83 replies to this topic

[Praehotec8]

Otto Cannon, on 10 January 2015 - 02:32 AM, said:

As you say, Timberwolves are overpowered in spite of using LRMs- so imagine making that weapon OP too.

You're entitled to the opinion that SRMs would still be worthwhile, but we'll have to disagree on that point.

Clans in TT were supposed to be very overpowered, and the lack of minimum range was just part of that. In MWO we play 12 vs. 12 so there has to be some attempt at balance.

I'm not being snarky, but I really would like to understand two things:

1.) Why such change would be game breaking? The biggest change that I can see would be that an LRM boat would no longer be impotent when a spider runs up to it. Why would allowing an LRM20 to do less damage (20dmg/5 tons) than two SRM6s (24dmg/3 tons) with more spread be game breaking?

2.) Why would SRMs be worthless? I've listed the damage numbers already, and in the absence of real gameplay to test the effects, I see no basis for this claim. If I were going brawling I sure as heck would rather an SRM heavy loadout than LRMs even after such a change.

But...again, agree to disagree...which seems to be the crux of the whole matter. Obviously the forum-goers (or at least those posting in this thread) do not like this idea. So far I see little in the way of well-supported reasoning, but can tell I won't convince anyone, nor will I be convinced without better proof than what I've seen so far. Well, I've made my arguments, and it's been fun, but I'm about typed out for the night. Thanks to everyone for reading and responding!

[Triordinant]

TheKillerWolf, on 10 January 2015 - 02:39 AM, said:

I think this is the best thing Ive ever seen said on the forums.

Here's what's happened in the past year: Clan technological superiority is supposed to be balanced by IS numerical superiority. The moment PGI decided that Clan vs IS matches were going to be 12 vs 12 instead of 10 vs 12 (or some other ratio), that got thrown out the window and PGI had no choice but to balance Clan 'mechs and IS 'mechs because the goal now is for an all-IS team to have an even chance of defeating an all-Clan team in a 12 vs 12 match.

[Otto Cannon]

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

I'm not being snarky, but I really would like to understand two things:

1.) Why such change would be game breaking? The biggest change that I can see would be that an LRM boat would no longer be impotent when a spider runs up to it. Why would allowing an LRM20 to do less damage (20dmg/5 tons) than two SRM6s (24dmg/3 tons) with more spread be game breaking?

2.) Why would SRMs be worthless? I've listed the damage numbers already, and in the absence of real gameplay to test the effects, I see no basis for this claim. If I were going brawling I sure as heck would rather an SRM heavy loadout than LRMs even after such a change.

But...again, agree to disagree...which seems to be the crux of the whole matter. Obviously the forum-goers (or at least those posting in this thread) do not like this idea. So far I see little in the way of well-supported reasoning, but can tell I won't convince anyone, nor will I be convinced without better proof than what I've seen so far. Well, I've made my arguments, and it's been fun, but I'm about typed out for the night. Thanks to everyone for reading and responding!

I'll try to explain clearly so you can understand the point of view even if you disagree. It's not that LRMs would actually be better than SRMs at short ranges (although some would say the guidance could make that arguably the case). It's just that LRMs wouldn't be inferior enough in a brawl to balance the range capability.

Imagine if I suggested that SRM should be changed to make them guided and increase the range to 800m, but insisted LRMs would still be viable because they would still have slightly more range. Obviously that's exaggerated and technically different, but it gives you an idea how many players will see your suggestion.

[Joseph Mallan]

Techorse, on 09 January 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Ok. Now what advantage would you give the IS LRM's to balance out that full lack of minimum range?

...

Nothing?

Nothnxbai

Its what we have had for... 30 years? Why should it be different here? Oh Yeah cause video gamers don't like anything that challenges them.

Every single request to Nerf has been "I can't win against this. Change it so I can." or "I want to win doing this and I can't! Fix it!" And then say "Its best for the game." Which is code for "Best for my way of play." The only nerf I supported was taking away the 90 degree flight changes my LRMs were making, it was OP. And I turned in a Ticket cause in like 11-13 matches I had killed 28 Cataphracts by head shot. I suggested PGI make it harder to do. They were stunned cause they had just made it smaller the week before my Ticket.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 January 2015 - 07:30 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

I'm not being snarky, but I really would like to understand two things:

1.) Why such change would be game breaking? The biggest change that I can see would be that an LRM boat would no longer be impotent when a spider runs up to it. Why would allowing an LRM20 to do less damage (20dmg/5 tons) than two SRM6s (24dmg/3 tons) with more spread be game breaking?

