42 replies to this topic

[darkchylde]

El Bandito, on 13 January 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

LRM usage had decreased by at least half in my pug matches, after the nerfs. Consequently, people are even less inclined to mount AMS or even ECM--I cannot remember the last time I have seen a D-DC. This in turn makes them juicier targets for my Lurms.



Nah, it is mostly because LRMs are overnerfed and DF weapons are over buffed for certain mechs. Why try to Lurm when you can just buy a 5SS and facewub someone with easy-mode lasers?

Hey, Lasers aren't easy mode - you have to point and shoot - unlike lrms where you have point, maintain lock, check trajectory, fire if flight path is true, and then hope he's too dumb to take cover or get saved by ecm.....

Dam, they are easy - guess that makes FLD weapons - super easy.

[zortesh]

I'm bored so ima dissect this post.

RiggsIron, on 13 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Changing c-bills for using LRM boats is not enough of a change to fix the problem.

Indirect fire is the problem.

the ONLY indirect fire that should be possible is if a target is TAGed or Narced.

That will fix the problem.

This wouldn't affect me atall becuase i bring narc on every lrmboat.... so i guess I'm okay with it?

Regular locks suck, if you get slammed by lrms all the time and theres no narcers about your bad.

RiggsIron, on 13 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Everyone that says "There are no LRMS - if your not a useless noob in low elo" are just trolling.
"Hide under cover, even if many maps have no cover from LRMs, until the enemy decides to come to you" - also trolling.

The first is true, you don't climb high on the ladder using lrms... so mid ladder theres alot less lrms, infact seeing 2 lrmboats in a match is rather uncommon.

The second is trolling, that is literally the worst possible thing you can do, the strength of lrms is assaulting cowering enemies, advance in cover and then fulll on charge is what your meant to do to stomp lrm teams.

RiggsIron, on 13 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Because if people were being honest, and not trolls, they would not actually care if LRMs were fixed by changing indirect fire - because they dont use them and they dont get attacked by them - so why would it even affect them? But since logic and facts are not what they are using - the other most likely explanation is that they giggle away themselves while spamming LRMs from cover and do not want their EZ C BILLZ button taken away.

My ez cbills button is guass rifles... unlike lrms there strong in every single situation.

It wouldnt really affect me, 90% of the time i fire at targets i narced myself, but removing indirect fire would just remove lrms completely from the game, except the odd group in group queue who rarely use them anyways.

The lrmboats who just sit back and spam at everything they see are worthless, not only are they not very dangerous, but there often actively a burden to the team.

RiggsIron, on 13 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Because if they didnt care about using that tactic, they would not argue so much against changing it.

And the only 'argument' all the haters use is always the same one "L2P NOOB" - which is a troll insult used in many games and forums....but somehow they think they are brilliant in finding slightly different ways of stating it.

Lrms are bad weapons vs good players... if you ever go against lords in a cw match look at there loudouts, not a single ecm and not a single ams, and definitely not a single lrm luancher.

RiggsIron, on 13 January 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

And Battletech was a brawling game basically when it was first designed. And thats how it was balanced. It was only after with new additions and clans and new weapons that longer ranges started to come in. But it was designed and balanced around a type of play that is not replicated in MWO - so MWO balance should be changed too.

Get in a group game with all brawlers, brawlers stomp everything when coordinated, snipers can function with alot less coordination, lrms are king when both teams are basically wandering around aimlessly.

Its not that lrms are op, or even particularly dangerous, its that there strength is focusing fire while dispersed, aside from that there inferior to directfire weapons in every other way.

They become redundant in organized groups, when the directfire is focused anyway, and noone fights dispersed because deathblob is victory

Edited by zortesh, 13 January 2015 - 01:05 PM.

[wanderer]

Amazingly, I find the more complaints about LRMs, the more likely the complainer is in that special ELO place reserved for those who overindulge in lead paint chips.

This thread hasn't disappointed in that regard. LRMs basically hit a peak and level off as far as MWO effectiveness gets, which is a plateau below what direct-fire weaponry can generate. People who can't get above that plateau QQ. People who do look down and see the LRM for what it is- an assist weapon.

MWO's true powerhouses will always be the pinpoint, front-loaded damage weapons. LRMs are neither pinpoint nor frontloaded damage.