212 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Use of the words "no skill" and "spray and pray" invalidate the posters claim of authority on the subkect of lrms. Much like the words "fire and forget".

[Tesunie]

Kjudoon, on 03 August 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Use of the words "no skill" and "spray and pray" invalidate the posters claim of authority on the subkect of lrms. Much like the words "fire and forget".

I'm just saying I've seen them used in a "spray and pray" fashion, where someone was "no skill" using them by shooting everything under the sun (usually thinking the missiles where "fire and forget" weapons)....

Oops... I don't know what i just did there.

[Nightmare1]

LRMs can definitely achieve high kills and component destructions in addition to high damage if played properly, even in the current ECM rich environment. While they are not "fire and forget" due to the fact that you must maintain lock, they are somewhat forgiving in the amount of Mech movement you can accomplish as well as in how much you can move the reticle off target and still achieve damage. LRMs require patience and careful deployment in high elo brackets. In lower elo brackets, they seem to be more effective, probably due to lesser amounts of ECM, Radar Dep, and player skill levels.

In the end, LRMs can be a powerfully competitive weapon in a team setting if done properly. I've seen teams with six LRM boats and six spotters demolish other teams quite handily. It all comes down to tactics and teamwork.

As far as Gauss and LRMs are concerned, you really can't compare the two. Both are long range, but one is indirect fire and capable of locking onto enemy targets. The other is a highly fragile and explosive weapon that requires you to expose yourself to fire, in addition to having an inconvenient charging mechanic. Both have their own pros and cons. While Gauss is a powerful weapon when played properly, the same is true for LRMs. Trying to make them equivalent is a bit like complaining that your apple does not taste enough like an orange to suit you. They are different weapons with different purposes.

[Eglar]

Kjudoon, on 03 August 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

When i see gauss whales killing 6 mechs in a mach with 250 dmg, Currently 800 dmg with a lrmboat should have 2-3 kills if you are going all pro.

Wow. Are you saying that you often see Direwolves with gauss averaging 42 damage per kill? Because 42 damage is not enough to kill much. Guess you know what happened there. Although I don't exactly know what you want to say with "going full pro", I assume that you want to express your thoughts on how other weapons are able to do quick and accurate component damage while LRMs are rather slow in comparison and can not focus on single components.

And than all that talk about being pro, elo underhive and high elo brackets when noone knows his elo rating and how LRMs are a high-skill weapon.Using LRMs and at the same time having consistent performance as in the ongoing meta is not hindered by skill but by the lrm-mechanics as in "If you can't get a lock, you're screwed". And than there is "How do I get a lock against multiple stacking ECMs"? In terms of skills, lrms do not require alot of aiming skills thats why alot of people think of lrms to be "skill-less". But in terms of Situational and Terrain awareness, it's all the same with any build.

Personally, for me playing LRMS means to rely on the inability of my opponents to cope and to rely on the maps I have to play on.

[Tesunie]

Eglar, on 03 August 2015 - 11:57 PM, said:

In terms of skills, lrms do not require alot of aiming skills thats why alot of people think of lrms to be "skill-less". But in terms of Situational and Terrain awareness, it's all the same with any build.

I'm inclined to disagree about LRMs requiring the same level of situational and terrain awareness as other weapon builds... Or the classification of LRMs as "skill-less". They just require a different set of skills to use effectively.

[Eglar]

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'm inclined to disagree about LRMs requiring the same level of situational and terrain awareness as other weapon builds... Or the classification of LRMs as "skill-less". They just require a different set of skills to use effectively.

I'm just stating my point of view on LRMs, which are:
1. Unreliable weapon mechanic.
2. Performance heavily dependent on opponent Loadout and map.

I've read your post and find that most of the tactics can be applied on other builds such as "helping a friend", "forcing enemies into cover with fire" or "relocate when enemy in cover and poptarting/peeking". In no way i meant to be insulting or offensive but you guys made LRMs sound too good without actually stating the downsides of LRMs in comparison to other weapon systems.

Here some thoughts:
-Would you think you can 1v1 and win with an LRM boat on a random match? Probably not.

