67 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Vinhasa, on 26 August 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Except there are plenty of places where there's no hard cover near, and for strategic purposes you have to move through it.

Kaspirikay, on 26 August 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

This is the main issue I have with LRM. As it stands, it is extremely effective suppression. It literally controls the flow of the battle.

Because multiple PPCs/Gauss wouldn't be just as effective over that same open country?

[Wolfways]

I was in a Kit Fox yesterday. I peeked out from behind cover and fired at an enemy mech before getting that so annoyingly repetitive "incoming missiles" message. Just as i backed up behind cover i noticed a Direwolf fire at me with 2xERPPC/2xGauss. Half of my mech just vanished in a small explosion and the missiles hit the ground where i had just been standing.

But yeah, LRM's are so OP...

[DasSibby]

Kilo 40, on 26 August 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

you should always be close to cover. Narc or not.

I'm sick and TIRED of this argument. While it's true that in THIS current game balance, you have to stay close to cover to survive...should it be?

Seriously ask yourself.Should LRMS force all players to avoid 2/3s of every map? Should 5 LRM boats instantly pretty much guarantee victory?
If you answered, "Yes" to either of those questions, you're part of the balance problem.

[Ultimax]

Mercules, on 26 August 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

Because multiple PPCs/Gauss wouldn't be just as effective over that same open country?

It would but:

1) Only one person needs LoS for multiple LRM carrying mechs to all focus fire on one target.
2) Those PPC/Gauss/Whatever users need to get their own LoS - have to have clear lines of fire and not be in each other's way. They Need to expose themselves to return fire.


The reason why LRMs are so strong in PUG matches is because they take the work out of focus firing that good teams use VOIP for.

[Mercules]

Ultimatum X, on 26 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

It would but:

1) Only one person needs LoS for multiple LRM carrying mechs to all focus fire on one target.
2) Those PPC/Gauss/Whatever users need to get their own LoS - have to have clear lines of fire and not be in each other's way. They Need to expose themselves to return fire.


The reason why LRMs are so strong in PUG matches is because they take the work out of focus firing that good teams use VOIP for.

1. Only one person needs ECM for that LOS to be ruined.
2. If everyone brought some AMS even the open areas would not see many LRMs hit home.

Same can't be said about PPC/Gauss, nothing but cover stops those.

[mogs01gt]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'm sick and TIRED of this argument. While it's true that in THIS current game balance, you have to stay close to cover to survive...should it be?Seriously ask yourself.Should LRMS force all players to avoid 2/3s of every map? Should 5 LRM boats instantly pretty much guarantee victory?If you answered, "Yes" to either of those questions, you're part of the balance problem.

So you want the ability to run around out in the open praying that your opponents cant aim? That makes zero sense, this isnt COD.

Edited by mogs01gt, 26 August 2014 - 08:07 AM.

[Ultimax]

Mercules, on 26 August 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

1. Only one person needs ECM for that LOS to be ruined.
2. If everyone brought some AMS even the open areas would not see many LRMs hit home.

Same can't be said about PPC/Gauss, nothing but cover stops those.

1) More mechs can mount LRMs than there are mechs that can mount ECM.
2) The amount of cover you need for direct fire weapons, can be much smaller vertically than the cover you need from LRMs.


I play an LRM 50 Warhawk, I know exactly how this works, why it works and when it does not work.

[Wolfways]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'm sick and TIRED of this argument. While it's true that in THIS current game balance, you have to stay close to cover to survive...should it be?

Seriously ask yourself.Should LRMS force all players to avoid 2/3s of every map? Should 5 LRM boats instantly pretty much guarantee victory?
If you answered, "Yes" to either of those questions, you're part of the balance problem.

1) No, and they don't. It's usually a small part of some maps.
2) No, but the team with LRM boats usually loses.
YMMV.
If you think you should be able to derp around in the open and forget that tactics exist then you are part of the problem.

Ultimatum X, on 26 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

They Need to expose themselves to return fire.

Not if they have longer ranged weapons than the opponents (which LRM's rarely are btw).

[DasSibby]

Wolfways, on 26 August 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

1) No, and they don't. It's usually a small part of some maps.
2) No, but the team with LRM boats usually loses.
YMMV.
If you think you should be able to derp around in the open and forget that tactics exist then you are part of the problem.


Not if they have longer ranged weapons than the opponents (which LRM's rarely are btw).

Not remotely my argument. I don't think I should be able to stand in the open without getting slammed. (and a team with 5 competent LRM boats can win in most maps.)

I DO think that I should be able to rush through an opening in cover, risking some potshots to flank some enemies from the next (and better positioned) bit of cover. The way the LRMS are set up now creates stagnation. You stick with the ECM (if you're lucky enough to have one), hide like a frightened puppy in cover, or you die via constant LRM barrage unless you're a light.

