloodguard, 11 December 2013 - 08:11 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kjudoon, on 11 December 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

And so self immolates the reason and your assumed claim as an authority for the [LRM Opinions] thread.

Because I haven't given up on LRMs since closed beta and am not blind to their downsides and weaknesses, I'm not qualified to talk LRMs? What?

Nathan Bloodguard, on 11 December 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Third, is my problem with him saying that everyone who disagrees with him must obviously be piloting a sub par mech, but yet he doesn't even know what mech I pilot, how well I pilot it, or even what its set up is. I tend to have a problem when someone thinks they are better then someone else without even knowing who or how good they really are.

Quick facts:

• Not running TAG makes your LRM mech bad.
  
• Not running BAP makes your LRM mech bad.
  
• Not running Artemis makes your LRM mech bad.

Again, facts. LRMs are horrendous weapons without every single buff you can stack onto them, bringing them up to "useful niche" at best.

Nathan Bloodguard, on 11 December 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Now as a side note. I have used all the gear he has talked about and only state my opinion of them, not to bash against his head and make him admit he is wrong, but to inform any other 'NEW' players

Again, my mission statement is to give newbies uncensored knowledge for how to absolutely maximize their damage done and usefulness to their team.

If you are looking for running sub-par equipment or builds because they're "more fun," this guide isn't for you. That's all.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Because I haven't given up on LRMs since closed beta and am not blind to their downsides and weaknesses, I'm not qualified to talk LRMs? What?



Quick facts:

• Not running TAG makes your LRM mech bad.
  
• Not running BAP makes your LRM mech bad.
  
• Not running Artemis makes your LRM mech bad.

Again, facts. LRMs are horrendous weapons without every single buff you can stack onto them, bringing them up to "useful niche" at best.





Again, my mission statement is to give newbies uncensored knowledge for how to absolutely maximize their damage done and usefulness to their team.

If you are looking for running sub-par equipment or builds because they're "more fun," this guide isn't for you. That's all.

Yet again, you don't know what mech I pilot, or it's set up. You assume to know what I pilot, and how effective it is. And you really should finish the sentence as opposed to take it out of context, as your advise is (YET AGAIN) not bad advise, but I still would say that new players should not just boat LRMs, but have some defensive weapons on them, preferably medium or large lasers, until they have a better grasp at the game, and until they improve the likely low accuracy of the raw recruit.

Quote

Now as a side note. I have used all the gear he has talked about and only state my opinion of them, not to bash against his head and make him admit he is wrong, but to inform any other 'NEW' players (seeing as it is in the new players forum...) of other possible routes to take that might work better for them till they get the hang of the game.

The above is the FULL sentence from your quote from my post. And yet again I will stress that you are not wrong, nor are you right. It is an opinion you have, which in some points differ from mine. Till you understand that everyone is only stating there opinions (in most cases at least) and that none of these opinions are wrong, but their own personal belief, you will continue to get the same reaction from people... So my advise, would be to state your opinion, if possible with facts to back it up, and maybe even a link or two to explain the equipment in better detail and its interactions with one another, and then let the matter rest.

Edit:(PS: if your mission goal is to bring uncensored knowledge for how to absolutely maximize their damage done and usefulness to their team, then please stop trying to censor everyone else out of the thread.)

Edited by Nathan Bloodguard, 11 December 2013 - 08:58 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Example: While the Catapult has both superior missile tube counts and significantly more missile points accompanied with all missile carrying variants being jump capable, people may prefer the Thunderbolt because use of the arm crosshairs allows for side-ways locks and high speed locks as well as superior control over dumbfired missile spam against ECM units. There is also the smaller hitbox. But at the same time someone will prefer the Catapult due to the significantly higher missile tube counts, superior torso twist, and 10% protection on each arm when the doors are closed. There's also the Catapult's difficult to kill nature (assuming someone doesn't shoot the glass).

Catapults are bad at LRM boating. Both 'mechs can effectively infight with SRMs about the same. Really we're talking the difference between "lackluster" and "meh" here. I won't argue they both can do SRMs as well.

The only Catapult that is worth getting is the K2.