-Would you think that you can make your LRM boat contribute enough to justify their existence in the metagame?
If yes, how come that no serious comp. team would field LRMs? If I remember correctly, SJR has been experimenting with bringing along a single LRM boat to 12 man scrims for basic Metagame research. While it performed well damage-wise they still gave up on those and that was before ECM clanmechs came out.

- When talking about "pros", currently the closest thing we have to a "pro"-league is the Major Mech League with almost 4k USD prize money payout. How come that not a single team participating is fielding LRMs when even knowing the map they will play on? (including Caustic Valley and Tourmaline Dessert)

Edited by Eglar, 04 August 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Nightmare1, on 03 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

I own one IS LRM boat, a BLR-1S. It does average between 800 and 900 damage per match. I take steps to neutralize ECM by equipping BAP and a TAG. I am also proactive about obtaining locks and am not afraid to fight close to the front lines, thus creating short travel times and increased opportunities to secure locks. In short, I'm a very hands-on LRMer.

Just curious as to how you're getting that average figure. Is that off the top of your head or are you dividing total damage done by games played in the variant on your mech stats page?

To be honest, I don't think I've seen anyone post an average damage per match that high in any mech on these forums. Not saying it hasn't happened or it's not possible...just that I can't recall seeing it. I'm sure there are some guys out there running meta build TBRs or something racking up some gaudy numbers.

For reference...my BLR-1S is at 1.93 kdr (93 k/48 d) with an average damage of 493.3 per game in 90 games (44401 damage) since the stats wipe. Certainly nothing spectacular, but could be a lot worse as well.

[Tesunie]

Eglar, on 04 August 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

I'm just stating my point of view on LRMs, which are:
1. Unreliable weapon mechanic.
2. Performance heavily dependent on opponent Loadout and map.

I've read your post and find that most of the tactics can be applied on other builds such as "helping a friend", "forcing enemies into cover with fire" or "relocate when enemy in cover and poptarting/peeking". In no way i meant to be insulting or offensive but you guys made LRMs sound too good without actually stating the downsides of LRMs in comparison to other weapon systems.

Here some thoughts:
-Would you think you can 1v1 and win with an LRM boat on a random match? Probably not.

-Would you think that you can make your LRM boat contribute enough to justify their existence in the metagame?
If yes, how come that no serious comp. team would field LRMs? If I remember correctly, SJR has been experimenting with bringing along a single LRM boat to 12 man scrims for basic Metagame research. While it performed well damage-wise they still gave up on those and that was before ECM clanmechs came out.

- When talking about "pros", currently the closest thing we have to a "pro"-league is the Major Mech League with almost 4k USD prize money payout. How come that not a single team participating is fielding LRMs when even knowing the map they will play on? (including Caustic Valley and Tourmaline Dessert)

Oh, I've covered weaknesses of LRMs, as well as their strengths. However, in response...

- Yes. I believe I could 1v1 some people with my LRM mechs, and still win. Depending upon situation, skills, loadouts. Oh, wait... you said LRM boat? I don't boat LRMs. Why? because I find their weaknesses are better complimented and played off of when mixed with other weapons. Alone, they have too many weaknesses to be effective, especially considering ECM, terrain, dodging skills, LRMs slow moving abilities, reliance on locks, spread... However, as a secondary weapon, it can make for a great lure, a tactical fear weapon (everyone runs when they hear the "incoming LRM" warning, even if those LRMs have no chance of hitting), as well as a weapon to use while I get into position and unable to fire direct weapons and my team has some solid locks.

- I don't believe I've ever included competitive groups or players within my points. However, I've seen and heard of competitive players having some LRMs on their mechs from time to time. Use of a weapon within competitive play or not is no indication of the skill level unto which to use the weapon effectively. It just means that, in comparison to other weapons, it isn't favorable for whatever means. In this case, slow travel times, dependency on locks (with ECM in the mix), and spread damage have LRMs fall out of favor with competitive players. Doesn't mean it isn't a good weapon system that can require a different skill set to other weapons, and a weapon that can be used skillfully. (I don't recall anyone needing to consider if a target can find cover in time before their weapons hit with a Gauss rifle, or see if there is any terrain above their target when they shoot their lasers at them. Besides the PPC, no other weapon system also needs to worry about a minimum range, and possibly having the fire control to shoot at targets outside that minimum, even if someone else is inside it shooting at you.)