I don't hate LRMS. I hate that they basically FORCE players to always camp. I want dynamic game play, not this hide from LRM rain game.

Edited by DasSibby, 26 August 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Ultimax]

Wolfways, on 26 August 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

Not if they have longer ranged weapons than the opponents (which LRM's rarely are btw).

If your team doesn't have any ranged ability at all, you deserve to lose.

[Wolfways]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

Not remotely my argument. I don't think I should be able to stand in the open without getting slammed. (and a team with 5 competent LRM boats can win in most maps.)

I DO think that I should be able to rush through an opening in cover, risking some potshots to flank some enemies from the next (and better positioned) bit of cover. The way the LRMS are set up now creates stagnation. You stick with the ECM (if you're lucky enough to have one), hide like a frightened puppy in cover, or you die via constant LRM barrage unless you're a light.

I don't hate LRMS. I hate that they basically FORCE players to always camp. I want dynamic game play, not this hide from LRM rain game.

Then the problem is yours.
I've never camped, unless you count staying within weapon range and firing from cover as camping. I stay on the move from cover to cover, firing as i go...even in a 53kph Stalker, and i don't use any countermeasures.

Ultimatum X, on 26 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

If your team doesn't have any ranged ability at all, you deserve to lose.

Other than the early long range firing (first few minutes) most matches are brawling.

[DasSibby]

Wolfways, on 26 August 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Then the problem is yours.

This is the problem with this Ad-Hominem argument. It assumes that everyone you disagree with is either a complete noob, or an idiot.

Lets assume I'm both. Assuming I fail at this game, and am just wandering out in the open and dying... doesn't the fact that many, MANY players (and respected ones at that!) have raised this very issue concern you? Are you so convinced that LRMS are fine as is that you're going to assume every. single. player. that wants changes to the LRM system are noobs/idiots?

LRMs aren't broken, but they need fixing, and I wish you could see that.

[mogs01gt]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

This is the problem with this Ad-Hominem argument. It assumes that everyone you disagree with is either a complete noob, or an idiot.Lets assume I'm both. Assuming I fail at this game, and am just wandering out in the open and dying... doesn't the fact that many, MANY players (and respected ones at that!) have raised this very issue concern you? Are you so convinced that LRMS are fine as is that you're going to assume every. single. player. that wants changes to the LRM system are noobs/idiots?
LRMs aren't broken, but they need fixing, and I wish you could see that.

No it's not a concern because LRMs are only an issue that is created by lower ELO players.

[wolf74]

LRM Firing Mech is "F"

Target "E" Is safe due to no LOS , IF a UAV was up than E could be shot at
Target "D" is in Danger Due to the Narc on him and the ECM Mech Near him ECM is Jammed
Target"C" is safe Due to "A" ECM Covering him. The Narc on "C" is Jamming his ECM unit, IF a UAV was above B,C, or D than C could be shot at
Target "B" is Safe Due to "A" ECM, IF a UAV was above A,B or C than B could be shot at
Target "A" is Safe Due to "A" ECM, IF a UAV was above A or B than A could be shot at

[HlynkaCG]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'm sick and TIRED of this argument. While it's true that in THIS current game balance, you have to stay close to cover to survive...should it be?

Yes

[Lynx7725]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I DO think that I should be able to rush through an opening in cover, risking some potshots to flank some enemies from the next (and better positioned) bit of cover. The way the LRMS are set up now creates stagnation. You stick with the ECM (if you're lucky enough to have one), hide like a frightened puppy in cover, or you die via constant LRM barrage unless you're a light.

I don't hate LRMS. I hate that they basically FORCE players to always camp. I want dynamic game play, not this hide from LRM rain game.

You have a point. I offer this in response. If a player can only hide like a frightened puppy in cover when LRMs go overhead, then he will never improve his game. If a player cannot overcome his fear and tendency to camp, he cannot progress further. He has to overcome that fear and find a way.

LRMs are pretty much the #2 step up in the teamwork ladder, the #1 being "moving in the same direction". If just LRMs is enough to cower a player, then $DEITY forbids when the player encounter a coordinated direct fire team, or worse, a coordinated direct fire and LRM supported team.

And no, it's not a map design problem. PGI spends effort to make sure map play is decent. There are usually ways and means to avoid fire and still move up into attack position. I spent a good part of my early days sneaking around in SplatCats and BoomJagers, so I learnt where the spots are. Now I use that knowledge to work my way around in LRM boats and SplatWolves. And I've never had the problem of "not being able to move" for too long -- either I find an alternative route, or I wait a bit and the enemy moves off, or I die from being overextended from team support. My own fault on the last one by the way. The enemy's just the messenger.