Point: Both win the "Mediocre chassis" award.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Example: A Battlemaster generally carries superior weaponry and has better agility compared to a Stalker. It also has a better view and quite exceptional arm range. When compared however the Battlemaster loses its arms considerably faster even when both it and the Stalker simply standing still under direct fire due to the Stalker's +10 protection to its missile-door arms when the doors are closed. The huge side torsos covering much of the center on the stalker provide a 50% damage reduction when the sides are blown off, where the Battlemaster's sides are nearly useless after being blown off. And sure the Stalker is clumsy, slow to stop, slow to turn, can't twist for {Scrap}, can't mount a ballistic (unless you're spreading Misery), and runs hot as heck... one thing is for sure you can take more abuse in a Stalker despite having identical armor to a Battlemaster.

You make the huge mistake of thinking anyone would run the arms on a Battlemaster, when running with a Stalker design. They'd strip them and slap all the guns in the torso.

Ghost Heat keeps the BattleMaster from being better than OK, but it's a decent pugging mech. There's definitely worse options out there. Same with the Stalker, really. I've seen arguments for or against both with most people leaning stalker.

Point: And the runners up to the Mediocre Chassis Award goes to...

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Problem is there are some who will tell you not to run a mech, weapon or build for this reason or that. They're entitled to their opinions, so long as they remember everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's offensive when it is presented as undeniable fact.

I need to start adding a disclaimer to every sentence. When I say "Never run X" I mean "Never run X if you are trying your best to win." If you don't care about winning then sure, you can do whatever.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

One amusing example is that a Locust is more powerful than a Commando because a Locust can mount an AC/10. ...Sure, in that instance but it's one of thousands of instances and thus it's simply an opinion.

Oh my Go-- hahahahahhahahahahaha.

The Locust is better than anything because of the model with an AC/10??

You do realize even if you only carry 2 tons of ammo, you can't even max the armor on something that doesn't have enough armor to survive a single heavy hit?

This right here is why I say you should stop giving advice as serious. As a gimmick joke, sure, but "more powerful?" A Commando sucks even and I'm not putting the "Paper cannon that will explode when brushed with a gentle breeze of small lasers" in the "more powerful" category than anything.

My God man. if you really think that's viable, there is no debate to be had.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

While mentioned earlier about Victor's track record (no offense), I believe that my statement should apply to everyone who gives advice from the so called top tiers (not just Victor there's at least 4 of you I can think of) to the casuals to the insane (I'm over here).

No argument from me. You think AC/10 Locusts are viable.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

It is very imperative to keep our information up to date if we wish to continue to advise others, and equally so we must remember that our word is not the final word.

Games are meant to be played, not dictated from the background.

Everyone has free will to ignore this advice. If they want access to the best information, they won't.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

On random but fun notes to lighten the mood: The Shadowhawk is larger (both in frame and in height) than the Kintaro. The Kintaro is just barely taller than a Centurion, unless you count the Centurion's head-fin in which case the Centurion is taller. Kintaro is also narrower. Shadowhawk and Centurion share arm sizes where a Kintaro shares its arm size with the Trebuchet.

A Centurion is the same size vertically as a Dragon and shares identical animations. The Quickdraw shares animations too, with the modification of squatting more. The head and 'bent' legs are what makes the Quickdraw larger than the Dragon, but side by side the two are vertically identical when stationary (in the Quickdraw's 'squattest' position).

And this one I thought was cute. An Awesome is slightly skinnier (in terms of shoulder to shoulder width) than a Battlemaster and much shorter. Do we change the phrase now? "I can't hit the broad side of an Awesome a Battlemaster!"

A unique note: The Shadowhawk is the only jump-jetting mech that does a 'leg tuck' when falling after leaping. This reduces its vertical size in half as it falls.

Here is a man who does not understand the hitboxes at all.

Shar Wolf, on 11 December 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

But in that case my Raven 4x is better than a Raven 3-L because I could knock down Atlases with a jump-jet drop kick and then shoot them in the skull with an AC/20 and 3 mediums back in closed beta for an instant kill. Information's old now, but if people don't update their beliefs they will continue to preach outdated info.

And Awesomes with 4 SRM6s were great in closed beta too.

As a side note, what you just described didn't ever really work anyway. The Raven 4X has been {Scrap} since day 1.

