432 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

Yes, and only hard core self-deluded LRM boat pilots would be offended...

And really, no one gives a **** about them anyway.

Well, you seem to be very butthurt about them.

I didn't know you were that type of player.


I can't stand the worst weapon system in the game. You know you've lost the PUG lottery when someone starts asking for locks. They make excellent targets, though.

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 November 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Mercules, on 26 November 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

You are. Your defense against my argument is that I must have some motive to make the claims I am making therefore my claims are invalid. Even if I was a regular user of LRMs, and I am not, that does not invalidate my claims by itself. You must invalidate my claims based upon evidence and a logical argument. Good luck.

It's a natural conclusion based on the fact that if you truly did not care about LRMs you wouldn't invest an effort in circumventing any change to them.

IE: I don't really care about Cicadas/Locusts/Jenners/Medium Lasers/SRMs/Clan SRMs/Targeting Computers/ETC./ETC./ETC., therefore you won't find me on a forum attempting to circumvent any change to them.

Unless you just like to argue over everything, there's no point to it if you 'have no dog in the fight.'

Quote

Go back and read the Dunning Kruger effect. I get hit by LRMs, everyone does. However I don't perceive them as a problem or threat any more than any of the other weapon systems. In fact I can avoid them easier than I can avoid things like Gauss, ACs, and Lasers. I understand how they work and negate any supposed advantage you seems to think they have.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're perfect your **** don't stink and the regularly reoccurring over abundance of LRMs doesn't touch you in the least.

So again, why do you care? If for you they are a non-issue, why bother attempting to defeat the least little change to them?

Quote

So why do people use LRMs during challenges. I think the challenge just brings out a lot of low skill people.

low skill user + low skill target = good damage
high skill user + low skill target = awesome damage
high skill user + high skill target = some damage
low skill user + high skill target = almost no damage if any

Get a bunch of low skill targets and you can crank damage even if you are not that good yourself. See, it isn't the weapon... it's the stupidity on the other end that makes LRMs good. If you are being hit so much it's a problem, the problem isn't the weapon.... it's you.

I think the low skill people are always there, but everyone has their 'favorite' builds, the challenges, with a scoring system that favors low risk/low skill play pushes people away from their favorite builds towards builds that allow low risk play, and don't require any significant skill.

My suggestion is to NOT change the weapon but only how it is scored, and only the DAMAGE portion of that score. If you happen to kill someone with LRMs, you'd still get that kill counted. If you assisted a kill with your LRMs, you'd still get that counted, what you would NOT get is "full value" for the damage that AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT PORTION was the result of OTHER PLAYER's targeting/UAVs/NARCs/TAGs.

I have also suggested changing the counting of kills to those that only counted as "solo kills" by the current scoring standards, which would affect EVERYONE, not just LRM users.

Basically changing the scoring mechanism to reflect your actual effort and risk.

[Dimento Graven]

Mcgral18, on 26 November 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well, you seem to be very butthurt about them.

I didn't know you were that type of player.

Not butthurt, but interested in 'normalizing' play during challenges to match that the other four and half days of the week.

Maybe people won't be so inclined to switch to their missile builds during challenges if the scoring was more in line with actual risk and effort required by the builds.

Quote

I can't stand the worst weapon system in the game. You know you've lost the PUG lottery when someone starts asking for locks. They make excellent targets, though.

I don't consider it "losing the PUG lottery" when people ask for locks. It's actually a GOOD THING people are letting you know they have a missile boat and intend to utilize indirect fire. Properly coordinated it at the very least can help ensure a win for your side.

Should that person get FULL SCORE for utilizing my targeting locks or UAVs? In my opinion, no.

Should his kill count if all he got was one missile in at the right time? No, but neither should a kill I get when all I happen to touch was that very red CT with one of my ML's at just the right moment.

I got the kill, but it certainly wouldn't have registered as a 'solo kill' by the current scoring standards and probably shouldn't count towards any challenge scoring.

I think THAT would be most fair...

[El Bandito]

Hah, the poll continues to validate my statement, that the majority of the forumers do not feel that LRMs are overbearing. Bookmarking the thread for future reference.

[Mercules]

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

It's a natural conclusion based on the fact that if you truly did not care about LRMs you wouldn't invest an effort in circumventing any change to them.

IE: I don't really care about Cicadas/Locusts/Jenners/Medium Lasers/SRMs/Clan SRMs/Targeting Computers/ETC./ETC./ETC., therefore you won't find me on a forum attempting to circumvent any change to them.

Unless you just like to argue over everything, there's no point to it if you 'have no dog in the fight.'

