1453 R, on 20 March 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:
Maniac, please pause for a moment.
Stop.
Breathe.
Now. Think for a moment about what you’re doing. It is, in fact, the same as what you accused me of doing – using the lowest class of players as an example of how the weapon is “supposed” to function, and then denigrating that.
Certainly, skillful play is more than possible with direct-fire weapons. If it was not this game would be in a sorry state indeed, and in fact I respect the skill and acumen of truly fantastic direct-fire shots quite a bit. The point I was trying to raise is that you seem to equate the ignoramuses standing around in STK-3F©s vomiting missiles at every red box they say as both “DA NORM”, as well as “DA HEIGHT OF LRM TAKTIX”.
This is a gross overexaggeration and a critical misrepresentation and you know it as well as I do.
You paint all LRM play with the brush of the assault-weight ‘Make It Rain’ idiots who manage to completely waste half their massive overabundance of ammunition per match and score well only against other ignoramuses who can’t deal with LRM fire to save their lives. Allow me to tell you my own RoE for LRM machines:
-Engagements against anything I can’t see with my own two eyes are harassment fire only – indirect fire is always assumed to be largely a waste of ammunition and only good for keeping someone’s head down or scoring assists at absolute best.
-Engagements beyond roughly seven hundred meters’ range are generally a waste of ammunition, even with the missile velocity increases. If they’re out of range of your TAG, they’re out of your effective range and should be engaged only if you don’t have any better options.
-LRM launchers are restricted solely to BattleMechs of mine that can break eighty klicks or up. Anything slower is deemed too slow to properly reposition around the fight for optimal firing angles. Being honest, ninety-plus is preferred, but eighty-plus has proven itself workable in my Thunderbolt.
-Salvos much over thirty missiles are generally wastes of time. If you’re cramming sixty tubes of LRM launcher into your ‘Mech, you’re sacrificing too much other necessary equipment and ammunition. Beagle probes, TAG, and Artemis are all pretty much required equipment, and getting all of that, plus ammunition, plus the LRM launchers themselves, into a ‘Mech capable of breaking 80+ klicks forces certain restraints in both one’s choice of base chassis to build on, as well as how much weight of fire one can reasonably make use of. There are a few outlier exceptions – the BLR-1S with 2xALRM-15 and 2xALRM-5, hoofing it around on a 385XL or higher engine, can qualify as ‘close enough’ in some fights but doesn’t really feel any more powerful/useful to me than my lighter machines.
Some of us out here prize mobility, accuracy, and the decisive advantages those traits bring over the lumbering abortion that is the STK-3F©. Trebuchets or Shadow Hawks are the LRM machines you should respect, not Stalkers. I enjoy the unique feel of LRM combat, and I also enjoy the challenge of trying to do well with a machine that cannot directly control where its fire lands, and which also attracts enemy attention the way a bottle of suntan oil next to a beautiful woman on the beach attracts creepers. If you don’t particularly care for the style, that’s your choice and you’re welcome to it, but please don’t relegate all of us to the same bucket as the 3F© maroons, nor dismiss us with stuff like “LRMs should be a Support weapon ONLY and have no business being an actual threat to one’s enemies a primary armament.”
After all, if that’s what you want LRM launchers to be, then let’s talk about cutting the weight of all current LRM launcher systems in half and doubling their ammo per ton, at the obvious expense of warhead damage. See, that way we actually have the weight we need to bring direct-fire armaments alongside LRM systems and not be wasting our time on both sides. Odds of that happening, however? Well, I’ll let you do the math on that one.
Again, not attacking anyone here. Merely trying to point out that some folks enjoy bringing the same level of thought and effort to their LRM machines as others do to direct-fire ‘Mechs. Assuming that all of us Lurmishers out there are just as braindead as the 3F© players is rather deeply offensive, mang. I hate that ‘Mechstrosity with a blazing passion and wish heartily that PGI had never inflicted it on the world.
I don't advocate that LRMs should be a support weapon only. That would be no fun at all to play. I'm only taking that description from previous Mechwarrior titles. MW4 in particular claims that LRMs are for "softening up a target before they close." Of course, that is not how they tend to play in practice, but that is the description.
Useless, impotent weapons suck, and no one in their right mind would wish to use them for anything other than a quick laugh. LRMs, therefore, should not be useless nor should they be impotent. I merely wish them to require more engagement than they do now. And before you ask, yes, I mastered the Trebuchet. Used LRMs. I hated the point and hold gameplay and haven't been back since. So I do speak with some limited personal experience.
I would not imply that using LRMs automatically makes you a bad player. I merely state that the weapon could do with some fresh, more dynamic mechanics. They do enable and in most cases promote mindless spam. You might play smart and stay mobile, but I would bet dollars to pesos that such a style represents maybe 10% of LRM use. No exaggeration.
I appreciate your post and definitely respect not only your opinion, but also the manner in which you presented it. My problem isn't with those who use LRMs, especially not those who have enough skill to succeed without relying on spam tactics. This, however, might not have been so well-indicated following my immediate and strong frustration with the pedantic insult-flinging my opinion was immediately met with. The real problem lies in a weapon that facilitates brainless spamming. A lot of players might not take advantage of this, but a lot more still do, and the answer was most certainly not to make said weapon *more* effective at spamming.
Quote
As for LRMs being especially broken, well... You'd have to explain how they are more broken than e.g. the front-loaded damage of the ACs and PPCs which have been dominating the game since forever just on the basis of how they deal their damage. Or how they're more broken than fire-and-forget SSRMs doing more damage than manually aimed SRMs, or how they're more broken than the Flamer. Or how they're more broken than ECM (which funnily enough was introduced to counter just LRMs).
"Front loaded damage" requires aim, risk, and skill, and can be countered by an equal or greater application of those three elements. LRMs require a second or two to acquire someone else's lock.
Look, this repetition is sickening. There is nothing broken about a weapon that takes skill, patience, and tactics to use - not to mention a significant sacrifice of tonnage which could be otherwise allocated to increased speed, armor, or backup weapons. They are already balanced. This is not, and should not, be a strictly numbers-based game.
I should not have to endlessly repeat my position, not when every single word is frozen for all to review a couple pages back. I already *explained* in depth what I feel is wrong with LRMs. I already explained in depth why I feel that twitch weapons are extremely demanding, difficult to use, and grounded in player skill.
I shouldn't need to explain once more why I feel that it is silly to feature a weapon that so effortlessly spams constant, endless damage potential from a position of complete safety. I have already endorsed someone else's excellent idea for improving the weapon. It's easily readable and is clearly and concisely explained. I have already covered the big elements that firmly show that direct fire weapons aren't "win buttons" as so many idiots claim, in that they require a steady hand, the ability to center the sights, lead a target, compensate for weapon convergence, and place shots with the accuracy needed to bring down a heavily armored, moving, and constantly threatening target by repeatedly striking weakened sections of armor.
Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 04:52 PM.
7