2.) Why would SRMs be worthless? I've listed the damage numbers already, and in the absence of real gameplay to test the effects, I see no basis for this claim. If I were going brawling I sure as heck would rather an SRM heavy loadout than LRMs even after such a change.

But...again, agree to disagree...which seems to be the crux of the whole matter. Obviously the forum-goers (or at least those posting in this thread) do not like this idea. So far I see little in the way of well-supported reasoning, but can tell I won't convince anyone, nor will I be convinced without better proof than what I've seen so far. Well, I've made my arguments, and it's been fun, but I'm about typed out for the night. Thanks to everyone for reading and responding!

1) There is a Stormcrow in the game here that is a LRM60... That is a cool running near 60 point alpha strike? I don't have a problem with it cause, dang it, I faced that kind of damage for decades, but the average video gamer???

2) SRM are dumb fire and only fly in a straight line to where you were aiming before pulling the trigger, LRMs change direction and follow your crosshairs/Lock. Not quite as good as streak but better than SRMs. Also 3 SRM6=36 max damage. 3 LRM20s=60 max damage.

You know the funny thing? I actually support no minimum rang on CLRMs in spite of the information I posted above. Like I said I faced em for decades with no minimum in previous MW games and on TT.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 January 2015 - 07:40 AM.

[Latorque]

Sooo... implementing a complete auto-targeting weapon that is incredibly effective at ranges from (theoretically) 1000m down to 0m; has absurd amounts of ammo and barely any heat problems if played right; on top of working without a LoS? Basically; the only thing that's been left out is the usual "automatic flat trajectory when target is in LoS" - absurdity that normally goes along with call for LRM buffs. Out of curiosity; could the OP name any downsides that should be implemented or...

Yes; i can imagine Lurmers would love it and still whine on about AMS being in the game. If it could be called a game after this is implemented. Why not add a nuclear airstrike? The screen shake should be about the same...

[Burktross]

.25 damage at most, or else 2 op 5 m3

[Pjwned]

Kilo 40, on 09 January 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

well...no. They have a minimum range because if they didn't there would be no reason to use SRMs. SRMs are there to cover that minimum range. why would anyone take a SRM2/4/6 or streaks that are only useable to a couple of hundred meters, when you could take a "SRM20" that is usable from 0-1000m.

SRMs have a better damage:tonnage ratio, higher dps from faster fire rate, and less damage spreading (which also means needing less ammo generally) than LRMs, so while that might be a part of it that's definitely not the whole reason.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 January 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

Its what we have had for... 30 years? Why should it be different here? Oh Yeah cause video gamers don't like anything that challenges them.

Every single request to Nerf has been "I can't win against this. Change it so I can." or "I want to win doing this and I can't! Fix it!" And then say "Its best for the game." Which is code for "Best for my way of play." The only nerf I supported was taking away the 90 degree flight changes my LRMs were making, it was OP. And I turned in a Ticket cause in like 11-13 matches I had killed 28 Cataphracts by head shot. I suggested PGI make it harder to do. They were stunned cause they had just made it smaller the week before my Ticket.

Cool story, do you want to defend the joke of a pop tart sniping meta that previously dominated the game if that's what you think?

[Deathlike]

Considering I'm not posting at arguably the worst hours of the day, I guess I have to get serious here.

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 02:18 AM, said:

1. I did, in fact, read what you wrote, and responded to it. "...people would cry about it if it were actually implemented." and, "I would be cool if all LRMs had no min. range." All that aside, clan ballistics are far worse than IS ones, so if cLRMs have an edge, so be it.

Buffing CLRMs isn't a justification for bad Clan Ballistics. The fact you even you use this is disingenuous. Justify fixing one issue to address another that is completely unrelated is a terrible way to balance. It's like saying TAG should be buffed for Clan Ballistics (UACs) to hit targets better. That's not how balance works.

Quote

2. I'm not advocating not carrying backup weapons, but right now LRMs (and missiles in general) are the most dependent on backups of all weapon systems. Take a ballistic boat, and you can dakka at long range, medium range, and close range until your ammo runs out. Take a laser boat and you can pew pew at pretty much any range. Get LRMs at close range and you're done. It would be nice to have more options for LRM heavy mechs than only having a couple of medium lasers when someone sneaks up on you.