There is every point. I care about the game in general. I enjoy playing it. I also realize that LRMs are not overwhelming in the least. So when someone comes and makes a false claim that they are to get them changed I am going to point out the flaws in their argument.

I might even try and help them to understand what they are doing wrong that they think a weapon that is not that big a danger is unstoppable.

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're perfect your **** don't stink and the regularly reoccurring over abundance of LRMs doesn't touch you in the least.

So again, why do you care? If for you they are a non-issue, why bother attempting to defeat the least little change to them?

Let me attempt to use an allegory to explain it so you might get it this time.

Say there is a dog in the neighborhood. It is chained up and can't come out to the sidewalk. If you step onto the lawn it will growl and bark but it can't actually reach you unless you walk closer.

So there is a guy who walks by every day, and every day he not only steps into the lawn so the dog growls and barks, but he then walks into the are the dog is chained in and screams at it. Then he goes to the owner and says, "Man, you you have to muzzle that dog it keeps biting me."

This is what you are doing.

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

I think the low skill people are always there, but everyone has their 'favorite' builds, the challenges, with a scoring system that favors low risk/low skill play pushes people away from their favorite builds towards builds that allow low risk play, and don't require any significant skill.

My suggestion is to NOT change the weapon but only how it is scored, and only the DAMAGE portion of that score. If you happen to kill someone with LRMs, you'd still get that kill counted. If you assisted a kill with your LRMs, you'd still get that counted, what you would NOT get is "full value" for the damage that AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT PORTION was the result of OTHER PLAYER's targeting/UAVs/NARCs/TAGs.

I have also suggested changing the counting of kills to those that only counted as "solo kills" by the current scoring standards, which would affect EVERYONE, not just LRM users.

Basically changing the scoring mechanism to reflect your actual effort and risk.

Why? Who actually takes the challenges seriously? You do? That is hilarious!

[Dimento Graven]

Mercules, on 26 November 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

There is every point. I care about the game in general. I enjoy playing it. I also realize that LRMs are not overwhelming in the least. So when someone comes and makes a false claim that they are to get them changed I am going to point out the flaws in their argument.

1. I never claimed LRMs are overwhelming.
2. That for challenges, the increase of 'mechs that sport LRMs increases, dramatically. It's an observable fact like leaves turning brown and falling of leaves during Fall.
3. I've argued consistently that LRMs are "easy mode", which they are given everyone else's arguments why we see more LRMs during challenges.

Quote

I might even try and help them to understand what they are doing wrong that they think a weapon that is not that big a danger is unstoppable.

Let me attempt to use an allegory to explain it so you might get it this time.

Say there is a dog in the neighborhood. It is chained up and can't come out to the sidewalk. If you step onto the lawn it will growl and bark but it can't actually reach you unless you walk closer.

So there is a guy who walks by every day, and every day he not only steps into the lawn so the dog growls and barks, but he then walks into the are the dog is chained in and screams at it. Then he goes to the owner and says, "Man, you you have to muzzle that dog it keeps biting me."

This is what you are doing.

Due your 'allegory' being incredibly incorrect I it makes me question any advice you might try and give.

No utilizing your allegory, it would be more akin to one or two people who have dogs chained up, HOWEVER, that chain not being attached to anything substantial such that it's possible for the dogs with teeth to drag chain and insubstantial anchor and move around, also, on the weekends there are several other neighbors who normally have their dogs inside, going out and 'chaining' them to nothing substantial such and all those dogs, plus the original few are all wandering around the neighborhood nearly biting people.

THAT is more like what we have here. Now if we were discussing base turrets, your allegory would work, and work very well, but not for anything actually mobile...

Quote

Why? Who actually takes the challenges seriously? You do? That is hilarious!

You're so superior, you're so cool that winning or losing doesn't matter to you. My, my, you are one egotistical mother... aren't you?

You care OH SO MUCH about the game, but apparently don't give any crap about the challenges/contests provided?

You're flip flopping all over the place...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 26 November 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

LRM's are finally in a place where they are both not useless and also not instantaneous buttrape. DON'T MESS WITH IT

[R Razor]

No need at all for nerfs to LRM's, just make the button pressers have to pay for the ammunition they expend in each match. That would regulate far better than any arbitrary nerf. Same should apply to any ammunition based weapon. Energy based weapons should have something along the lines of a "barrel life" as well, something along the lines of after "x" number of times fired it needs to be overhauled at a percentage of the original cost.

[Mercules]

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

1. I never claimed LRMs are overwhelming.
2. That for challenges, the increase of 'mechs that sport LRMs increases, dramatically. It's an observable fact like leaves turning brown and falling of leaves during Fall.
3. I've argued consistently that LRMs are "easy mode", which they are given everyone else's arguments why we see more LRMs during challenges.