- Covered in above two sections. Just because the "competitive" crowd isn't using a weapon, doesn't mean anything about the weapon. Not every player is going to play this in a competitive play style. Winning isn't the only fun thing to do in this game. I can have fun with a good lose as well as a win. Why does the competitive crowd even matter or come up in these conversations? They are actually a very small portion of the population. (If I listen to them, I'd never touch my Thors, and then I wouldn't have had as much fun as I have with them. They are not the end all, be all of this game.)


Why does everyone have this "boat" concept so deeply engrained in them? Why is it "boat or go home"? Balanced builds can actually be very effective, depending upon how they are used. The trick is to force yourself to play to your enemies weaknesses, rather than just always playing to your own mech's strengths. (They are long range only? Close in and use your closer ranged weapons. They are a brawler, close range only? Well, good thing I packed a couple long range weapons on my mech.) Of course, this is more difficult, because you do have to quickly assess what your opponent's weakness is to be able to exploit it.

Lyoto Machida, on 04 August 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Just curious as to how you're getting that average figure. Is that off the top of your head or are you dividing total damage done by games played in the variant on your mech stats page?

To be honest, I don't think I've seen anyone post an average damage per match that high in any mech on these forums. Not saying it hasn't happened or it's not possible...just that I can't recall seeing it. I'm sure there are some guys out there running meta build TBRs or something racking up some gaudy numbers.

For reference...my BLR-1S is at 1.93 kdr (93 k/48 d) with an average damage of 493.3 per game in 90 games (44401 damage) since the stats wipe. Certainly nothing spectacular, but could be a lot worse as well.

Also, consider damage per match per ton. Basically, the heavier your mech, the less "efficiency" you get when dealing the same amount of damage in a match. Light mechs actually reach (what I find as an average "good" number) 5 Damage per match per ton a lot easier, because they are committing less tonnage to the fight. (A 20 ton mech only needs to deal 100 points of damage to be as "efficient" at dealing damage as a 100 ton mech dealing 500 damage average a match. This is not implying that it's doing more, but it's being more efficient for what it is.)

I find that a 5 damage per match per ton is a reasonable goal, though even this isn't exactly indicative of very much... It's just another stat to consider as a means to gauge some measure of efficiency in a match.

[Eglar]

I'll refrain from commenting your builds or say anything that could be considered a personal attack in regards of 1v1.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

- Covered in above two sections. Just because the "competitive" crowd isn't using a weapon, doesn't mean anything about the weapon. Not every player is going to play this in a competitive play style. Winning isn't the only fun thing to do in this game. I can have fun with a good lose as well as a win. Why does the competitive crowd even matter or come up in these conversations? They are actually a very small portion of the population. (If I listen to them, I'd never touch my Thors, and then I wouldn't have had as much fun as I have with them. They are not the end all, be all of this game.)

When I said competetive I was not especially referring to you but rather things like:

Catalina Steiner, on 02 May 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

LRM's aren't meta, LRM' aren't very popular these days but what I really hate is the fact that so called "competitive" units are disdaining LRM pilots. I have had endless discussions about that topic but the only way to silence them is to be successful, to be competitive. And it's not that hard, there are several ways to drive LRM-Boats successfully as you can read above.

I am sorry about the confusion caused.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

However, I've seen and heard of competitive players having some LRMs on their mechs from time to time.

Yes alot do for a change and to troll around.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Why does the competitive crowd even matter or come up in these conversations? They are actually a very small portion of the population. (If I listen to them, I'd never touch my Thors, and then I wouldn't have had as much fun as I have with them. They are not the end all, be all of this game.)

You are right. But I was using competitive player loadouts as an indicator for the effectiveness of weapon systems, not for their fun factor though generally said, most people get fun out of victories unless you have some sadistic tendencies of losing games all the time. TLDR;
This doesn't change the fact that lrms are one of the most unreliable weapons in this game. Even with flamers you could rely on NOT to perform.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Why does everyone have this "boat" concept so deeply engrained in them? Why is it "boat or go home"? Balanced builds can actually be very effective, depending upon how they are used. The trick is to force yourself to play to your enemies weaknesses, rather than just always playing to your own mech's strengths. (They are long range only? Close in and use your closer ranged weapons. They are a brawler, close range only? Well, good thing I packed a couple long range weapons on my mech.) Of course, this is more difficult, because you do have to quickly assess what your opponent's weakness is to be able to exploit it.