When you rely on what amounts to a "gimmick weapon" to the higher level players, and try to add another gimmick on top of the gimmick weapon... well, we might as well break other weapon rules like removing min range from the regular PPC. I'm sure that'll go over well.

Quote

Plus, be honest with yourself, how often does running dry on ammo matter in this game? Yes, you can, but it isn't often (if you are indeed boating), and it often doesn't change the course of a match by much (again, noting that there are no 100% absolutes).

I do care a lot. That's why I take enough ammo in tonnage to make sure I'll make the most of it, for better or worse. Of course, I boat more lasers to go with a large ballistic, or the rare/occasional LRM. I boat reliable weapons FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Quote

3. No offense, but I'm not sure what point you are making here. That A1s have no excuse for running dry and not making each shot count, or that mechs with other hardpoints have no excuse not to take other weapons? Either way, it has little to no bearing on a discussion of LRM min. range.

I use that the Catapult-A1 as a reference to say that there are mechs that don't have the option. These mechs are designed in such a way where I would forgive them for running out of weapons (through the lack of ammo). Every other mech, I personally wouldn't give you any slack. If your idea was to give LRMs that option for those "severely ammo dependent mechs" (which, just happen to be 2) as a quirk, I could be onboard with it. Every other mech WOULD NOT get such an exemption or quirk.

Quote

4. EXACTLY....I feel this would make them less situational. It would be much easier to justify taking heavy loadouts of LRMs if one knew that they could be used to effect in any matchup. Seriously what is wrong with that?

I generally don't take LRMs, since my effectiveness is dictated with how inferior my targets would have to be. Use it in the caves in Frozen City/Forest Colony? lol nope. Use it in the underside garage area of Crimson Strait? lol what? Use it under the mid-HPG section? No Wai.

Usefulness need to be almost universal. LRMs don't fit that role. It's that simple.

Quote

5.) If anything that is a drawback that would provide some measure of balance. Right now getting hit with cLRMs below 180m is not damaging, just annoying. Aside from that, you need to stay out of the firing lane of friendly mechs (and they yours) as much as possible. We're all guilty of not paying attention to this (me as much as anyone), and again, I don't feel this is a good reason to NOT remove minimum range. If anything it is an argument FOR removing minimum range.

I've seen enough (a few) LRM kills because the target was crit and the Clan LRM boat was being attacked. Frankly, the answer is still no. Crushing IS LRM boats is even easier. I'm sure that some people share the sentiment that people that get LRMed want to punish their attacker. Minimal range is what it is.

Quote

I respect your opinion (and everyone's) on balance, but thus far I still don't see any evidence that the proposed changes would severely unbalance the game, but I do see a lot of people saying they wouldn't like it. I would like to see some compelling arguments why this would be unfair. Again, SRMs would do more damage at close range for less tonnage, so I still do not see where it would make a big problem.

Until LRM are OP rants are done and over with (aka "never"), I cannot endorse such a buff. I get annoyed as it is by LRMs (spotting LRM users to my own detriment, or taking LRM damage), so the only counter is to murder them ASAP. I don't feel sorry for people who must rely on lock on weapons to do most of the work (it's essentially the same sentiment for Streaks, but technically worse). I don't have a problem if people want to contribute with LRMs. I do have a problem with it being used for everything and anything and still fail miserably more often than not. The fact that others generally do the other to make the LRM effective is part of a greater teamwork issue (in terms of not taking TAG and/or being responsible for getting their own locks).

Quote

As an aside, if you feel I did not address your points, please just ask me to clarify. You may rest assured that if I respond to a post I have read it and considered it thoroughly. If I don't address your point either I misread it, or it did not come across in text the way you meant it.

I'm pretty much more or less done with my sentiment. I'm sure a fair number of people share it. The thing is, I don't have a problem with LRMs being useful. I have a problem with people solely relying on a weapon system that has too many faults and then relying on other people to do some of the job for them. Unless LRM mechanics actually change significantly (an unlikely scenario), I would not ever recommend that many buffs in the first place. I'd rather have Flamers buffed before LRMs. Heck, I'd rather have SRM hitreg fixed first (it's spotty at times).

Taking hits for/from a weapon subsystem that isn't guaranteed to help annoys me to no end.

[Praehotec8]

Deathlike, on 10 January 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

Considering I'm not posting at arguably the worst hours of the day, I guess I have to get serious here.