[Victor Morson]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 11 December 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Yet again, you don't know what mech I pilot, or it's set up. You assume to know what I pilot, and how effective it is. And you really should finish the sentence as opposed to take it out of context, as your advise is (YET AGAIN) not bad advise, but I still would say that new players should not just boat LRMs, but have some defensive weapons on them, preferably medium or large lasers, until they have a better grasp at the game, and until they improve the likely low accuracy of the raw recruit.

Honestly my advice is that new players - brand new players - don't touch LRMs at all. Stick with simple, direct fire weaponry until you've gotten the hang of the game.

If you want to branch out to LRMs, you do so in a package that makes them effective, at which point this guide is here for new users to LRMs exclusively.

Nathan Bloodguard, on 11 December 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

The above is the FULL sentence from your quote from my post. And yet again I will stress that you are not wrong, nor are you right. It is an opinion you have, which in some points differ from mine. Till you understand that everyone is only stating there opinions (in most cases at least) and that none of these opinions are wrong, but their own personal belief, you will continue to get the same reaction from people... So my advise, would be to state your opinion, if possible with facts to back it up, and maybe even a link or two to explain the equipment in better detail and its interactions with one another, and then let the matter rest.

I cannot state objective fact as opinion. I've posted the advantages of a TAG and why, for example, you should never be without one. If someone doesn't listen to that, they are making a mistake, but it's theirs to make.

I am here to offer information, not force you to drive my builds.

Nathan Bloodguard, on 11 December 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Edit:(PS: if your mission goal is to bring uncensored knowledge for how to absolutely maximize their damage done and usefulness to their team, then please stop trying to censor everyone else out of the thread.)

I am only censoring disagreeing with incorrect information. Such as claims that one can drive an effective LRM boat without TAG. Because you can't.

No matter how good you are or how much you think your build is great, bottom line is a non-Artemis, non-TAG assault will be a waste of a player on your team. It's just how it works out.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 December 2013 - 09:01 PM.

[Tesunie]

Due in part to my computer somehow losing all paragraphs for all quote, and some of this being covered by other people, I shall "pick and choose" what I'm responding too. Otherwise, well... it will be long and unneeded...

Warning! Large post coming ahead!

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

This build is awful. Anyone will tell you this build is awful. It's terrible at several things instead of being good at one.

You say you don't need BAP. You do.
You say you don't need TAG. You do.
You say you don't need Artemis. You do.
Without them the damage is terrible, unfocused, and worthless when it hits. Period. End of story.
It's just the way it works, I didn't make the rules. I too encourage new players to make their own minds up.

The advantage to direct fire LRMs is that it's sustained damage.

An LRM skirmisher in the rear of the main group just unloading LRMs is a huge pain, in particular when people attempting to evade can still be hit outside of LOS.
Hence the main reason indirect fire is worthwhile is for when you lose LOS and shots are still in the air. If they weren't so terrible at it.. it's really just bonus damage.

Notably if you have LOS + TAG on someone and lose that LOS, you still get the grouping bonus as it takes a while to undo. (The missiles change focus at 4 key points in the arc.)

Again, it's about sustained damage. Also all the points you are making is why you never see LRMs in competitive play at all. Honestly I'm an oddball and going against the grain by even working with LRMs,...

And in a fast medium LRM boat you can maintain range on both Stalkers and absolutely obliterate them. Esp. a medium laser assault that can in no way catch up.

TAG boosts tracking strength and grouping and 100% stacks with Artemis. I don't know where you are getting that. NARC is what doesn't stack. NARC is also pure garbage and why it's not on this list.

Have you tried it? I'm not about to say it's the greatest build in the game, but it is a 20 ton locust. What do you expect? However, I have had people who heard about my build that ended up playing with me (a PUG match believe it or not), comment on how effective it was for the type of mech it is. They ended up dieing and was spectating me when the discussion came up. They started with "What is this! Slow light there..." and by the end of things, they thought it was being fairly good even for being a slow light. Sometimes, it isn't how it's set up as much as it is how you play it. (In this case, use all LRM ammo if possible, then engage with SRMs.)