Yes, we see more LRMs. Your conclusion as to why we see them is incorrect though. We see them because there seems to be a huge upswing in clueless players who have yet to avoid them. That makes them useful. Meanwhile, in group queues and higher levels of play you almost never see them. Conclusion they are not very useful other than shooting at "noobs".

Now, given that they are not hard to deal with... why would it matter if you see more during a challenge? They are not a significant threat so why do you care that they show up during challenges? Conclusion, because they kill you or out perform you. Conjecture, you are probably doing something wrong then.

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

Due your 'allegory' being incredibly incorrect I it makes me question any advice you might try and give.

No, my allegory is spot on. You can easily avoid being killed by LRMs just like the guy in my story could easily avoid being bit. However instead of either of you simply doing something else you feel the need to complain about a situation that is easily avoidable.

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

You're so superior, you're so cool that winning or losing doesn't matter to you. My, my, you are one egotistical mother... aren't you?

Actually... playing matters more than winning or losing. If I am appropriately challenging myself I should lose about half my battles. If I win every time then I am probably kicking puppies instead of facing real challenges. That isn't fun. So winning and losing don't matter very much. I like to win, but I like to play appropriate opponents more and am willing to handle the losses to those players.

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

You care OH SO MUCH about the game, but apparently don't give any crap about the challenges/contests provided?

You're flip flopping all over the place...

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.


---------------------------
You lack logic and forethought. You need to start making some valid arguments instead of rehashing your opinion as fact and attacking anyone who points out that it is incorrect.

Edited by Mercules, 26 November 2014 - 08:46 PM.

[kazlaton]

Mercules - Great posts! You must have the patience of a saint to still be responding to this. You're the only reason I'm still reading this thread.

[KnowBuddy]

LRMs are still bad weapons. When I use LRMs I primarily do so using LOS and I still only get 40% accuracy if I'm lucky. I also don't take AMS and I have no trouble avoiding LRM fire.

[duragan]

LRMS need to go away

[KuroNyra]

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

Not butthurt, but interested in 'normalizing' play during challenges to match that the other four and half days of the week.

Nope, you just want to see weapons you can't handle nerfed and rendered useless just to no bother about them anymore.
Difference.


In 9 page of thread, you are still in your completle bs about LRMS and there gameplay. Using old dated video about them.

I'm not sur you really even have a clue about them.

Are LRM dangerous? They can be and have a nice psychological impact on the ennemy. Are they OP? Heck no, not has OP has double Gauss, laser vomits, Splatmech etc.



I'm pretty sur your laughting behind your computer, giggling around your chair because we can't physicly touch you. Typical reaction of a 13 years old discovering internet. Watch out for the real world boy. You will have problems.


Heck, has an Assault Pilot (yeah, the ones who are mostly attacked by LRMS.) I had no problem with LRMS on the pass, nor that I have at the moment. Why? Situational awareness. I know how to handle them, where I can have cover against them. I use the ECM of my ally's to protect me, keeping defending them, using the AMS of my ally's against the incomings LRMS. And focusing theses ones whenever I can.

Don't bother attack on my signature. I barely play Catapult. Usually when I'm a bit bored of kicking whiners butt with my others mech. I'm using that signature because that battlemech is the perfect example of change to NOT do for the visual.




But since for you it is not a frontal weapon. It's OP and must be banished (you would love to see the LRM removed from the game don't you?)






Maybe you want to return play Tetris or Pac-Man? And I'm pretty sur you will find the ghost OP in the later. Considering your strluggles.

But who am I kidding? I would have better chance explaining this to my cat. At least SHE understood that she couldn't jump on that table on the living room without crashing on the other side because that thing have no resistance to her and she will glide all the way around and fall on the other side unless someone catch her.

At least no she prefer to jump on beds and sleep in them... (or in front of the computer... Like she actually is....)

duragan, on 27 November 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

LRMS need to go away

LRMS don't. Whiners like you do.

Edited by KuroNyra, 27 November 2014 - 01:58 AM.

[Triordinant]

El Bandito, on 26 November 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Hah, the poll continues to validate my statement, that the majority of the forumers do not feel that LRMs are overbearing. Bookmarking the thread for future reference.

Actually the poll says 52.05% DO feel LRMs are overbearing.

[Revorn]

Rigged Poll = useless

Troll Thread = useless as well.



Thread should be closed. imho

Edited by Revorn, 27 November 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[KuroNyra]

Triordinant, on 27 November 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

Actually the poll says 52.05% DO feel LRMs are overbearing.

• Yes (110 votes [37.16%])
  
• No (143 votes [48.31%])
  
• Yes, but only during challenges. (43 votes [14.53%]

37.16% think it's overbearing.
48.31% think is's not.
14.53% thinks it's over bearing ONLY during challenges. So not all the time.

