373 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Trauglodyte, on 04 April 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

The travesty is that few people, and I am by far not the best when it comes to LRMs as I'm still learning the nuances, don't see what is needed to use the system properly.  They just see terribads butchering the possibilities and powerawfuls building mechs with nothing but LRMs (and no TAG, mind you) spamming away hitting nothing, getting completely shut down by ECM and making posts on this board about it, or being turned into slag by smart players cause they were too stupid to carry backup weapons.  THAT is why a lot of people find LRM users to be less skilled.  We get pulled down by the bottom %.

As thoughtful as your post was, this part I disagree.  There are plenty of people who are not Lurmers, who protest current state of ECM--as it is no where near canon and is too powerful for it's weight and space.   
1.  There is nothing wrong with 90% LRM build, or 100% if you are piloting an A1.  Current state of missiles make only LRMs somewhat reliable in doing damage, anyway.  SRMs suffer from hit registration issues and Streaks are only useful for dedicated Light Hunters.  I used to run a mix of Streaks and LRMs in my A1, but it is not worth it anymore.
2.  There are plenty of veterans who know the risk of such LRM-centric builds but play with them anyway.  The trick is to maximize the potential or LRMs while avoiding its weakness.  My most successful mech for the last 2 years in terms of WLR and KDR is the A1, and I have max XL engine and plenty of JJs to get out of trouble, and prioritizes on killing the ECM carrying D-DCs whenever opportunity rises.  
3.  However, even with the knowledge on how to deal against ECM (I was pretty much the only guy who constantly played the Streakcat pre-BAP change during the Raven-3L dominance--and that took guts) I still think ECM has too many good things going on with almost no drawbacks.  Not only against LRMs but in information denial in general.  The umbrella is, frankly speaking, ridiculously powerful for a mere 1.5 ton of equipment.  And pointing that out does not make one a stupid scrub.  Nicholas has been here for the longest time--he knows what he is talking about.  He is definitely not one of those who cry to mommy at the slightest inconvenience.
4.  Finally, ECM being too powerful is bad for the game health.  It limits mech selection.  We saw just how many ECM mechs popped out during tourney.  It is a self evident fact that ECM carriers are the best choice for their chassis, and best type of mechs a team can have.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 April 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[El Bandito]

Oops, DP.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 April 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[Harathan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 April 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

You could've read the first 5 back and forth posts and been done with it.

Don't waste your time.

And please don't use "mate" if you are from Southern California.

I'm not from Southern California, that's just where I live. Apparently you're taking trolling to whole new levels now by trying to dictate what words people can or cannot use based on their geographic location. *golf clap*

[Roadkill]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

true, but I feel those are the "skill" balances on makes for the indirect fire capability in the first place. Maybe F&F when one has a LoS lock, but not a spotter lock?

I'd actually reverse that. If you have a spotter, then the firer doesn't need to maintain line of sight.

I like that a line of sight missile user has to maintain lock until they land, unlike direct fire weapons which can fire and then twist. It makes missiles more challenging to use well, and helps balance the fact that you can use them relatively easily from the fringes of a brawl without hitting your teammates (much). That poor guy trying to use PPCs from the fringe of the brawl has to watch out or he'll hit his buddies all the time.

Missiles aren't really meant to be primary weapons used 1 vs 1. They're support weapons in the sense that you use them to support teammates in a fight. Lob 'em over everyone's heads at the target. But they should do good damage in that role so that they're worth taking when compared to an AC/5 or PPC.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roadkill, on 05 April 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

I'd actually reverse that. If you have a spotter, then the firer doesn't need to maintain line of sight.

I like that a line of sight missile user has to maintain lock until they land, unlike direct fire weapons which can fire and then twist. It makes missiles more challenging to use well, and helps balance the fact that you can use them relatively easily from the fringes of a brawl without hitting your teammates (much). That poor guy trying to use PPCs from the fringe of the brawl has to watch out or he'll hit his buddies all the time.

Missiles aren't really meant to be primary weapons used 1 vs 1. They're support weapons in the sense that you use them to support teammates in a fight. Lob 'em over everyone's heads at the target. But they should do good damage in that role so that they're worth taking when compared to an AC/5 or PPC.

while on a basic level I would agree, I fear that that would simply increase the use of them indirectly, and that people without teams will become even more indiscriminate in their LRM spam instead of actually working to get good at it. The "reason" I would go by is that the seeker warheads have gathered their own telemetry data on LoS firing, vs second hand info, but I agree it makes more "sense" your way, I just don't think it works balance wise as well.