I say BAP isn't always needed. It can be helpful, but I find that, by the time it shuts down my LRMs, I'm in trouble. Even if BAP brings my LRMs back on line, I'd still rather try to scare of kill the ECM mech, rather than just stare off into the distance and continue shooting LRMs, hoping beyond hope that a PUG teammate might notice my plight and come save me (as it normally doesn't happen even when I'm shouting in team chat, with location, and even walk in front of said allies even). I'd personally rather try to take a leg or kill them with some laser fire if I can. If I can survive, then I can continue to do more damage later in the match. An extra salvo of LRMs in the air isn't going to do me nor the team overly too much more good. (Also, back up lasers can give you something to do when you run out of ammo, meaning you remain helpful to the team.) BAP is a choice, and it can come with good recommendations. I just personally don't recommend it, not even to extend radar range, as 800m is as far as I'd risk shooting most LRMs. Outside 800m, you are more likely to miss, wasting your ammo.

TAG is very handy. It can punch through ECM. It can help with tracking, spread and lock on time. However, espesually if you have Artemis, it will only boost tracking by 25% instead of 50% (if 50% is even right, a little rusty with the exact numbers), doesn't improve spread any farther than what Artemis already does, and it doesn't increase lock on time any farther than Artemis already does. So, most of the functions of TAG are nulled out by Artemis, but it still retains most of it's more effective abilities, such as punching through ECM. As a side note, even with TAG on an ECM covered mech, lock on time is still going to take you a while, as ECM is not removed from the concept completely, but TAG lets you be able to get a lock on. From there, the delay in lock on from ECM is still in play. (Don't know if I'm wording this in an easy to understand way...)

Artemis is good for increasing lock on speed, spread, tracking, etc. However, bug aside, it's only suppose to do this for direct line of fire. Indirect is "suppose" to gain no benefits from Artemis, but it still does and is a known fact. Beyond that, there is also the problem of an extra ton and crit slot per launcher. This makes it a tough choice sometimes depending upon the mech and launcher size. If you are doing a bunch of LRM5s, you are going to sink a lot of weight into the LRM5s now. Not to mention, LRM5s already have fairly good cluster/spread. It can also make for harder choices for some mech, such as the Jenner and Dragon for it's CT (2 open crits) missile slots. This means either two LRM5s (which their small cluster anyway), one LRM10 (which weights an extra ton over the two LRM5s), or one Artemis LRM5. It also can take away a missile hard point in the Shadowhawk, as the head Missile Slot can only fit a single LRM5 with no Artemis. (Not touching SRM options here.)
As I said, it is a choice on this one. Not mandatory. There are times and loadouts that Artemis would be a hazard and not a help. Sometimes Artemis can be the difference between 10-20 extra tubes shooting, more ammo, or even those back up weapons I keep talking about.

One strategy of LRMs is actually to have the unfocused LRMs. It can aid in taking out weaker side torso sometimes in XL equipped mechs, making them easier pray for your defensive, more precise weapons, or an allies weapons. It can help take off arms or even legs sometimes, making a mech less threatening by removing weapons or speed even. Or, enough spread LRM damage might even take out the side torso all on it's own. Different situations, different tactics.

An LRM mech, unless it's really fast or has an escort, should not be behind enemy lines alone. This is not to say one can not do it and be effective, I'm just saying there is a lot of risk involved. Once more though, this might be a "it's how it's played, not how it's loadout looks". Some mechs will work better in some people's hands and not others.

As for Grouping Bonus (man I wish I could find that thread), TAG and Artemis does not increase the grouping farther. It will increase tracking speed only as far as I know. There is a thread somewhere around here that explains that, but heaven help me if the search can ever find it...

If LRMs are "so bad", then why are you even making a guide in the "newbie" forums (wrong forum anyway) advising new players to even use them? Shouldn't you be more interested in trying to get them into "more effective competitive builds"? I'm a little lost on the contradiction here. However, I don't disagree with trying to advise new players on ways to play every weapon system, so I'm not having a problem there.

