373 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

You're just proving that you don't understand the skill required to use LRMs to their potential.

If you fire LRMs and then a teammate loses your lock, then you shouldn't have fired. It's no different than aiming a PPC directly at a jump sniper who then falls back to earth while your PPC shot goes sailing over his head. You missed. Your teammate didn't make you miss; you failed to consider your teammates actions and time your LRM volley appropriately. You lacked the skill to properly use your LRMs.

Just one example of how LRMs require different skills than FLD weapons.

Not all of them, no. I range from 55% to 90% depending on the weapon. But then I'm more of a brawler by nature. I have a tendency to miss at long range because I haven't bothered to practice leading targets at long range. I'm also dumb enough to try to use the AC/20 to hit moving targets at ranges beyond 500 meters. Sure, it can be done, but after the velocity nerf it's sort of pointless. Doesn't stop me, though. NEED MOAR DAKKAZ. Anyway...

I'm sure that I could get them all to 70% if I really cared to put in the effort. It wouldn't be hard, just time consuming. And since I don't have that much time to play these days, I'd rather play for fun.


Not at all. Only the better (or, perhaps, more conservative) LRM users are at 40%. It seems like most LRM users are below that, with some people as low as 25-30%.

Again, incorrect. Your lack of skill in predicting the actions of your teammates is what causes you to lose lock.

A skilled LRM user knows which of his teammates is providing his lock, what that teammate is likely to do in various circumstances, and what threats are near that teammate.

An unskilled LRM user gets a lock and fires away without regard for any of that information, both giving away his own position fruitlessly and probably also putting a teammate at risk by letting the enemy know that there's a spotter on the prowl.

Don't know why you are bothering, he isn't interested in learning. He just keeps parroting the same bad arguments over and over.

[Livewyr]

*chuckle* I remember having a conversation about this... years ago at this point.

LRMs are marginally easier to use on a basic level. (Hold cursor over target wait for lock, ensure flightpath is good, fire, as opposed to more precise holding of cursor with a direct fire.)

On a success level, LRMs are harder than any other weapon in the game, bar none. (Only weapon where enemy gets an audio/visual warning- BBetty, a mitigating piece of equipment- AMS, a nullifying piece of equipment- Jesus Box/ECM, and a lot of time to get out of the way. Admittedly, less so now than back then, when it was 100m/s, but still far more than even the slowest ballistic.)

I could honestly see increasing the the over-range range of LRMs to match ballistic over-ranges. Though I'm not calling for it, I'm actually calling for putting ballistic over-ranges down to 2x...
(It's not like missiles would gain much of an advantage.. even when they're launched from a newly increased range.. the target still gets a warning- now with MORE time to get back behind cover, still has AMS and ECM and such.)
It would however make them a counter to AC/PPS/Gauss snipers, rather than their only counter being other AC/PPC/Gauss snipers.

630m to 1890m
(or 1260)

[Roland]

I wrote up a longer reply, but the garbage forum ate it, so this is a briefer one.

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

If you fire LRMs and then a teammate loses your lock, then you shouldn't have fired.

You are dramatically overestimating the amount of control that you, as the shooter, have over the situation.

For instance, imagine that you are in a situation where a spotter has a perfect lock on a target... Clear LOS, the target has no cover within range of his movement. No ECM bubbles in range. Perfect situation. You fire your LRM's.

Then the spotter switches targets... Because... reasons. He sees some other target and wants to check its armor levels.. He doesn't realize that he's holding a lock for you. He breaks the lock. The target moves slightly, and your LRM's hit the dirt.

That's not a failure on your part. You absolutely SHOULD have fired in that situation... The error was made due to your SPOTTER failing to perform HIS duty. The fact that your LRM's missed was totally out of your control.. and such is the nature of indirect fire with that weapon in this game.

In those situations, there is magical "skill" involved in the spotter holding the lock.. Certainly, you can use some degree of judgement to say things like, "Well, there's no way he's gonna be able to stay back there long, so he's probably gonna lose lock in a second." but in a PUG environment you have absolutely no control over that guy... His actions midsawell be random. Even if you tell folks to try and hold locks, good luck with that.

Quote

It's no different than aiming a PPC directly at a jump sniper who then falls back to earth while your PPC shot goes sailing over his head. You missed. Your teammate didn't make you miss; you failed to consider your teammates actions and time your LRM volley appropriately. You lacked the skill to properly use your LRMs.

