153 replies to this topic

[Dakshinamurthy]

I'm not saying Lrms are op, I think its the matchmaking system now and the sheer number of heavies/assaults, but playing a light or medium is absolute hell now. And if you say to get AMS to counter the lrms you just lost all credability. AMS seems absolutely great until you need it to and then you might aswell not even have it. It's heavy too btw, if you said ecm or radar dep you there might be a leg to stand on, but the fact is it isn't that the lrms are broken its the matchmaking.

Edited by Dakshinamurthy, 21 June 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[Wolfways]

Dakshinamurthy, on 21 June 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

I'm not saying Lrms are op, I think its the matchmaking system now and the sheer number of heavies/assaults, but playing a light or medium is absolute hell now. And if you say to get AMS to counter the lrms you just lost all credability. AMS seems absolutely great until you need it to and then you might aswell not even have it. It's heavy too btw, if you said ecm or radar dep you there might be a leg to stand on, but the fact is it isn't that the lrms are broken its the matchmaking.

Yeah, it's the MM's fault that people complain about LRM's until they get more countermeasures which forces other players to boat even more LRM's to try to get through the countermeasures that causes players to complain about LRM's until they get more countermeasures which forces.....you get the idea.

The only difference between the weight classes is that it is easier for faster mechs to completely negate LRM's, and that's not because they get more ECM. They can get to cover faster. Of course that's not taking into account the players ability.

AMS is also good at doing what it is supposed to do; reduce damage from an LRM launcher. It was never designed to negate, or even have much effect on boated launchers.

PGI's box of magic...umm i mean ECM is stupidly OP and is nothing like it is supposed to be in BT, and the fact that people complained so hard they got a module to instantly negate lock is just pathetic. I'm just not sure if it's more pathetic of the players, or PGI for making it.

[wanderer]

MischiefSC, on 18 June 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Except that the Timberwolf for example has no AMS at all save on one component and most mechs don't have dual AMS, and making Overload a required module is as bad making the new Radar Buggery module one?

Packing multi-AMS is a sacrifice in tonnage. It should give big payoffs. Having a module to buff them should have huge payoffs. That's atypical though.

Should negating an entire weapon system that is 5x or more that tonnage be the payoff, though?

Basically, it puts a viable, straightforward check on missiles- the more of those that exist, the more situational LRMs get. Get a game where nobody put in LRM counters? Bueno. Someone on the other team brings that triple-sweeper Kit Fox? Suddenly, your damage numbers plummet.

The more situational a weapon becomes, the lower it drops in terms of actual effectiveness- and we've seen another ECM light, the first triple-AMS system, a module that drastically improves multiple-AMS 'Mechs, and a module that greatly increases the value of concealment (not even cover) vs. missile salvos.

Imagine if lasers, AC's, etc. were on an endless roulette wheel of effectiveness, randomly determined each game. One game, your AC/20 is an AC/20. Then it's a weapon that has AC/20 stats- except for damage, which is 5. Or perhaps 2. You can also have an AC/20 that works like an AC/20 every time for the same price.

Which do you choose, the weapon that fails randomly, or the reliable one for the same price?

[ztac]

Something very wrong with LRM in this game and if Tag and Narc stack then that's just ridiculous (just finished a game where virtually our whole team was slaughtered by LRM because of stacked tags and narcs....It is a very bad joke, and the use of LRM is getting ridiculous now , It's like adding an I win button to the game. And seriously allowing teams in the game because of this fact is just mad. And your counter measures are a joke btw!

This is just a game of people sniping at each other while the LRM do their work now (kind of boring).

[wanderer]

ztac, on 21 June 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

Something very wrong with LRM in this game and if Tag and Narc stack then that's just ridiculous (just finished a game where virtually our whole team was slaughtered by LRM because of stacked tags and narcs....It is a very bad joke, and the use of LRM is getting ridiculous now , It's like adding an I win button to the game. And seriously allowing teams in the game because of this fact is just mad. And your counter measures are a joke btw!

This is just a game of people sniping at each other while the LRM do their work now (kind of boring).

So...I assume your team brought zero ECM and no AMS to the table, right?

They played towards an LRM focus, you brought none of the ever-increasing counters to this. Teamwork (spotter + LRM boat) beat random.

Don't sweat it much. Odds are, the next game they had was full of ECM and they spent most of their time putting missiles into walls instead.