That "med laser Assault" doesn't have "just med lasers". What do you think I did with the rest of that 85 ton mech? Heatsinks? A good mix of LRMs and med lasers can be very complimentary. You can use your LRM skirmisher, and I'll LRM right back, moving into cover if I'm good/lucky, and if you do make a mistake and get close, I can melt your rear if I need to as well. With the speed of the Stalker, I need the lasers as much as I do the LRMs, as people will be able to get close to me, so I best be able to defend myself. And seen as 6 med lasers properly focused into any mech, even an Atlas, will do considerable damage... (and I can only hope they will stay in that nice 300m range, so I can use all weapons on them at once...)

As the expression goes, there is more than one way to fry a fish.

(PS: Your quotes are wrong and are giving credit to the wrong person...)

OneEyed Jack, on 11 December 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

See Tesunie? This is what happens.

I can agree with some of his points, and disagree with others. Some of it is personal preference. Like, 700m range is long range for LRMs. I'd personally prefer to keep someone between 300m-500m if I can, especially if I have back up weapons and direct line of sight...

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

This is why the rule includes being able to go around 90kph minimum.
The whole point to that rule is two fold:

• To be able to maintain range on slower units, keeping in your ideal firing range (and out of theirs)
  
• To be able to flee back to the largest concentration of friendlies for help.

A few medium lasers on a slow 'mech have never been able to "defend" against a light looking for blood.

One opinion is based on the reality of how things work in MW:O.
One opinion is based on the wishes of how things could have worked in MW:O.
They are not both valid.

1 ton and 1 hardpoint:

• 50% bonus to missile tracking strength
  
• Target lock takes 25% longer to decay
  
• Decreases missile lock on time by 50%
  
• Must be mounted on an energy Hardpoint
  
• Displays an icon (a small crosshair symbol) above the target's red triangle icon in HUD to display to team-mates that target is being lased.
  
• Effect lasts for 1 second after each laser "hit".
• Generates no heat, recommend using continuous fire.
• TAG completely nullifies ECM (One target only) if the beam is held on the target from beyond the ECM's range.
  
• TAG effect HUD Icon

All effects stack 100% with Artemis.
How can you people look at those advantages then with a straight face say how unnecessary it is? This literally makes the difference between terrible scattered slow locking LRMs and on-target, fast locking anti-ECM......

If an ECM spider is attacking you and you're in an assault, you really should let someone in a lighter 'mech deal with it while you continue to focus on a target further away. You're not one of those people that stops firing at an advancing Atlas because a Commando is bothering you, are you?

I believe and continue to believe in freedom of information for new players in games.

That can kick out a lot of mech options, and other mech options now have to place an almost "largest engine it can fit" into it, meaning a lot of weight is in your engine. This can be good. It can be bad. Depends upon the pilot and how they play. Don't know if now is the time I mention my 81 kph Locust, my ~50 kph Shadowhawk (20-30LRMs and AC20, can't recall specifics), my Stalker (any of them), some possible Quickdraw options...
I can agree with your reasoning, but it isn't the only way to play LRMs is all I'm pointing out. As far as using speed to flee back to friendlies... I'd just say you shouldn't be that far away from them to begin with (situation dependent). This could be argued either way to be honest.

To be honest, a few med lasers have won me the day more times than I can count. Other times, just being armed has made enemy lights run from me to find a better, easier, target. They can and do help, especially when one is out of ammo, or the enemy is too close and too fast for you to outrun anymore (or there is no where left to run even). It's even let me kill a few reckless lights that would have had me otherwise. Now, is the weight and hard point worth it over, say, a TAG and more ammo? I'd like to say so for me. Maybe not for you. For new players, I'd suggest the back up weapons to start with at least, and then if they find it doesn't save them, then maybe go pure LRMs. Let them gain experience in the game and learn how to keep enemies at an arms distance first...

And here, you are wrong. You are of one opinion, I am of another. Neither one is right. Neither one is wrong. You saying otherwise kinda makes you seem foolish. I am not saying you are wrong, I am only saying that there are other ways to play LRMs, and presenting these options. Both are very valid tactics, depending upon how one uses their mechs.