Basicly we have 62.84% of the poll at the moment claming there is not too much LRMs in the game, but 14.53% of them think there is more during challenge.
It is maybe true, but in now way it means the LRMS are OP. It just means there is to much for them.

See the difference?

Edited by KuroNyra, 27 November 2014 - 06:49 AM.

[Cementi]

Dimento Graven, on 26 November 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Well obviously NO MECH can carry 8 AMS's, and that means you expect at least 8 of 12 'mechs to be:

Carrying an AMS
---AND---
Standing near enough to each other to stack their AMS's, over an entire match

That's what you're saying...

You're expecting this to happen in the PUG queue? In a game with no VOIP?

Hell even in the GROUP queue that's a most unreasonable expectation...

Yeah I get that AMS lowers the damage, a bit, but again, AMS is EASILY over powered by a mech sporting just TWO LRM 10's. The AMS is NOT halving the incoming damage, by any means, and even if it were it won't do so for long, UNLESS you're expecting everyone to start carrying 10 tons of AMS ammo...

You can't tell me you think THAT is reasonable...

You know what was interesting......last night I was playing with my guild and one of the assaults commented after I joined that they didnt know why but they were not getting hit with lrms the last couple matches. Then I pointed out I was running my kitfox with 3 ams and overload module.......

So ya it does not even take 8 people to have ams to be noticed even just having 3 near by that do is noticed (or one silly person like me who plays to protect his assaults). The reason you need to have at least 8 people running ams is so that you can almost have 3+ in close enough proximity to matter. When its only a couple or one speacilist that just means the missle boats will switch targets to one that is not under an ams umbrella. I know that because I do it when playing a missle boat.

Also the yahoo's who say missle boats take no skill obviously have no idea how to play them. There is a great deal more jockying for position to get clean shots otherwise most of your missles will just hit terrain on most maps. Caustic valley is the only map that I would say it takes very little skill to lrm but even it has its places. Alpine is almost too open as it is hard to get close enough for a lock without getting sniped by gauss rifles though that one Awesome missle boat can reach out to 1350 m I have not tried it yet. Also good missle boats usually do not bring nothing but missles, a couple launchers with a little over 1k ammo to soften targets up with some back up weapons to either snipe targets that are weak after lrm barrage or short range weapons not only to chase off those that push in close but to move in with the brawlers.....again after targets have been weakend.

I guess I could claim brawling takes not skill as you just mash your keys as you rub gun barrels right? Thats how it works isnt it. (Sarcasam here for those that do not get it.)

[Triordinant]

KuroNyra, on 27 November 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

• Yes (110 votes [37.16%])
  
• No (143 votes [48.31%])
  
• Yes, but only during challenges. (43 votes [14.53%]

37.16% think it's overbearing.
48.31% think is's not.
14.53% thinks it's over bearing ONLY during challenges. So not all the time.

Basicly we have 62.84% of the poll at the moment claming there is not too much LRMs in the game, but 14.53% of them think there is more during challenge.
It is maybe true, but in now way it means the LRMS are OP. It just means there is to much for them.

See the difference?

The poll is NOT about whether LRMs are OP. It's about whether there are too many of them. There are 2 voting options marked YES and those two will always be counted together, meaning 51% or more voted Yes. See the reality?

[KuroNyra]

Triordinant, on 27 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

The poll is NOT about whether LRMs are OP. It's about whether there are too many of them. There are 2 voting options marked YES and those two will always be counted together, meaning 51% or more voted Yes. See the reality?

You are a good one, almost laughted.


Let me point it up in big.

• Yes (110 votes [37.16%])
  
• No (143 votes [48.31%])
  
• Yes, but only during challenges. (43 votes [14.53%]

Wich mean when there is no challenge. They think it's ok. THUS they are in the NO Category for when there is NO challenge.

You want it in spanish? French? Japanese? Binary? Or does it get to your brain?

Edited by KuroNyra, 27 November 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[Triordinant]

KuroNyra, on 27 November 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

You are a good one, almost laughted.


Let me point it up in big.

• Yes (110 votes [37.16%])
  
• No (143 votes [48.31%])
  
• Yes, but only during challenges. (43 votes [14.53%]

Wich mean when there is no challenge. They think it's ok. THUS they are in the NO Category for when there is NO challenge.


You want it in spanish? French? Japanese? Binary? Or does it get to your brain?

Let me try to explain in in layman's terms. If this was a news report on CNN, the newscaster would be saying " 51% of responders say there are too many LRMs some or all of the time". Capiche? BTW, enlarging your font makes you look desperate and ignorant.