With a PPC, if you miss, it is ENTIRELY on you as the shooter.

With the LRM's, as I described above, you could make the perfect decision, and still miss because your spotter simply made an ERROR. In the case where the spotter is holding a lock, and then breaks it for no good reason at all... You could not predict that. There is no "skill" that allows you to magically read/control his mind. To assert otherwise is absurd.

Quote

Just one example of how LRMs require different skills than FLD weapons.

Not really.. I played with an extremely organized team for years in top tier league play. I understand better than most exactly that kind of thing, especially given the roles I performed for my team (Often scouting as well as fire support, as well as Field Commander). Even in the case of the things you are thinking about, understanding where your lance is moving, how they are going to react to situations, etc... Those things are not considerations which are limited to LRM fire support mechs.

Understanding how your team will perform is something that all pilots, regardless of their roles, have mastered in highly skilled teams. It benefits all roles on the field. It is not unique to an LRM boat by any stretch of the imagination.

And in PUG play, it's largely non-existent.. because you are playing with random people, many of whom may simply be BAD.

Now, back in MW4, most of the better players just knew each other, and generally, good players just inherently know "the correct" thing to do... so with them, you can generally have a decent feel for what's going to happen. But in MWO with random PUG's? I'm sorry, but no ammount of skill is going to allow you to predict their actions and know with any degree of certainty whether or not they are going to hold a lock for you.

And again, with organized play, at LEAST as much skill is on the spotter, rather than the shooter, for this kind of fire. They are the one performing the difficult part of the role, making sure that they can keep that lock while actually being exposed to return fire.

Make no mistake here, back in MW4 we ran shooter/spotter teams in order to direct Longtom fire onto locations.. Actually doing spotting in a much more "real world" way, where the spotter was watching for the effect and relaying corrections back to the shooter.

Quote

Not all of them, no. I range from 55% to 90% depending on the weapon. But then I'm more of a brawler by nature. I have a tendency to miss at long range because I haven't bothered to practice leading targets at long range.

I'm sure that I could get them all to 70% if I really cared to put in the effort. It wouldn't be hard, just time consuming. And since I don't have that much time to play these days, I'd rather play for fun.

Those numbers are much more realistic, and more in line with what most pilots have suggested in the past.
But as you say here... you could get better, if you practiced more.

That's the point. That's how skill works. Skill isn't simply inherent ability we're born with. In most cases,it's something that is honed through practice.

Quote

Not at all. Only the better (or, perhaps, more conservative) LRM users are at 40%. It seems like most LRM users are below that, with some people as low as 25-30%.

Eh, before the stat wipe, I was running over 40% with LRM's I believe.. and I'm not some uber master of LRM usage. I'm thinking that's a pretty standard number.

[Wolfways]

Prezimonto, on 03 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

If you buff LRM's from here to benefit solo players, then they'll be honestly OP for teamwork situations.

Not if you're using cover.

Why don't people get this?....

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

"Low-Skill" is not equivalent to "Easy-Mode". Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness. It merely means that there is a lower level of skill involved in using that weapon system. The low skill cap means that it's much easier for any given player to become "the best" with that weapon system. It may still be the case that being "the best" with that weapon system is still ineffective compared to other weapons.

If it's so easy for any player to become "the best" with what you view a "low-skill weapon" (by ignoring any skill other than point>click) why do i always see players firing LRM's into hills, buildings, etc?
Even firing direct LRM's don't have as much chance of hitting the target as FLD weapons as the target has a chance to get behind cover.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Wolfways, on 03 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Not if you're using cover.

Why don't people get this?....

In the end, people seem scared to punish bad players.

In a healthy game, this wouldn't be a problem.

But in a game like MW:O where the population has been drained so heavily, you can't lose anyone.

[Wolfways]

Harathan, on 03 April 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

/grenade

Aren't LRM systems primarily meant to be *support* weapons?

No.
In BT LRM's are direct-fire weapons just like any other weapon. they just have the added ability to fire indirect.

Imo PGI should balance LRM's as direct-fire weapons, and then work out indirect-fire.

Edited by Wolfways, 03 April 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I wrote up a longer reply, but the garbage forum ate it, so this is a briefer one.


You are dramatically overestimating the amount of control that you, as the shooter, have over the situation.

For instance, imagine that you are in a situation where a spotter has a perfect lock on a target... Clear LOS, the target has no cover within range of his movement. No ECM bubbles in range. Perfect situation. You fire your LRM's.

