135 replies to this topic

[TwentyOne]

Good Job PGI for nerfing Lurms back to LORE values. Lrms should be the worst weapon objectively. I can still go out in my awesome 8R (with new quirks) and eat face with it. Lrms will continue to be nerfed until there is no magical C3 making them Easymode, and lrm boats actually have to work harder for damage

[Cerlin]

So basically the anti lrm people here basically argue that 1 they do not like them and 2 they were useless in tabletop so they should ne useless here. The second argument is the more lame of the two. If you do not like them I get it even if I do not agree. Why should pgi nerf a weapon just because you personally dislike it? Try it some and check back with me. I want lrms to be a viable choice.

Now about using tabletop to balance this game is a complex issue. While I think tt is a good place to start I do not need it fully replicated here. I am glad the clans are less op and that lrms are more useful. They offer options of play style and make the game more diverse and interesting to play. Please do not nerf lrms into oblivion please pgi.

[Nyuuu]

KraftySOT, on 05 November 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

-snip-

Thank you for writing all that down KraftySOT, there is just so much truth in this that will of course be ingnored and talked down by the hypocritical lrm crowd.

I just felt the terrible effect this has on new players right when I started playing. Went through my first 25 matches, ok I am doing bad but that is because I have to learn.
Bought the Jagermech S from my cadet bonus and at that moment I really started noticing how much fun is ruined in the game thanks to lrms. The mate that started with me quit since he just couldn't stand it anymore at this point and I guess I would have almost went the same way. Buying GXP with MC and spending my very first earned 6mil MC on Radar Dep is the only thing that somehow stopped me from that....
And from the very first round onwards that I finally had radar depreviation on I was actually having fun. It is just sickening.... 3 mechs later I got myself a Stalker to "get revenge" and just became part of the problem.

In all the time I have spent in forums for the online games I stayed with over the years there was always one noticeable constant.
When something was called more effective / easier to use than similar options by almost anyone with a grain of common knowledge it was prominently defended by the one phrase "It is not overpowered, you just have to adapt to it"
If you have to adapt to one specific thing while you don't have to adapt to all other hostile options that simply makes it overpowered.

Lets illustrate that with a very simple example.
You are in a freshly bought Shadowhawk 2H with the famous 2xAC5 1xAC2 build.
You have a hill higher than your mech in front of you allowing you to look out, get a salvo out and get back in fast. No modules equiped.

At the other side of that hill, out in the open, there are in 5 scenarios 5 differently equipped long range Jagermechs at a distance of around 500m.
1) A 2xGaus Jager. You look over, fire a salvo, are back in before he can charge, no damage taken
2) A 2xUAC5 Jager. You look out, fire a salvo, are back in before his shells arrive. No damage taken.
3) A 2x ERPPC Firebrand. Same as above.
4) A 3xER Large Firebrand. You look out, fire a salvo, are back in with only minor damage thanks to the delay he has with reacting, aiming, firing and laser duration. Minimal damage taken
5) A 2xLRM15 + Tag Jager. You look out, fire a salvo, get back in and all his missles connect thanks to the 2+1 second decay time. You have 20 points less on your armor.

So, lets recap.
In all scenarios you were facing the same chassis, all having a roughly similar dps, all being in their effective range.
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with Gaus Rifles? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with normal Ballistics? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with Lasers? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with PPCS? No
Are you forced to stay in cover for the rest of the time the guy is looking at you thanks to him running LRMs? Yes

4 options where you don't have to "adapt your playstyle", one where you have to "adapt" - i.e. never showing your face unless you enjoy having it crushed. Interesting.....

Edited by Nyuuu, 06 November 2014 - 02:29 PM.

[Variant1]

yup its so nerfed that people still use it to this day. Oh no -0.1 dmg per missile? the horror! the sheer horror! well lets at least be honest it doesn't really feel like flanking when im shooting over a hill with lrms, feels like i'm raining hell on my opponents.

[R Razor]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 November 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Hey the main reason Ive been using LRMs lately isnt even the damage or anything that they do; Ive shattered my right elbow a number of times and have had 6 surgeries on it over the past 4 years. I have a lesion on my Ulnar nerve and tomorrow am having my elbow replaced.

Now if youve never broken the elbow Im betting you dont realize quite how painful moving your wrist is when the elbow is damaged (because all the muscle impulses go through the elbow). Using the LRM doesnt require high wrist movement and until they finally FIX my elbow is really the only way I can PLAY this game.

Remove that and I cant play without blackouts in matches.