Buffing CLRMs isn't a justification for bad Clan Ballistics. The fact you even you use this is disingenuous. Justify fixing one issue to address another that is completely unrelated is a terrible way to balance. It's like saying TAG should be buffed for Clan Ballistics (UACs) to hit targets better. That's not how balance works.




When you rely on what amounts to a "gimmick weapon" to the higher level players, and try to add another gimmick on top of the gimmick weapon... well, we might as well break other weapon rules like removing min range from the regular PPC. I'm sure that'll go over well.



I do care a lot. That's why I take enough ammo in tonnage to make sure I'll make the most of it, for better or worse. Of course, I boat more lasers to go with a large ballistic, or the rare/occasional LRM. I boat reliable weapons FIRST AND FOREMOST.



I use that the Catapult-A1 as a reference to say that there are mechs that don't have the option. These mechs are designed in such a way where I would forgive them for running out of weapons (through the lack of ammo). Every other mech, I personally wouldn't give you any slack. If your idea was to give LRMs that option for those "severely ammo dependent mechs" (which, just happen to be 2) as a quirk, I could be onboard with it. Every other mech WOULD NOT get such an exemption or quirk.



I generally don't take LRMs, since my effectiveness is dictated with how inferior my targets would have to be. Use it in the caves in Frozen City/Forest Colony? lol nope. Use it in the underside garage area of Crimson Strait? lol what? Use it under the mid-HPG section? No Wai.

Usefulness need to be almost universal. LRMs don't fit that role. It's that simple.



I've seen enough (a few) LRM kills because the target was crit and the Clan LRM boat was being attacked. Frankly, the answer is still no. Crushing IS LRM boats is even easier. I'm sure that some people share the sentiment that people that get LRMed want to punish their attacker. Minimal range is what it is.




Until LRM are OP rants are done and over with (aka "never"), I cannot endorse such a buff. I get annoyed as it is by LRMs (spotting LRM users to my own detriment, or taking LRM damage), so the only counter is to murder them ASAP. I don't feel sorry for people who must rely on lock on weapons to do most of the work (it's essentially the same sentiment for Streaks, but technically worse). I don't have a problem if people want to contribute with LRMs. I do have a problem with it being used for everything and anything and still fail miserably more often than not. The fact that others generally do the other to make the LRM effective is part of a greater teamwork issue (in terms of not taking TAG and/or being responsible for getting their own locks).



I'm pretty much more or less done with my sentiment. I'm sure a fair number of people share it. The thing is, I don't have a problem with LRMs being useful. I have a problem with people solely relying on a weapon system that has too many faults and then relying on other people to do some of the job for them. Unless LRM mechanics actually change significantly (an unlikely scenario), I would not ever recommend that many buffs in the first place. I'd rather have Flamers buffed before LRMs. Heck, I'd rather have SRM hitreg fixed first (it's spotty at times).

Taking hits for/from a weapon subsystem that isn't guaranteed to help annoys me to no end.

How was my comment disingenuous? It may or may not be a reasonable opinion, but in now way was I being deceitful, dishonest or trying to present a falsehood. In games, balance can work with one side getting one thing that is more effective, while the other has something else. My statement very well could fall under such a categorization. Please don't be insulting, although I will assume you were not trying to be.

That said, forget the clan vs. IS thing. For the sake of discussion let's just consider LRMs in general. It obviously was a mistake to open THAT can of worms, and I largely put it that way because that's how it is in TT.

Secondly, you make large issue of the fact that LRMs are very situational, which they are, yet you do not address that the proposed change would certainly help make them less situational. Regardless of whether one supports the idea or not, I think that this is pretty much a fact.

You also make it very clear that you dislike LRMs and consider them low-skill weapons. I disagree, for a variety of reasons, but to each his own. For instance. where did I ever say that when I use LRMs I stand 900m away, and tell everyone to, "get me locks?" Personally I dislike that style of LRM use for the most part, and find it very ineffective. I find LRMs most effective when used just behind the main combat line, generally with direct LOS at ranges 2-400m. I also have no problem with dumbfiring then when needed. Doing so requires as much skill as any other weapon system shot from outside brawling range. Not to mention, enjoying LRMs does not mean that players are unable (and unwilling) to effectively use other weapons. Regardless however, our various weapon tastes have little bearing on whether or not balance changes should or should not occur.