Then the spotter switches targets... Because... reasons. He sees some other target and wants to check its armor levels.. He doesn't realize that he's holding a lock for you. He breaks the lock. The target moves slightly, and your LRM's hit the dirt.

That's not a failure on your part. You absolutely SHOULD have fired in that situation... The error was made due to your SPOTTER failing to perform HIS duty. The fact that your LRM's missed was totally out of your control.. and such is the nature of indirect fire with that weapon in this game.

In those situations, there is magical "skill" involved in the spotter holding the lock.. Certainly, you can use some degree of judgement to say things like, "Well, there's no way he's gonna be able to stay back there long, so he's probably gonna lose lock in a second." but in a PUG environment you have absolutely no control over that guy... His actions midsawell be random. Even if you tell folks to try and hold locks, good luck with that.


With a PPC, if you miss, it is ENTIRELY on you as the shooter.

With the LRM's, as I described above, you could make the perfect decision, and still miss because your spotter simply made an ERROR. In the case where the spotter is holding a lock, and then breaks it for no good reason at all... You could not predict that. There is no "skill" that allows you to magically read/control his mind. To assert otherwise is absurd.


Not really.. I played with an extremely organized team for years in top tier league play. I understand better than most exactly that kind of thing, especially given the roles I performed for my team (Often scouting as well as fire support, as well as Field Commander). Even in the case of the things you are thinking about, understanding where your lance is moving, how they are going to react to situations, etc... Those things are not considerations which are limited to LRM fire support mechs.

Understanding how your team will perform is something that all pilots, regardless of their roles, have mastered in highly skilled teams. It benefits all roles on the field. It is not unique to an LRM boat by any stretch of the imagination.

And in PUG play, it's largely non-existent.. because you are playing with random people, many of whom may simply be BAD.

Now, back in MW4, most of the better players just knew each other, and generally, good players just inherently know "the correct" thing to do... so with them, you can generally have a decent feel for what's going to happen. But in MWO with random PUG's? I'm sorry, but no ammount of skill is going to allow you to predict their actions and know with any degree of certainty whether or not they are going to hold a lock for you.

And again, with organized play, at LEAST as much skill is on the spotter, rather than the shooter, for this kind of fire. They are the one performing the difficult part of the role, making sure that they can keep that lock while actually being exposed to return fire.

Make no mistake here, back in MW4 we ran shooter/spotter teams in order to direct Longtom fire onto locations.. Actually doing spotting in a much more "real world" way, where the spotter was watching for the effect and relaying corrections back to the shooter.


Those numbers are much more realistic, and more in line with what most pilots have suggested in the past.
But as you say here... you could get better, if you practiced more.

That's the point. That's how skill works. Skill isn't simply inherent ability we're born with. In most cases,it's something that is honed through practice.


Eh, before the stat wipe, I was running over 40% with LRM's I believe.. and I'm not some uber master of LRM usage. I'm thinking that's a pretty standard number.

Eh, also before you base raw percentages as some sort of proof of all out skill, consider the whole package.

My Ballistics (Energies are generally in the High 80s, even low 90ss on some, but since 1 millisecond of contact construes a "hit" that is near meaningless) usually hover somewhere in the high 60s, the higher the caliber the higher the percent, since obviously, one tends to shoot from nearer. (And have considerably less ammo for taking low percentage shots)

So yeah, compared to Poptart nation, my numbers are low. Of course, compared to poptart nation, I also move. A LOT. I'm a Medium jock first and foremost, and pilot pretty much all my mechs, accordingly. That means few low speed or stationary shots. Almost none taken while poptarting. But PLENTY of times I use my ballistics for suppression fire, to keep LRMboats and Poptarts from getting a solid bead on me while I move from cover to cover. Likewise, snapshots on that annoying Raven or Spider trying to target us for LRMs from 1000 out. (Amazing how fast they duck even with near misses).

It's great, tactically speaking. Hard on the Epeen though. Just as my willingness to make the sacrifice play if it allows for my team to win hurts my KDr (you know, being that guy willing to step on cap against overwhelming odds to keep it alive till the rest of the team returns to fight the OpFor off of it? Or is that a concept alien to "Leets"?).

If Stats told the whole story, we could just compare stat sheets at the beginning of each match and not bother fighting at all.

