111 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm just matching a brain dead, simplistic answer with equally simplistic platitudes.

Be careful doing that- it can easily come back and bite you in the vulnerables.

[Bishop Steiner]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Be careful doing that- it can easily come back and bite you in the vulnerables.

not if I keep track of the convo. Just because other people don't bother to check the context, not really my problem, lol.

[Lyoto Machida]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

What does that say about how far down they drop when they PuG then?

I see a lot of newer players.... yet I rarely have to worry about friendly fire.

Doesn't that just mean that the high(er) ELO players are making up for extremely crappy PUGs??? Team ELO balancing and all that?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Lyoto Machida, on 20 May 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Doesn't that just mean that the high(er) ELO players are making up for extremely crappy PUGs??? Team ELO balancing and all that?

Perhaps....

On the other hand - when we had the buckets up - the complaints about crappy pugmates skyrocketed, so I would assume the opposite is more true.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Be careful doing that- it can easily come back and bite you in the vulnerables.

Watch and learn from the master.

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Actually, they double their back armor when they play in the PUG queue, because the Underhive hasn't learned how to actually aim at the other team yet.

Talk about uninformed. LOL !

Friendly fire is a rarity in pugging and usually it is the tryhards who'll blast their closest buddy as they scramble for killing blows for chest thumping rights on the score board.

I don't blame pugs for using tryhards as target practice. Those yellow stripes running down your exposed backs make for better targets when you spend 90% of a match hiding behind cover to poptart.

Edited by lockwoodx, 20 May 2014 - 05:01 PM.

[Th3Mattman]

Here's my two cents on the whole LRM deal. I think they're definitely a problem in creating a rewarding and fun experience for the average player but not for the reason that most people here are hollaring about. To preface my argument, Id like to say that I very rarely get tremendously beat up by LRMs and that yes sticking behind cover prevents them from getting at you. The problem with this and the problem with mechwarrior online as a whole for me, is that sticking behind cover at the risk of getting wrecked by LRMs creates a very stale environment where waiting is rewarded as opposed to shrewd tactical or strategic decisions. I cant tell you how many games ive played where the team with the most patience to wait out the enemy team wins. I believe the main culprit is LRMS, where essentially regardless of map position, 3 or 4 players have the ability to hammer a single player based on the line of sight of some other single mech. This power vastly reduces the effectiveness of flanks and promotes hill humping, pop tarts, as well as other degenerate things. I think that the C3 argument has alot of merit in that only the spotting mech can lock on w/o the help of Narc/Tag etc if we do that then we can even up the power of LRMs damage wise.

[El Bandito]

Don't worry guys. After this patch, the number of LRMs will drop sharply.

All hail the meta, again.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 May 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Scratx]

El Bandito, on 20 May 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

Don't worry guys. After this patch, the number of LRMs will drop sharply.

All hail the meta, again.

Yep. Hearing that all missiles are broken. I can't help but laugh if that's true.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Scratx, on 20 May 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

Yep. Hearing that all missiles are broken. I can't help but laugh if that's true.

Thankfully a bug they are working on until they plan to make it a "feature".

It was kind of an "opps... we didn't mean to cut IS missile damage in half to make Clan Tech seem potent... YET".

[Widowmaker1981]

lockwoodx, on 21 May 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

Thankfully a bug they are working on until they plan to make it a "feature".

It was kind of an "opps... we didn't mean to cut IS missile damage in half to make Clan Tech seem potent... YET".

yeah. thats fairly obviously not what happened. from what i gather (and what makes sense) they added some code designed to make CLRMs damage drop off from full at 180m to 0 at 1m, and somehow that code caused all missiles damage to drop off from full at 1000m to 0 at 180m. bad coding, not a conspiracy.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 May 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

yeah. thats fairly obviously not what happened. from what i gather (and what makes sense) they added some code designed to make CLRMs damage drop off from full at 180m to 0 at 1m, and somehow that code caused all missiles damage to drop off from full at 1000m to 0 at 180m. bad coding, not a conspiracy.

Hush you, I'm about to make a killing in stock options!

[Praehotec8]

No, LRMs do not need any more hindrance. I am not even a great player and I rarely find even massed LRMs a problem. I also sometimes run LRMs with reasonable effect, and do not find them overpowered.

Sure, if you get caught in a crossfire and slammed with them, you will die, but how is that any different than any other weapon (except flamers)? If you get focused on, you die. Period. LRMs are actually a weapon system, not a string-confetti dispenser. At BEST, an LRM20 is like taking an AC20 round and spraying it all over a mech's armor.

Plus, what is your accuracy with LRMs? Yes, you can target indirectly from 1000m, but how often do your shots fired (even directly) from > 400m actually hit?

Let's look at an example: I ran an LRM60 stalker for a while, with > 1000 missiles per match, and had a K:D ratio of 3.05 (archived). My average damage per match was 360. Consider that LRMs do 1.4 damage per missile (I believe). With 1000 missiles, that would be 1400 damage in an ideal world. Average damage done then, was about 26% of what is possible. Note that my goal was always to have LOS if possible, and to remain close to the battle line to maximize hits. With 360 damage spread out all over the armor of enemy mechs (i.e. not conenctrated on specific components), that's a heck of a lot of wasted ammo tonnage and damage. The only reason maintaining a high K:D ratio was possible, is by being ignored by most enemies until the match had already been lost for my team.

None of this may may much sense (I'm post-work and sleepy), but bottom line is that LRMs are borderline useful in average matches, but do require a measure of thought to use effectively and certainly are not worse than a myriad of weapons. Even in brawling mechs (my favorites!), I would much rather face LRMs than AC5s and PPCs from 5-600m.