[Xarian]

Deprivation works exactly as it says - when nobody has LOS to you, the lock is broken instantly. You can still indirect fire if your teammates have LOS.

TAG requires LOS, so it's completely unaffected.
UAV provides LOS, so it's completely unaffected.
NARC provides LOS, so it's completely unaffected.

It does one and only one thing: lowers the time between when you lose LOS and when you lose the target lock. It's the opposite of Target Decay.

[Wingbreaker]

Xarian, on 21 June 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

Deprivation works exactly as it says - when nobody has LOS to you, the lock is broken instantly. You can still indirect fire if your teammates have LOS.

TAG requires LOS, so it's completely unaffected.
UAV provides LOS, so it's completely unaffected.
NARC provides LOS, so it's completely unaffected.

It does one and only one thing: lowers the time between when you lose LOS and when you lose the target lock. It's the opposite of Target Decay.

One ECM and all of this is useless. IE: Anyone rolling LRMs *needs* to bring UAVs now.

[ExoForce]

Agreed, need UAV. Please provide another module slot on Stalkers! And ECM .

Edited by ExoForce, 21 June 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[Wolfways]

At this rate bad players are going to have LRM defense up the wazoo, and when they are safe from LRM's and are getting killed by Gauss, PPC's, etc. they'll come to the forum and complain about them instead.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

My 4 man got owned pretty hard by an LRM heavy group, they landed with 4 ECM lights. And our team couldn't kill the lights (2 of which were Spiders, of course).

Our ECM decided to go snipe from a corner of course too.

But honestly, we had no AMS and we didn't change tactics and move into a better position.

I can't control everyone on the team. And I still put in my 500 damage.

But it wasn't about LRMs as much.

[S13gtastic]

Dono why but every time some one mentions Radar Dep, all I see is Radar Derp. xD

[Lightfoot]

Well, the Radar Dep. module greatly reduces the chances to target and hit mechs with LRMs so when I LRM I am going to carry enough launchers to make those hits really hurt as much as possible.

So Radar Dep has actually ushered in the age of LRM boats only. I would never have boated LRMs before, usually just LRM25, maybe LRM30 with less ammo. Now I think you should always have at least LRM40 and a mech stuffed with LRM ammo to waste. It's the only way to be sure you can support your teammates with an LRM mech.

Have a nice day!

[Reptilizer]

Trauglodyte, on 20 June 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

If I'm getting this right, you're mad at Varik, me, and others like us that LRM brawl while you bemoan the module because it prevents you from sitting as far back as possible and lobbing LRMs in on targets that you mostly can't see? Things will shake out over time but this is the game in which we play. Mass LRMs firing at targets that cannot be seen all with impunity is an issue. It doesn't hurt the smart LRMer but rather it hurts the non-thinking LRMer that isn't taking into account distance to target and distance to cover for the target or those firing via an undependable spotter/brawler.

I'm not saying that this module didn't make things more difficult. But, it doesn't make it impossible. Would you waste heat and AC ammo to fire on a Locust that was going 170kph at almost 2000m away? For the bulk of people, they wouldn't because it is slim odds and both heat and ammo counts are precious resources. So, why try to put LRMs on a target that you can't see or that is standing near/almost to cover? This is what I really don't get.

Necropower for the win!

No, you do not get me right and i have a feeling you actually know that.

• First, i am not mad at anybody.
  
• Second, i LRMbrawl myself in my C1. I do not run Assault-LRMboats.
  
• And third, while i can play the LRMbrawl very well, this playstyle underperforms when compared with direct fire to the face. That is my problem.

Target decay gives the option of casual teamwork for indirect fire. I think this is a valuable addition to the in-yor-face play we have.
There are not enough tactical elements in this thinking mans shooter. Killing one does make the game worse.
The more success in the game is based on lightning reflexes and aiming accuracy alone, the more we become a mediocre counterstrike-copy. Not that this can not be a successful type of game. It just is not the type of game i want to play.

[Galenit]

Reptilizer, on 24 June 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

There are not enough tactical elements in this thinking mans shooter. Killing one does make the game worse.
The more success in the game is based on lightning reflexes and aiming accuracy alone, the more we become a mediocre counterstrike-copy. Not that this can not be a successful type of game. It just is not the type of game i want to play.

Dumb it down and then compete with other dumbed down games ...

I had big hopes for MWO after what was done to tribes as a thinking mans shooter.
But it goes the same way, they want the masses as customers ...

Edited by Galenit, 24 June 2014 - 07:42 AM.