(Also I note most people are still hovering in the 40%s on LRMs, so if they are so OP and Low Skill now, and more so post Patch, why has that number stayed so low? If I can lob 30 missiles at you and hit 40% of the time, or toss 30 damage at you direct, but hit 75% of the time.... not sure how LRMs actually become a "lesser skill" option, when the requirements for successful LRMing, especially in the PUG environment are significantly different than Direct Fire Weapons with a whole raft of inherent limitations. Whereas DFW has one limitation.... LoS.)

[Solis Obscuri]

Wolfways, on 03 April 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Imo PGI should balance LRM's as direct-fire weapons, and then work out indirect-fire.

Yep.

Well, I mean, it would if they were committed to a systematic and rational approach to game balance, instead of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping one of their many new systems will turn out to be the needed breakthrough.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 03 April 2014 - 01:40 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Joe, when I say "Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness", I'm saying that there is not a correllation. That does not mean that there is an inverse correlation, or that you can't have a low skill weapon with a high combat effectiveness.

Consider, as an example purely created to illustrate the point, a weapon which when fired, ALWAYS hit the target you wanted, but did no damage.

In that case, you have a weapon with essentially infinitely low skill cap (that is, anyone using it is instantly using it at MAXIMUM effectiveness, always. Everyone is "the best" at using that weapon.) but also infinitely low combat effectiveness (while everyone is the best at using that weapon, being the best at it still means you are doing nothing with it).

Thus, even though LRM's have a lower skill cap than weapons you must aim manually, that does not automatically mean that they are more effective than manually aimed weapons.

Thus "low skill" does not equate to "easy mode", as many people seem to be misunderstanding.

Going to come to Roland's defense here, though he doubtfully wants it.

Using a mech with PPCs and/or ACs to put damage in the same location at all ranges time and time again (read: hitting the location that you want under all conditions nearly every time you pull the trigger vs. just hitting your target somewhere) is skillful. Being able to fast twitch a shot at the smallest of movement is skillful. The capability of knowing exactly where your weapons are on your mech so that you can show the smallest amount of said mech to do damage while minimizing the window of opportunity for your opponents to fire back is skillful. That is individual skill presence.

What Roland is saying with LRMs is that there isn't the same level of skill needed to operate LRMs. And, he is correct in that. With LRMs, you don't need to lead a target or try to determine if the target is going to change directions and, thusly, compensate for that. There is little need to show just small amounts of your mech because you can step back further from your cover, get a better angle, lock on, and fire. In this case, there is a low skill cap needed to run LRMs.

Comparing direct fire and LRMs is really an apples and oranges arguement because the only thing that they have in common is that they both do damage. LRMs take less skill to operate than direct fire ranged weapons BUT take a lot more skill to operate competently than what most people utilize. The bulk of the population that operate LRMs wish and hope for someone else to get a target so that they can fire from safe cover. That same bulk of the population have absolutely CRAPPY hit % with LRMs because they don't really care what is going on. It is the small percentage of the community that use LRMs as a medium range brawling weapon and an even smaller percentage of the community that actually utilize Artemis and TAG (not including NARC for obvious reasons). It takes a good bit of skill to judge what your target is doing and whether you can get ordinance on that target before they reach cover. It takes a good bit of skill to scan the environment to see how many people are packing AMS and where they are in relation to your target let alone that wiley user that fires off one salvo to just test the waters.

The point is, "skill" comes down to how you use weapons and their quirks. Non-guided projectile weapons are basically like fist fighting while smart LRM use is like throwing a rock at someone. It's the moron portion of this game that make LRMs bad and, thus, make it look like they're using bird shot to hit a beer can.

As far as increasing skill cap in this game, I don't much really care about that. I know how good and bad I am and my only concern is making good and sound decisions so as to not screw my friends. I can't carry a team of 11 others by busting a blood vessel in my forehead trying to be some Billy Badass. I could and we all possess the ability to do so, to varying degrees. But, that isn't my priority in playing for the game. I did that in other games and it consumed too much of my time and energy. These days, I just want to log in and enjoy myself and that is just fine for me.

For others, keep pushing the limits of your abilities because twitch skills are still skills.

[Eglar]

Wolfways, on 03 April 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

Or if you're fighting good players you'd rarely ever hit them.
I'm not a great player, i know that. So why do i rarely get hit by indirect LRM's? Simple. I don't run around in the open.

Positioning, right?