First, sorry to hear about your injury and I hope the surgery goes / went well..........

That being said, you just made the best argument anyone could against LRM's........they allow people that lack the ability to actually AIM at a target and FIRE at a target the ability to simply click a button with minimal effort and wreck havoc on anything that's been spotted by any other team member. That is EXACTLY why they are broken and EXACTLY why so many of us cheer when we read about them getting taken down some.

[Mercules]

TwentyOne, on 05 November 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

Good Job PGI for nerfing Lurms back to LORE values. Lrms should be the worst weapon objectively. I can still go out in my awesome 8R (with new quirks) and eat face with it. Lrms will continue to be nerfed until there is no magical C3 making them Easymode, and lrm boats actually have to work harder for damage

There is no magical C3. It's ironic you should talk about Lore Values then ignore that they are using Lore Indirect Fire.

R Razor, on 06 November 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

First, sorry to hear about your injury and I hope the surgery goes / went well..........

That being said, you just made the best argument anyone could against LRM's........they allow people that lack the ability to actually AIM at a target and FIRE at a target the ability to simply click a button with minimal effort and wreck havoc on anything that's been spotted by any other team member. That is EXACTLY why they are broken and EXACTLY why so many of us cheer when we read about them getting taken down some.

It's doesn't require twitch skills but it does require more situational awareness than most LoS weapons. Different set of skills.

[KraftySOT]

They arent using lore indirect fire, LRMs act the same way if theres a LoS or not. They dont miss more often fired indirect. They dont require the spotter to not fire.

Nyuuu, on 06 November 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Thank you for writing all that down KraftySOT, there is just so much truth in this that will of course be ingnored and talked down by the hypocritical lrm crowd.

I just felt the terrible effect this has on new players right when I started playing. Went through my first 25 matches, ok I am doing bad but that is because I have to learn.
Bought the Jagermech S from my cadet bonus and at that moment I really started noticing how much fun is ruined in the game thanks to lrms. The mate that started with me quit since he just couldn't stand it anymore at this point and I guess I would have almost went the same way. Buying GXP with MC and spending my very first earned 6mil MC on Radar Dep is the only thing that somehow stopped me from that....
And from the very first round onwards that I finally had radar depreviation on I was actually having fun. It is just sickening.... 3 mechs later I got myself a Stalker to "get revenge" and just became part of the problem.

In all the time I have spent in forums for the online games I stayed with over the years there was always one noticeable constant.
When something was called more effective / easier to use than similar options by almost anyone with a grain of common knowledge it was prominently defended by the one phrase "It is not overpowered, you just have to adapt to it"
If you have to adapt to one specific thing while you don't have to adapt to all other hostile options that simply makes it overpowered.

Lets illustrate that with a very simple example.
You are in a freshly bought Shadowhawk 2H with the famous 2xAC5 1xAC2 build.
You have a hill higher than your mech in front of you allowing you to look out, get a salvo out and get back in fast. No modules equiped.

At the other side of that hill, out in the open, there are in 5 scenarios 5 differently equipped long range Jagermechs at a distance of around 500m.
1) A 2xGaus Jager. You look over, fire a salvo, are back in before he can charge, no damage taken
2) A 2xUAC5 Jager. You look out, fire a salvo, are back in before his shells arrive. No damage taken.
3) A 2x ERPPC Firebrand. Same as above.
4) A 3xER Large Firebrand. You look out, fire a salvo, are back in with only minor damage thanks to the delay he has with reacting, aiming, firing and laser duration. Minimal damage taken
5) A 2xLRM15 + Tag Jager. You look out, fire a salvo, get back in and all his missles connect thanks to the 2+1 second decay time. You have 20 points less on your armor.

So, lets recap.
In all scenarios you were facing the same chassis, all having a roughly similar dps, all being in their effective range.
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with Gaus Rifles? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with normal Ballistics? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with Lasers? No
Do you need to specially adapt to an enemy armed with PPCS? No
Are you forced to stay in cover for the rest of the time the guy is looking at you thanks to him running LRMs? Yes

4 options where you don't have to "adapt your playstyle", one where you have to "adapt" - i.e. never showing your face unless you enjoy having it crushed. Interesting.....

Yup LRMs are the number one factor governing how you play each match.

Its like a herd of cats hiding under a couch until the vacuum cleaner comes near, then its EVERYONE SCRAM, and its actually a fun game there for a few minutes. Then its back to the wait.

Sitzkrieg.

[Mercules]

KraftySOT, on 06 November 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

They arent using lore indirect fire, LRMs act the same way if theres a LoS or not. They dont miss more often fired indirect. They dont require the spotter to not fire.