However, with the exception of mechs boating IS standard PPCs, LRM heavy mechs are the only mechs at a large disadvantage when cornered. Every other boating mech can still dish it out at knife-fighting range. Even bringing backup weapons doesn't usually cut it. A mech with 2-4 MLs will have little chance even against solitary light mechs. At least allowing damage at close range with LRMs would make it more even in a 1-1 brawl. If LRMs aren't overpowered in the 180-270m range, they won't be closer than that. I just can't see it making much change to balance one way or the other.

"Taking hits for/from a weapon subsystem that isn't guaranteed to help annoys me to no end." Let me end by asking you: since it annoys you, why not discuss ways to make them actually useful in all situations without being overpowered?

Okay, obviously I am the crazy man out in the wilderness spouting nonsense based on my replies, so I will let this drop. It is painfully obvious that LRMs are unlikely to ever change in any significant way, and we will be stuck with vast limitations on what could be an overall useful and entertaining weapon system. I just wish there were a way to run servers with adjusted variables just to see how balance plays out. Could make for some interesting discussions.

[ztac]

IS LRM are a lot better than clan ones in quite a few ways .... the way they fire is what mostly gives them that advantage , in one clump its harder for AMS , in one clump you have a higher probability of hitting and it is more stealthy. A stream gives your AMS more time on each missile , A stream gives you more chance to get out the way of at least some missiles , A stream also gives a nice 'Hi I'm over here' message longer than a clump. Cockpit shake seems more from IS LRM also....

No doubt there are other comparisons I cant make like what speed the missiles go and if they are the same , how the spread is , and then we have actual weapon specifics in that yes clans get more ammo , but what about heat?

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 10 January 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

Cool story, do you want to defend the joke of a pop tart sniping meta that previously dominated the game if that's what you think?

I had fun killing Pop Tarts. I was killed by them as well when they were better than me... Pop Tarting was a tactic that worked and made lesser people cry when they could not figure out how to fight it. Does that work as an explanation...

You do know your name is the almost very definition of what Pop Tarting did to the lazy Pjwned.

Whiners complain about anything that makes them put up effort or make them have to think outside of their comfort zone.

[Mirumoto Izanami]

ztac, on 11 January 2015 - 02:17 AM, said:

No doubt there are other comparisons I cant make like what speed the missiles go and if they are the same , how the spread is , and then we have actual weapon specifics in that yes clans get more ammo , but what about heat?

The flight path for clan LRMs makes them usable in many locations where you cannot use IS LRMs, just as an aside.

Edited by Mirumoto Izanami, 11 January 2015 - 06:57 AM.

[Bulletsponge0]

Techorse, on 09 January 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Ok. Now what advantage would you give the IS LRM's to balance out that full lack of minimum range?

...

Nothing?

Nothnxbai

you mean other than the group fire instead of the easily AMS destroyed stream fire that clan LRMs already have?

[Mirumoto Izanami]

Bulletsponge0, on 11 January 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

you mean other than the group fire instead of the easily AMS destroyed stream fire that clan LRMs already have?

if we're talking hypotheticals, then the OP's proposed no minimum range + stream fire > minimum range dead zone and group fire.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

I had fun killing Pop Tarts. I was killed by them as well when they were better than me... Pop Tarting was a tactic that worked and made lesser people cry when they could not figure out how to fight it. Does that work as an explanation...

You do know your name is the almost very definition of what Pop Tarting did to the lazy Pjwned.

Whiners complain about anything that makes them put up effort or make them have to think outside of their comfort zone.

Or, maybe, it was detrimental to the game because it killed build variety, it was strong, and it had very little weakness. Do you also want to defend things like splat cats, knockdown stun lock shenanigans, triple max range for autocannons, hunchbacks with XL 400 engines and 9 small lasers, etc? Those things (and I'm sure I'm forgetting some) were all nerfed, and they were nerfed for good reason because they negatively affected the game overall, which is not just "bluh bloo players clearly hate challenge."

Maybe you should stop with your ridiculous narrative of "players just hate challenge" when things are changed for good reason, and especially so when campaigning against changes that were made for the sake of proper balance when you don't even argue from the perspective of balance. If you do insist that cLRMs should have no minimum range then please elaborate how it would be balanced in MWO, and not just "it worked like that in Tabletop so it should work like that here."

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 11 January 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

Or, maybe, it was detrimental to the game because it killed build variety, it was strong, and it had very little weakness. Do you also want to defend things like splat cats, knockdown stun lock shenanigans, triple max range for autocannons, hunchbacks with XL 400 engines and 9 small lasers, etc? Those things (and I'm sure I'm forgetting some) were all nerfed, and they were nerfed for good reason because they negatively affected the game overall, which is not just "bluh bloo players clearly hate challenge."