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 03 April 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

good stuff

Still not 100% in agreement with the "low skill" assessment, though the apples to oranges is why I find comparing skills difficult.

Is it easier for Joe N00b to be SOMEWHAT effective with LRMs than with DFW? Yes. And that ease is force magnified if Joe N00b has competent spotting and teamwork on his side. But Seldom is Joe N00b actually taking control of the match with those LRMs, the way the Poptart Meta dictates, unless he is likewise facing n00bs, or people too stubborn to adapt. That Low Skill Cap, as you call it, is matched by a comparably low effectiveness, against better players. And reliance on the "ezmode" part of their operation likewise will limit the Potential skill growth of the player.

And Sadly, this is probably where 75% + of the players reside. On the bad side of average, TBH.

But I would compare them to the old Street Fighter II game. Chun Li was the easiest character to be reasonably effective with, especially if one just learned the cheese moves, like heel stomp, heel stomp, throw. And one utterly could own noob comp with it. But the Heelstomp player was TOAST the moment they faced a good Ken or Ryu player. That said, there were players who learned the limitations, and didn't rely on the cheese moves, who played (and owned) Chun Li at the TOP level of competition.

Did that make them "Low skill" players?

Using LRMs, consistently and effectively, with all of their humongous number of limitations, to be effective against quality competition is a skill all it's own, and one can't rely on 40% hit rates and sitting pretty while others hold locks for you. (Though a skilled LRM pilot certainly has to develop the situational awareness to take advantage of the situations when they do have said help). They require the most exposure time to get locks and actually deliver payload initially. (Yes with someone else holding locks, you can sit in cover, to a degree, but those people who rely on others have a 40% or less accuracy rate for a reason). They have the absolute WORST range of ANY Long Range Weapon. You cannot snapshoot, or precision target with them. (There are many times I wished for a simple ac5 instead of LRMs when facing a partly cored Stalker, because 1-3 ac5 rounds to a precise location would end the fight, whereas wave after wave of LRMs perversely missed the damaged area) The harshest minimum range of any weapon. Dedicated hard counters (ECM, AMS). I could go on.

The point being, they may be a "low skill" weapon when used by the low skilled masses, but because of their unique attributes, to be used effectively, by higher skilled players against higher skilled players, I would say they have a rather high, but totally different skill cap compared to DFW. The reason I prefer DFW is because across the board, I am more effective in all builds with DFW than I am with LRMs. I use LRMs as support for a reason. Because consistent results from LRMboats, especially against players who simply play aggressively, are much more difficult for me to achieve.

[Roadkill]

Trauglodyte, on 03 April 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

What Roland is saying with LRMs is that there isn't the same level of skill needed to operate LRMs. And, he is correct in that.

Not really, no.

You are correct that that's what Roland is saying. But what he's assuming - incorrectly - is that LRMs use a subset of FLD weapon skills. That's simply not the case, so his assertion that LRMs are less skillful than FLD weapons because they only use a subset of FLD weapon skills is false.

A PPC sniper doesn't care that he has a teammate near his target. A PPC sniper doesn't care what that teammate is doing, or if that teammate is going to stay near the target, or if that teammate is threatened. The PPC sniper only has to worry about his target and his own surroundings.

There is skill involved in piloting an LRM boat that is not involved in piloting a PPC sniper.

Roland can argue until he's blue in the face that LRMs use less skill than FLD weapons, but because the skills used are different I claim that his entire argument is irrelevant.

QUICK - who is more skillful, Kobe Bryant or Ole Einar Bjoerndalen?

(You had to Google Ole Einar Bjoerndalen, didn't you?)

It's a dumb question, right? They have numerous skills in common, but not all skills in common. Arguing that one or the other is more skillful would be stupid.

Sort of like trying to argue that FLD weapons are somehow inherently more skillful than LRMs. It's dumb to even argue it, because the answer is irrelevant.

[Harathan]

Wolfways, on 03 April 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

No.
In BT LRM's are direct-fire weapons just like any other weapon. they just have the added ability to fire indirect.

Imo PGI should balance LRM's as direct-fire weapons, and then work out indirect-fire.

So PGI has designed them to be support weapons, but nobody wants to admit that and use them as such. Gotcha.

The point I'm making is that maybe, just maybe, PGI is deliberately balancing them to be indirect-fire support weapons and certain people are trying to turn them into something that, right now, they're not?