Yup LRMs are the number one factor governing how you play each match.

Its like a herd of cats hiding under a couch until the vacuum cleaner comes near, then its EVERYONE SCRAM, and its actually a fun game there for a few minutes. Then its back to the wait.

Sitzkrieg.

1. You can fire while spotting
2. C3 would let you fire weapons as if you were standing where that mech is standing using those range penalties, we can't do that no C3 for target sharing so we can just drop that myth
3. We can't add a +1 to hit modifier on LRMs when Indirectly fired. Even I have stated the spread should be a bit more when used indirectly. However this is a LOT closer to Lore Indirect Fire rules than Lore C3 rules(which if I remember correctly doesn't apply to LRMs).


You keep going back to people sitting and hiding because of LRMs. You blame them as the single source for this behavior when you and everyone else understands that a double gauss shot to the chest typically encourages people to seek cover as does other direct fire.

The best way to deal with LRMs is to close the gap. However, in doing so you have to deal with PPCs/Lasers/ACs/Gauss/SRMs. Step out of cover, guy launches LRMs you can slip right back into cover and not get hit. Step out of cover, guy fires Gauss... too late buddy, you RT is stripped of armor. THAT is why people sit in cover. They could zip cover to cover to take out LRMs but in exiting one piece and entering another they will get shot with all the direct fire weapons.

LRMs are not the sole cause of players hiding they are just one of multiple contributors.

[R Razor]

Mercules, on 06 November 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

It's doesn't require twitch skills but it does require more situational awareness than most LoS weapons. Different set of skills.

If by situational awareness you mean making sure that you're missile track will actually CLEAR the hill you're hiding behind, and that you are aware of the typing in the chat box of your teammate telling you that your missiles are hitting the hill and not the target then yeah, I guess that's a little different......although we have to not only pay attention to our crosshairs and making sure they are on the target, we also have to make sure there is no invisible wall blocking half our firepower when we press the button...........and we don't get to stay in cover when we shoot so the bad guy gets to shoot back.

Easy mode is easy mode no matter how many ways you try to slice it. Limit the quantities allowed on a mech, limit the ammunition carried by a single non-cannon "LURM boat" (or quirk the living **** out of them) or completely remove indirect fire unless the target is Narc'd or Tagged.........then I'll concede they are somewhat balanced. Until then, keep playing your button press game and keep coming on here whining when PGI checks the data they collect and makes adjustments accordingly.

[Tipid]

Are lrms useful for softening up targets at long distance? (not quite sure since I never used them)

[Mercules]

R Razor, on 06 November 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Until then, keep playing your button press game and keep coming on here whining when PGI checks the data they collect and makes adjustments accordingly.

Funny how you automatically assume I play with LRMs and then try a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack. I mean I only support LRMs because it is in my best interest to do so, right? So I can' continue to use them. Implied is that I have no skill.

I haven't played a mech with LRMs in 2 months and that one had them as a support weapon for when it didn't have LoS and never sat in the back and pushed buttons.

The reason why I defend LRMs is because there is nothing wrong with them. If anything they need several buffs, especially in Direct Fire instead of Indirect.

You hate them because they require "No skill". Well, it requires only the tiniest bit of skill to neutralize most LRM Boats. So if you are getting hit by them you don't get to complain about their "lack of skill".

Tipid, on 06 November 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Are lrms useful for softening up targets at long distance? (not quite sure since I never used them)

Yes, to some extent. They are actually more useful for adding excess damage in narrow choke points where your team can't have more than 3-4 mechs direct firing at once without the risk of friendly fire.

[R Razor]

Mercules, on 06 November 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Funny how you automatically assume I play with LRMs and then try a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack. I mean I only support LRMs because it is in my best interest to do so, right? So I can' continue to use them. Implied is that I have no skill.

I haven't played a mech with LRMs in 2 months and that one had them as a support weapon for when it didn't have LoS and never sat in the back and pushed buttons.

The reason why I defend LRMs is because there is nothing wrong with them. If anything they need several buffs, especially in Direct Fire instead of Indirect.

You hate them because they require "No skill". Well, it requires only the tiniest bit of skill to neutralize most LRM Boats. So if you are getting hit by them you don't get to complain about their "lack of skill".

Actually if you had read my post in CONTEXT you would know that the "you" in question was the folks that come along and whine every time someone posts anything (valid or not) about the crap state of LRM's right now...........but apparently you're a little sensitive tonight, maybe it's that time of the month? (that is an ad hominem for the record)

Relax Francis, not everyone is out to make fun of you.