Maybe you should stop with your ridiculous narrative of "players just hate challenge" when things are changed for good reason, and especially so when campaigning against changes that were made for the sake of proper balance when you don't even argue from the perspective of balance. If you do insist that cLRMs should have no minimum range then please elaborate how it would be balanced in MWO, and not just "it worked like that in Tabletop so it should work like that here."

SplatCats (SRM Cats?) Absolutely! I killed dozens with an LRM40 Atlas.

Knock down Stun Lock... I drove an Atlas and folks usually ended up on the ground instead of me...

Triple max range ACs... I used it while we had it and don't complain cause its gone, We all had access to it. *SHRUG*

The Hunchback I missed out on, but I bet I would have figured out a way to compensate.

Not one of the Good reasons you claim were needed by me to beat them. It is literally a bunch of I don't want to try to think of a counter so get rid of it thinking in my book. I have successfully fought every Meta you listed. That does not imply I won against them every time, but it was often enough to keep me happy.

Full strength Clan LRMs, Well Like actual Omnis I would have to face em to give you a real answer, but I would start with using Front loaded hard hitting weapons like ERPPCs AC10s and AC20s, with SRM back up. Missiles don't do PPD so I could likely do more damage to the Missile boat than it can do to me as I use AMS... ECM would still keep the Mechs from getting missile Lock and LRMs don't dead fire so well. If that didn't work Id go back to the drawing board.

I would not ask PGI to fix it for me, that I am sure of.

Pjned is OP, he ruins the fun in every match I face him in. Force him to use slow lightly armed/armored mechs so I can have a chance to win against Pjned.

This is what is being asked for with every Nerf something thread.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 January 2015 - 10:50 AM.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

SplatCats (SRM Cats?) Absolutely! I killed dozens with an LRM40 Atlas.

Considering they were popular because of the absolutely ridiculous splash damage that SRMs did and how that ignores a huge portion of mechs/builds that would just get instantly gibbed, that's not a great answer. Suffice to say that after SRM splash damage was appropriately nerfed, those builds were much more reasonable.

Quote

Knock down Stun Lock... I drove an Atlas and folks usually ended up on the ground instead of me...

Obviously everybody should have just driven an Atlas and screw other mechs then.

Quote

Triple max range ACs... I used it while we had it and don't complain cause its gone, We all had access to it. *SHRUG*

It turned the game into a long range peekaboo crapfest and brawling was almost nowhere to be found, so it was nerfed for a good reason.

Quote

The Hunchback I missed out on, but I bet I would have figured out a way to compensate.

I bet that if you had managed to find something you would have ignored everything else as long as you found 1 or 2 situations with 1 or 2 mechs to counter it.

Quote

Not one of the Good reasons you claim were needed by me to beat them. It is literally a bunch of I don't want to try to think of a counter so get rid of it thinking in my book. I have successfully fought every Meta you listed. That does not imply I won against them every time, but it was often enough to keep me happy.

Actually the problem is you ignoring a huge portion of mechs & builds with your solutions, defending easy mode meta builds, and then telling everybody to just deal with the "challenge" regardless of the wide-ranging negative consequences.

Quote

Full strength Clan LRMs, Well Like actual Omnis I would have to face em to give you a real answer, but I would start with using Front loaded hard hitting weapons like ERPPCs AC10s and AC20s, with SRM back up. Missiles don't do PPD so I could likely do more damage to the Missile boat than it can do to me as I use AMS... ECM would still keep the Mechs from getting missile Lock and LRMs don't dead fire so well. If that didn't work Id go back to the drawing board.

I would not ask PGI to fix it for me, that I am sure of.

Yet again ignoring a multitude of mechs and valid strategies that would get screwed over by such a change.

Quote

Pjned is OP, he ruins the fun in every match I face him in. Force him to use slow lightly armed/armored mechs so I can have a chance to win against Pjned.

This is what is being asked for with every Nerf something thread.

Maybe if you weren't so focused on your ridiculous narrative you would see how that's wrong.

[ztac]

Another improve LRM thread because I can't play games very well? PGI have improved LRM way too much already thx ... They are a the best a joke! Roll on some decent upcoming games that have elected not to have any art in them whatsoever!