Let me correct these numbers as I understand them from a moderator thread I read, but can no longer find (sadly).
[*]50% bonus to missile tracking strength /25%
[*]Target lock takes 25% longer to decay /Only delay in lock is the couple of moments you retain TAG after it stopped hitting.
[*]Decreases missile lock on time by 50%
[*]Must be mounted on an energy Hardpoint / Which is the point, that could be a med laser if you need another one. Then again, it can still be helpful too, so it is a hard choice one must make.
[*]Displays an icon (a small crosshair symbol) above the target's red triangle icon in HUD to display to team-mates that target is being lased. /Which doesn't inform them of how stable that lock is, but besides that yes. It is very good for that. Will help other LRM mechs on your team help you out more (if they notice/react to it of course).
[*]Effect lasts for 1 second after each laser "hit". / This is the only "increase" to target lock decay that I know of.
[*]Generates no heat, recommend using continuous fire. /and can say "SHOOT ME, I'M OVER HERE" to the enemy team...
[*]TAG completely nullifies ECM (One target only) if the beam is held on the target from beyond the ECM's range. /Only partly true, as ECM still effects your lock on time, but you will not be able to get a lock on at least...
[*]TAG effect HUD Icon [/list] /Repeated from before? Either that, or I am lost.
All effects stack 100% with Artemis. Some/most effects stack with Artemis, not all.
(TAG + NARC = Same benefits of Artemis)

If an ECM Spider is shooting my rear out and trying to kill me, I will protect myself if I can.
If an Atlas is charging on my location, and I know that and can shoot him, he's a bigger threat than the Spider. I will either try to run away from said Atlas to reposition to a better location, while trying to kill the Spider, or I will blind fire (I'm actually fairly good at this) the Atlas anyway as he closes in. Are we talking DDC Atlas? Cause he probably has ECM anyway then... unto which I'll just use my defensive weapons anyway. I normally place enough close range weapons to make myself enough of a threat at least.

If you believe that so much, why are we (sources of information) always wrong? That isn't freedom of information. That's squelching information "you don't agree with". You've been treating this as "I am right, you are wrong" when its more of a difference of opinion and different ways to use the same weapon system.

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

Here's the whole problem with your underlying philosophy: You think "a few backup weapons" do anything. They don't. You are not going to bring down an angry light 'mech with a few medium lasers. You are not going to stop that medium from pushing you or even really dent it with them, either. They're nice bonus damage and on some 'mechs with lighter weapons, they're great. But with such a heavy weapon system they are simply depriving of it ammo and targeting gear. - ... long story short, is you basically thinking like the BattleTech fluff.

Quite often it describes "Adding a few lasers to discourage attack" and such, so I think a lot of people get it in their head that this is the way things should be. Problem is, it didn't work in TT either. That rear firing medium laser has never made me think twice about backstabbing someone in BattleTech, ever, ever, ever no matter what the fluff says. Same thing in MW:O. A few meds aren't going to stop what's coming anyway, so you're better off using that tonnage to improve what you can do well.

Second time you mentioned this before I can respond. I'd suggest you read above. However, you can damage that light mech before he kills you then. Make him more vulnerable for your teammates when they go to kill them later (and provide you with an assist bonus, good for new players). If you are good with those weapons, you can in fact kill a light mech with defensive weapons. Close combat weapons also permit you a bit of flexibility, which can mean closing into an LRM/PPC boat with no back up weapons, taking no damage, and killing them in return.

I'm not getting that from lore, though I do like lore and the novels (just getting into the TT game now). This is from personal experience in the game, when I ripped apart other LRM mechs personally in my own LRM mech, by getting "too close" and ripping them apart with no damage in return (or minimal damage). I could tell you tales, such as my Stalker vs another Stalker, LRM vs LRM designs. I won simply because I had 6 med lasers on my mech as well, and close the gap... That's just one example.

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Correction! It kicks out the Stalker, Atlas and Awesome. The BattleMaster can get close enough.

Not taking a TAG renders that 11 ton gun you are carrying the worth of a 4 ton gun.

So yeah. The problem, again, is with MW:O. This was not my tune at all in past MW games. Again, it has to do with how PGI implemented AMS and ECM as hard counters. Thus you need to make builds specifically around defeating those hard counters, or... well, you get countered!

So that makes three mechs in particular (what about the Highlander? I personally forgot about him). The Battlemaster gets "close enough"? I thought it was a hard 88 kph or don't do it? And is that an Assault with an XL engine? And you suggest your LRMs to always go with direct line of sight? Other direct line of sight weapons could wreck your side torso by concentrating their fire power there, killing you faster than you can kill them. It's a possibility. If they figure this out. Standard engine? Would take too much weight for your "heavy LRM launchers"...