Your way (which is more realistic) would work but would (IMO) require further nerfs for the effectiveness of the indirect missiles, such as MUCH wider spread (and of course, slower direction changes, so easier to wipe off missiles on buildings, since the telemetry must feed through 2 combat computers now), so as to still make the indirect method the secondary and not preferred method.

I still think, even as a support weapon, the preferred method should still be LoS, get your own locks, ESPECIALLY with CLAN LRMS. In fact, with them, due to their honor code, as part of the balance for their half weight launchers and no minimum range, I would say remove their indirect fire capability entirely and make them a LoS duelling version of the Inner Sphere LRM. In fact, removing the telemetry feeds and extra computers and such might help explain the lighter weight.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 05 April 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[El Bandito]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

In fact, with them, due to their honor code, as part of the balance for their half weight launchers and no minimum range, I would say remove their indirect fire capability entirely and make them a LoS duelling version of the Inner Sphere LRM. In fact, removing the telemetry feeds and extra computers and such might help explain the lighter weight.

Nah, without minimum range, people will still whine about direct fire CLRMs. I have seen enough toons in this forum to know which ones will cry the most. Why settle for SSRM6 when you can fire CLRM20!

Dollars to donuts PGI will give CLRMs minimum range.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 April 2014 - 05:54 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

El Bandito, on 05 April 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

Nah, without minimum range, people will still whine about direct fire CLRMs. I have seen enough toons in this forum to know which ones will cry the most. Why settle for SSRM6 when you can fire CLRM20!

Dollars to donuts PGI will give CLRMs minimum range.

They can't code their way out of a paperbag, so if it's not minimum range it's going to be something that makes them completely worthless.

The Clans are going to be a whole new level of AC/PPC dominance.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 05 April 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

Nah, without minimum range, people will still whine about direct fire CLRMs. I have seen enough toons in this forum to know which ones will cry the most. Why settle for SSRM6 when you can fire CLRM20!

Dollars to donuts PGI will give CLRMs minimum range.

If you read the Command Chair about Clan tech, they actually ARE going to give CLurms a min range, but it won't be an instant falloff to 0 damage. It's be an exponential decay so you can still do some damage, but it gets rapidly weaker as the target gets closer.

http://mwomercs.com/...gn-perspective/

Edited by FupDup, 05 April 2014 - 06:24 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

FupDup, on 05 April 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

If you read the Command Chair about Clan tech, they actually ARE going to give CLurms a min range, but it won't be an instant falloff to 0 damage. It's be an exponential decay so you can still do some damage, but it gets rapidly weaker as the target gets closer.

http://mwomercs.com/...gn-perspective/

Might as well be a minimum range at that point.

[Corwin Vickers]

Roadkill, on 05 April 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

Missiles aren't really meant to be primary weapons used 1 vs 1. They're support weapons in the sense that you use them to support teammates in a fight. Lob 'em over everyone's heads at the target. But they should do good damage in that role so that they're worth taking when compared to an AC/5 or PPC.

DIE DIE DIE

Missiles in the board game and the fluff function as primary weapons. Just about every clan mech carries them and the clans (almost entirely) do not use "support" weapons.

We are not talking about Arrow IV or Long Tom or thunder rounds. Those are "support" weapons.

LRMs are just weapons, and yet in MWO they are barely even that.

[Eglar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

The Clans are going to be a whole new level of AC/PPC dominance.

PREDICTED LIKE A TRUE LRM USER!!





*spends $240 on clan package - NAO*

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Eglar, on 05 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

PREDICTED LIKE A TRUE LRM USER!!



*spends $240 on clan package - NAO*

Are you telling me AC's and PPC's haven't been the meta for the last year? Hmm?

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 05 April 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

If you read the Command Chair about Clan tech, they actually ARE going to give CLurms a min range, but it won't be an instant falloff to 0 damage. It's be an exponential decay so you can still do some damage, but it gets rapidly weaker as the target gets closer.

http://mwomercs.com/...gn-perspective/

yeah, cuz that makes a heck of a lot of sense. My Warheads only MOSTLY explode at 90 meters...........