It's up to the player to find a way. No lie, there's usually one. MWO is not a game with an easy learning curve, and that curve doesn't end when you learn how to survive against LRMs, it starts there. Because it only gets tougher from that point -- the ******** coming for you from that point on are going to be good.

[Escef]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'm sick and TIRED of this argument. While it's true that in THIS current game balance, you have to stay close to cover to survive...should it be?

Seriously ask yourself.Should LRMS force all players to avoid 2/3s of every map? Should 5 LRM boats instantly pretty much guarantee victory?
If you answered, "Yes" to either of those questions, you're part of the balance problem.

So, you want to play a wargame where going all Leeroy Jenkins is a winning strategy? And you think those that disagree are a problem?

Edited by Escef, 26 August 2014 - 10:55 AM.

[Fut]

DasSibby, on 26 August 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I DO think that I should be able to rush through an opening in cover, risking some potshots to flank some enemies from the next (and better positioned) bit of cover. The way the LRMS are set up now creates stagnation. You stick with the ECM (if you're lucky enough to have one), hide like a frightened puppy in cover, or you die via constant LRM barrage unless you're a light.

What does it mean to "rush through an opening in cover" ?
Nevermind, I think I figured out what you meant.

Lynx7725 really nailed the response to you though:

Lynx7725, on 26 August 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

You have a point. I offer this in response. If a player can only hide like a frightened puppy in cover when LRMs go overhead, then he will never improve his game. If a player cannot overcome his fear and tendency to camp, he cannot progress further. He has to overcome that fear and find a way.

I'm going to throw my 2 cents into this "debate" once again. LRMs are probably the best they've ever been - I won't deny that some tweaking could be used, but overall I think they're performing quite well. I'm able to bring a single LRM10 into battle as an auxiliary weapon, and actually feel like it's a compliment to my Mech, as opposed to a waste of tonnage.

Edited by Fut, 26 August 2014 - 11:02 AM.

[DAYLEET]

Kilo 40, on 26 August 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

you should always be close to cover. Narc or not.
If you're away from cover you dun goofed.

No one sane believe that bs anymore. This is not realistic in any kind of way.

Kilo 40, on 26 August 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

communicate with your team. ask them to watch for lights carrying narc until you get to cover.

You are out of your mind, do you even play this game? My last mech i reconfigured for lrm is my goldenboy, he carries a Narc and 3 MedL on top of the lrm and i was always on the front line or close flanking, there is nothing the enemy team can do except to try defend and play by your rule. If my team happened to have lights with uav and heavy/assault who didnt mind advancing instead of staying back It was pure easy mode.
The best thing the enemy can do is hide and get slowly decimated or hope we are dumb enough to go in 1 by 1.

If your team has a lot lrm, as opposed to lrm boats who tend to be poor players, you will win, your first line pushing will have no opposition as the enemy is getting stun locked and just taken out of the fight.

As i said in another thread, no amount of nerf can stop the whine on lrm because everyone hates to be shot by the noobiest weapon that also blinds you, damage you and takes you out of the fight. That said lrm could still be looked at for a balance run.

Edited by DAYLEET, 26 August 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[DasSibby]

I really like Lynx's response to my comment (and his later comment). I personally don't have a problem with LRMs... that often. But I have pretty much exclusively dropped solo pug, and so much of my frustration stems from that I guess. Lack of teamwork/ams/ECM leads to a higher amount of LRM damage, and thus a shorter battle.

Maybe I'll join a clan or something so I don't have to worry about these LRMs again.

(Here's Lynx's post)

Lynx7725, on 26 August 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

[/size]
You have a point. I offer this in response. If a player can only hide like a frightened puppy in cover when LRMs go overhead, then he will never improve his game. If a player cannot overcome his fear and tendency to camp, he cannot progress further. He has to overcome that fear and find a way.

LRMs are pretty much the #2 step up in the teamwork ladder, the #1 being "moving in the same direction". If just LRMs is enough to cower a player, then $DEITY forbids when the player encounter a coordinated direct fire team, or worse, a coordinated direct fire and LRM supported team.

And no, it's not a map design problem. PGI spends effort to make sure map play is decent. There are usually ways and means to avoid fire and still move up into attack position. I spent a good part of my early days sneaking around in SplatCats and BoomJagers, so I learnt where the spots are. Now I use that knowledge to work my way around in LRM boats and SplatWolves. And I've never had the problem of "not being able to move" for too long -- either I find an alternative route, or I wait a bit and the enemy moves off, or I die from being overextended from team support. My own fault on the last one by the way. The enemy's just the messenger.

It's up to the player to find a way. No lie, there's usually one. MWO is not a game with an easy learning curve, and that curve doesn't end when you learn how to survive against LRMs, it starts there. Because it only gets tougher from that point -- the ******** coming for you from that point on are going to be good.