So, TAG makes a gun useless? Do you realize the weight of these launchers? 2 tons for a LRM5, 5 tons for LRM10, 7 tons for LRM15, and 10 tons for LRM20. An AC20 is 14 tons. AN AC2 is 6 tons. LRMs weight less than ACs, but they do eat through more ammo. However, you can make a choice between ammo/shots and other weapons. Sometimes, depending upon your preferences and such, it might be better to have 1 ton less ammo (180 missiles) for a ton more of another weapon system. There are always gives and takes, and some people will prefer a different balance than you. It's called preference. Only way to find it is with experience.

I prevent the counter by bringing a few other weapons. This way, if ECM is too strong (AKA: A swarm of 2 or more ECM lights find you and shut you down, even with BAP), you can still do something and is not completely useless. It's called "not boating and making a build flexible". Not everyone agrees with it, and will boat to focus their build in only one direction. That is their choice, and if it works for them than good for them.

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

70 is too slow. 70 won't allow you to keep distance from an approaching medium for more than a few seconds; it won't let you back up at rates assaults move forwards, either.

You must play against very, very bad ELO pilots to never have lights running around the main body with ECM screwing our missiles left & right. This happens ALL the time, even in pugs.

It is absolutely a mandatory item. If you are relying on indirect, you are doing it wrong. The damage from indirect (in particular if it's fired indirect, and did not start LOS) is absolutely scattered to the wind. Even if you get respectable damage numbers, you're not doing real damage to the key areas.

TIf a Hunchback is pushing on me with an AC/20, you know how I deal with it? I jump backwards, spin in mid air, lock and fire until I land then repeat. Over and over. The Hunchback never can get into range provided I'm not in a corner and either eventually gives up or dies.

LRMs are the Skirmishers of the MWO battlefield...

In every other instance you can merely close in and crush them.

Are you really suggesting a MG with a ton of ammo over a BAP? I mean.. I just..

You do know the speed many assaults move "forwards" at, right? 88 kph isn't going to "out run them" backwards. It will delay it, which is your point. However, as a counter point, if you brought back up weapons... (can you see where this is going? Or do I have to explain it more in depth?)

And now the "Elo" gets brought up...

I do most of my damage indirect, but I do go for my own locks if I need to. I'm not afraid to run near the front lines if I have to. Telling us we are "going it wrong" is telling us "you are wrong and I am wrong, so shut up and take it". We aren't saying you are wrong, we are merely informing of other, alternative ways to use LRMs that can still be very effective. You'd be amazed what a "scattering" of damage from LRMs can do to help an ally in need. It can help open up weak armor, or even kill a mech. Sometimes with little to no risk to yourself too. (Which can be good, or bad, depending upon the team and how concentrated the enemy is.)

My 50 kph Shadowhawk would have fun with you trying to out run it. I have LRMs too, and enough to still give you worry. And I have jump as well, which can be timed to still mess up your LRMs. And I can be smart and use terrain as well. You can escape if you wish, but my Shadowhawk is good at range, or close up. Sit near 600m away, and you will feel an AC20 and LRMs at the same time. (To any tactic, there is always a counter.) Or I'll chase you down with my Spider/Locust/Jenner. I can out run you, possibly jump around and follow you, and dog you down while staying within your minimum range all day long. (To any tactic, there is always a counter.) Or you might kill me outside my effective range in my Dragon, avoiding most of my laser damage, and making my day miserable from your constant LRM damage I can't seem to stop. (To any tactic, there is always a counter.)

LRMs can be used in a skirmisher style, but it can also be used in a support role, or can be used as a "as I approach my target so I can do my better damage, opening holes as I go", or can be used as a "I determine the engagement range, rather I want to sit back and LRM, or close in and use my Med Lasers", or can be used as "direct line of sight damage bombardment", or can be used as a "I'm here to pester, harrass, keep your alarms going, so I can distract you away from the rest of my team, if not place you into a false sense of security so when my teams real LRMs start to come, you expect my small number and get really slammed!", or it can be used to...