Eglar, on 05 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

PREDICTED LIKE A TRUE LRM USER!!





*spends $240 on clan package - NAO*

Umm...yeah because the Meta for the last year, and STILL isn't PPC and AC.

Oh I forgot, that is SKILL though.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

yeah, cuz that makes a heck of a lot of sense. My Warheads only MOSTLY explode at 90 meters...........

Besides being a bit counter-intuitive, it also doesn't have much of a balance impact. Yippie-ki-yay, Clan Lurms get to do a lil bit of damage up close. The already suggested idea of making Clan Lurms not have any indirect fire capabilities whatsoever is a much better idea for several reasons:

A. It has a greater impact than a "ghetto minrange" mechanic does, i.e. it sort of compensates for the smaller size of Clan Lurm launchers.

B. It has a very different and distinctive style of play that does not overlap with IS Lurms, i.e. they aren't just a direct upgrade (more of a playstyle/preference choice).

C. It also has some lore support because Clanners usually frowned upon "cowardly" indirect fire.

Edited by FupDup, 05 April 2014 - 04:48 PM.

[Wolfways]

Roadkill, on 05 April 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

Missiles aren't really meant to be primary weapons used 1 vs 1. They're support weapons in the sense that you use them to support teammates in a fight. Lob 'em over everyone's heads at the target. But they should do good damage in that role so that they're worth taking when compared to an AC/5 or PPC.

Don't the clans believe in 1-on-1 fighting? If so, why would clans ever have LRM's if they are support weapons?

Edit: Nm, i should have kept reading before posting

Edited by Wolfways, 05 April 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Eglar]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Umm...yeah because the Meta for the last year, and STILL isn't PPC and AC.
Oh I forgot, that is SKILL though.

Good point!!
Finally you see the merits of using PPC and Acs!
First step to become skilled +1

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 April 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Are you telling me AC's and PPC's haven't been the meta for the last year? Hmm?

No, it was mainly Erppc and Gauss.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 05 April 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Besides being a bit counter-intuitive, it also doesn't have much of a balance impact. Yippie-ki-yay, Clan Lurms get to do a lil bit of damage up close. The already suggested idea of making Clan Lurms not have any indirect fire capabilities whatsoever is a much better idea for several reasons:

A. It has a greater impact than a "ghetto minrange" mechanic does, i.e. it sort of compensates for the smaller size of Clan Lurm launchers.

B. It has a very different and distinctive style of play that does not overlap with IS Lurms, i.e. they aren't just a direct upgrade (more of a playstyle/preference choice).

C. It also has some lore support because Clanners usually frowned upon "cowardly" indirect fire.

exactly

[Khobai]

I never understood why LRMs cant just work like they do in tabletop.

1) roll to see how many missiles hit (artemis would apply a bonus to how many missiles hit)
2) divide the number of missiles that hit by 5
3) roll up that many hit locations and apply damage in 5 damage increments.

So if you fire an LRM20, and 12 missiles hit, then it would roll three hit locations for 5, 5, and 2 damage.

[King Arthur IV]

you will never be able to convince the ac/ppc junkies that anything else is "skill" based.

obviously
-only aiming center mass
-not really having to call targets and critical components
-hiding from a distance
-hiding behind weaker mechs even if you are the most healthy or heavily armored mech
-fire a forget (there is no need to hold any lock or laser duration)
-not much draw back or counters since those weapons are effective at close and long ranges
-pin point damage allows coring most targets in 3-4 hits. this means you don't even need to be a good shot since its so effective.
-since damage is so effective, there is no need to decided who is primary target ei. light or the assault.

basically, all you have yo do it wait and shoot what ever pops up in your sights. guess that is "skill"

[Corwin Vickers]

I use ACs and PPCs (and JJs) and I am good with them.

I use them because they are just about the best combo you can field at the moment.

Does that mean things shouldn't change so that all weapons are equally useful?


I started this thread saying that LRMs need to be changed.


Then for 16 pages AC/PPC users have said that LRMs take no "skill" so they should suck.

Who said that LRMs should take no "skill" to use? I said they should be CHANGED.