[terrycloth]

Uh... if you peek against direct fire weapons, you usually take a salvo before you can fire. They are waiting for you to peek.

If you peek against LRMs, even if they're waiting for you to peek, they lose lock before they can target, fire, and wait for the missiles to hit you. You only get hit if you duck back behind inadequate cover, ignore the missile warning, and fail to back up another mech width. If you have radar derp they don't even get to fire.

LRMs are useless against peekaboo compared to any other weapon.

And they hit *way* less often fired indirect. If the enemy is randomly fighting (firing weapons) instead of deliberately spotting, they hit even less often because they won't be holding a solid lock for you.

Edited by terrycloth, 06 November 2014 - 04:14 PM.

[Mercules]

R Razor, on 06 November 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Actually if you had read my post in CONTEXT you would know that the "you" in question was the folks that come along and whine every time someone posts anything (valid or not) about the crap state of LRM's right now...........but apparently you're a little sensitive tonight, maybe it's that time of the month? (that is an ad hominem for the record)

Relax Francis, not everyone is out to make fun of you.

It's not always apparent when it is the generalized version of you or not. This would be why it would be better to state, "People can always sit back and play their button push game...."

Based on context it appeared that you(not the generalized version) were speaking to me. This would be why I hate unidentified pronouns. My wife uses them all the time. "She isn't coming to dinner." with us talking about a particular female for the "she" to be apparent. "This isn't working" when I ask what isn't working she replies, "Well, this. "

[ShadowWolf Kell]

terrycloth, on 06 November 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

LRMs are useless against peekaboo compared to any other weapon.

Not entirely true. You can easily dumbfire them and they'll hit where you aim them at. With the right timing, you can ensure that the peekaboo mech pokes it's head up just as a grouped volley smashes into it's face. It's pretty devastating against ECM Ravens and Spiders who aren't expecting it. Most people who play peekaboo do it predictably because they're too lazy to relocate.

To avoid an accidental lock, simply select another target.

[Carl Wrede]

KraftySOT, on 04 November 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Its because they arent a viable weapon in the TT. Get an LRM carrier with 5 LRM20s in megamek, see how that does against...anything...

LRMs in MWO are like orbital bombardment from Aerotech...not LRMs. Those are basically useless until armor is depleted, or against stationary targets.

I dont get why people think they should be a viable weapon here. LRM boating should be useless. Taking one along because you have space and hardpoints for it to harass. Sure. But a viable weapon for boating? No.

Nor should people get more use out of 5xLRM5s, than two LRM15s.

I have to question if you have ever played Battletech TT from your statement. LRMs are very viable weapons in the boardgame.

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Carl Wrede, on 06 November 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I have to question if you have ever played Battletech TT from your statement. LRMs are very viable weapons in the boardgame.

Not under 6 hexes they aren't.

[Carl Wrede]

ShadowWolf Kell, on 06 November 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

Not under 6 hexes they aren't.

True but thats a very specific situation and the enemy most likely took a lot of damage on the way in. Same applies here in MWO.

[Popper100]

So let me get this straight. People dislike LRMs because they are used to great effect in indirect fire and with sight lock-on transference? Ok, so why isn't that being looked at? The problem seems pretty easy to solve to me, make lock-on work only with personal sight or with a Tag/Narc. In exchange, knock the Tonnage down to MW4 Levels and reward taking the higher level LRMs rather than punish Mechs with too few hardpoints to exploit the current Tonnage values. Up the recycle time to north of 6 seconds for IS and 7 seconds for Clan to prevent spam. Remove minimum range.

Hopeful result: LRMs become the extra firepower system that they are meant to be, rather than a completely different subset of weapon used for offense. Cowering teams go away. Combat ensues.

Side Nerf: Reduce cockpit shake from LRMs, they are HE rockets, not kinetic rounds shaking you all over the place.

Edited by Popper100, 06 November 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

R Razor, on 06 November 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

First, sorry to hear about your injury and I hope the surgery goes / went well..........

That being said, you just made the best argument anyone could against LRM's........they allow people that lack the ability to actually AIM at a target and FIRE at a target the ability to simply click a button with minimal effort and wreck havoc on anything that's been spotted by any other team member. That is EXACTLY why they are broken and EXACTLY why so many of us cheer when we read about them getting taken down some.

Yes, we should make the game MORE unfriendly to ppl who lack the capability to do things that normal ppl can, just to inflate your epeen.