Close in and crush them? Are we still talking about LRMs here, or using those "backup" weapons?

Sometimes, it might be. Build dependent and how one wishes to use that build...

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

First attempt to use overwolf to record MechWarrior: Online.

It at least showcases several LRM duels with heavier 'mechs in which they get pretty one-sidedly worked; it takes several at once to seriously damage my 'mech by comparison. The Jag that takes my worthless arm in exchange for his entire CT armor late into the video is a good example.

EDIT: Also take note how much damage my missiles appear to be doing and remember that's only 30 missiles. This is why I say Artemis & TAG are important, because the proper LRM Shadow Hawk is doing more deadly damage than the LRM boats sporting multiple 20s at 30 tons more weight are.

Video proves nothing. Get that PUG "screenshot" out of here. Sound familiar? So, my whole average stats on my mechs don't count, but a simple video is all the proof you need? That's just one match, and a single match means nothing. (Still sounding familiar?) Just using your own words/expression here that you used with me.

You used them well in that video, but you can't claim everything on your own. Your initial success was granted because an ally charged under the stone bridge, distracting the enemy from you and your LRMs, which was the enemy teams mistake. Several other mechs was targeted and damaged by other allies, such as that Jagermech, etc. You did have good end of match scores and kills, which is a good thing. You were effective in that match which is good. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't other ways one can play LRMs and still be just as effective as you where. The video proves your advice can be taken and be successful. No one was arguing that point. The video does not prove that LRMs can't be used in other ways either, which does not support your attitude we have seen here, and does nothing to prove us wrong either.

I've done over 1000 damage before in my own LRM mechs, and that's running out of ammo and having to charge in. My Locust build I posted has achieved 300ish damage before running out of ammo, and being forced to run around, distract, or cap (for a 20 ton missile mech, I think that was decent). It doesn't prove you wrong, nor me right. We each are right in our own way and play style.

Kjudoon, on 11 December 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Again, these are not "commandments", these are opinions as are mine. They carry no more weight than mine, and both have their merits. Any time you say mandatory, I say a possible play choice.

Which is mostly my point...

Junkman7mgte, on 11 December 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I also believe that all of those arguing with Vic, need to take that same - step back - and consider what he is saying.

you are all right, yet you are all wrong

I've considered what he is saying, and I agree he brings good advice. However, my disagreement is still with the "It's the only way" mod of thought.

Very true. Agreed.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

Honestly my advice is that new players - brand new players - don't touch LRMs at all. Stick with simple, direct fire weaponry until you've gotten the hang of the game.

If you want to branch out to LRMs, you do so in a package that makes them effective, at which point this guide is here for new users to LRMs exclusively.



I cannot state objective fact as opinion. I've posted the advantages of a TAG and why, for example, you should never be without one. If someone doesn't listen to that, they are making a mistake, but it's theirs to make.

I am here to offer information, not force you to drive my builds.



I am only censoring disagreeing with incorrect information. Such as claims that one can drive an effective LRM boat without TAG. Because you can't.

No matter how good you are or how much you think your build is great, bottom line is a non-Artemis, non-TAG assault will be a waste of a player on your team. It's just how it works out.

First, if your advise to new players is to not touch LRMs, then why did you make this thread in the NEW PLAYER HELP forum?

Second, as for the tag, that would be when posting a LINK to the thread that goes into more detail about tag and its interaction with BOTH LRMs and Artimis LRMs. Until you provide the link to this info, then it is YOU who is providing objective facts as opinions. As I had already stated before, LAST I knew tag and arti didn't go hand in hand with each other with the ONLY exception of cutting through ECM. If this is the case, then why take arti at all? Or, if you have appropriate direct fire weapons, why have tag to cut through ECM when you could just shoot your other potental weapons (assuming you put any on) to damage/destroy the ecm mech to begin with? As stated, it would be an opinion to being in Tag with your LRM mech, not fact.

As a last and final point here, it seems funny that all other opinions and facts are suddenly being censored disagreed with and being deemed incorrect are all those that disagree with you, even if backed up by facts and potential links. It seems weird that the only screen shots or videos that count are yours but all others are just "random pug matches that show the build in the best match it had" when it was really a screen shot of all mechs and their AVERAGE states, not just the best from one match.