Edited by Harathan, 03 April 2014 - 02:07 PM.

[Wolfways]

Harathan, on 03 April 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

So PGI has designed them to be support weapons, but nobody wants to admit that and use them as such. Gotcha.

The point I'm making is that maybe, just maybe, PGI is deliberately balancing them to be indirect-fire support weapons and certain people are trying to turn them into something that, right now, they're not?

Are you implying that PGI would deliberately screw over BT fans who like certain mechs/weapon systems? Noooo....they're making a BT/MW game, they said so...

[Wildger]

You need to know the maps well, feel where your enemy are coming and learn how to hide your LRM missle boat without losing lock on or being sniped to be effective. That is a skill on its own. Those who say no skill needed simply do not know how to use LRM.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

You are dramatically overestimating the amount of control that you, as the shooter, have over the situation.

No, I'm not. It isn't about control. It's about the skill required to understand what you do control, understand the likely actions that those you don't control are going to take, and make correct decisions based on your understanding.

Quote

For instance, imagine that you are in a situation where a spotter has a perfect lock on a target... Clear LOS, the target has no cover within range of his movement. No ECM bubbles in range. Perfect situation. You fire your LRM's.

Then the spotter switches targets... Because... reasons. He sees some other target and wants to check its armor levels.. He doesn't realize that he's holding a lock for you. He breaks the lock. The target moves slightly, and your LRM's hit the dirt.

That's not a failure on your part. You absolutely SHOULD have fired in that situation... The error was made due to your SPOTTER failing to perform HIS duty. The fact that your LRM's missed was totally out of your control.. and such is the nature of indirect fire with that weapon in this game.

And... you're wrong. You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient.

You dismiss this and claim it isn't a skill, but it very much is. And it's not a skill that direct fire users need to have. The fact that you're only 40% accurate with your LRMs proves that you lack this skill, or at the very least you haven't perfected it.

It's still a skill. It's one that can be taught, practiced, and perfected. It'd be pretty pointless for a FLD weapon user to do so because it's an irrelevant skill to him, but it's still a skill.

Just like being able to aim at the precise spot on a target that you need to hit with your FLD weapon isn't a skill that LRM boat drivers need. It's still a skill. But lack of it doesn't mean that LRM boat drivers are low-skill, either.

[Prezimonto]

Wolfways, on 03 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Not if you're using cover.

Why don't people get this?....

Cover will only get you so far on some maps, and if the other team has more LRM's you need a way to close the gap.

Again teamwork will get you far, but it doesn't change the fact that with teamwork, in pug matches LRM's are in a good place right now. Without teamwork, where you're forced into the open as an LRM boat, LRM's are still a bad choice for a primary weapon.

Against good players cover means you need really good teamwork and spotting... which is a different category as well.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prezimonto, on 03 April 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Cover will only get you so far on some maps, and if the other team has more LRM's you need a way to close the gap.

Again teamwork will get you far, but it doesn't change the fact that with teamwork, in pug matches LRM's are in a good place right now. Without teamwork, where you're forced into the open as an LRM boat, LRM's are still a bad choice for a primary weapon.

Against good players cover means you need really good teamwork and spotting... which is a different category as well.

Which, IMO is about how it should be. And how I felt when they moved 15 fps faster, too. LRMs can be very effective some maps, less so, others. Just Like AC20s, etc. Very few weapons should be top tier effective in all situations, and those that are, like the AC5, should deliver comparably lower damage to compensate for their versatility.

But those less versatile weapons, when in their designed role and circumstance, SHOULD be the dominant weapon in those instances.

Sadly, that is when people are most prone to cry. (OMG!!!!! My short range brawler died cuz of LRMs on Alpine!!! BooHoo!!!!!! (Yet they never seem to remember the times their JagerBombs were the dominant force in a CQB map)

[Asmudius Heng]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

And... you're wrong. You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient.

Now come on .... this is a bit rich.

You are claiming you can predict how your team mates will act and think and how they will hold locks and believe that is a skill?

While you can sometimes have a better idea if someone will hold a lock you cannot predict it and claim it as a skill.

There is skill in position and choosing who to fire on for best effect yes ... but saying that you lacked skill because your team mate who you have no control over loses a lock is facetious at best.

Let's get real about that one ok.

Reflex skill for LRMs are lower than other weapons, though tactical positioning for LRMs is there with just as much consideration as any other weapon type though in different ways. just my 2c