I will be plain here: Boating, because you want to specialize and excel at one Tactic, be it brawler or sniper (well not exactly boating but having weapons that have similar feats.). Patching together weapons that do not relate makes a jack of all trades. Not. simply because you can kinda do everything but utterly under-perform in anything you do.
Guess now I've said all the evil "filthy meta *****"-things so many forum-warriors despise.

But if you can draw fun out of this, so be it.

p.s. check http://metamechs.com/ for the real jack-of-all-trades of mwo. ;-)

Edited by Eglar, 04 August 2015 - 02:10 PM.

[Nightmare1]

I'm going to try to sprint this...

Eglar, on 04 August 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

Here some thoughts:
1) Would you think you can 1v1 and win with an LRM boat on a random match? Probably not.

2)Would you think that you can make your LRM boat contribute enough to justify their existence in the metagame?

1) An LRM Mech can certainly solo other Mechs in a random match. Not only have I had it done to me, but I have also done it to others:



Even in a loss, I still easily netted 500+ damage in a slow LRM boat on Conquest.

2) Who cares about the metagame? Meta is for players who don't know how to relax and enjoy themselves. In addition, you will never eliminate a meta; metas always evolve. It's best to find the least disagreeable meta and settle on that, then just focus on having fun. For some perverted reason, people find LRMs to be fun. I personally find them to be obnoxious (I hate playing them on principle), but do find them useful for those times when my connectivity is wonky. I also recognize that they are an integral part of BT/MW. That being said, I do not ever expect LRMs to compete in a meta environment simply because there is no really effective way to balance them with all other systems.

Lyoto Machida, on 04 August 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Just curious as to how you're getting that average figure. Is that off the top of your head or are you dividing total damage done by games played in the variant on your mech stats page?

I dislike using the Mech Stats page because I feel it misrepresents the current gaming environment and abilities of the pilot. As a result, I prefer a smaller "snapshot" sampling.

Case in point, consider this; the Stats page includes all those horrific matches from when you were learning how to pilot that Mech and trying to level it. The page also includes matches where you were trolling and not playing seriously. These data types all hurt your average.

What I prefer instead, is to look at the amount of damage I deal per match during a certain amount of time, typically each night that I play that specific Mech. If I play 24 games, then I discard the first two and last two as outliers and keep the middle 20 for averaging. That gives me a snapshot of my average at that time for the current game build, using a Mech that has been optimized.

Lyoto Machida, on 04 August 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

To be honest, I don't think I've seen anyone post an average damage per match that high in any mech on these forums. Not saying it hasn't happened or it's not possible...just that I can't recall seeing it. I'm sure there are some guys out there running meta build TBRs or something racking up some gaudy numbers.

My LRM average is only that high for my seasoned BLR. The other, Clan LRM boats I have do not possess so nice an average for several reasons:

1) Clan LRMs are less effective than IS ones
2) My Clan Mechs are still not Mastered with most not yet Elited
3) I do not play Clans often (at least, not since their initial round of Nerfdom) and am very unaccustomed to the playstyle now

Lyoto Machida, on 04 August 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

For reference...my BLR-1S is at 1.93 kdr (93 k/48 d) with an average damage of 493.3 per game in 90 games (44401 damage) since the stats wipe. Certainly nothing spectacular, but could be a lot worse as well.

To be fair, I will include my historical stats as well. My BLR-1S has a 1.65 kdr with 172 kills and 104 deaths. It has dealt 75,000 damage (even, surprisingly) with an average per match of 493.4. Again, that is including leveling, trolling, and experimental builds. Using snapshots of the optimized Mech, the average is much, much higher.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

- Covered in above two sections. Just because the "competitive" crowd isn't using a weapon, doesn't mean anything about the weapon. Not every player is going to play this in a competitive play style. Winning isn't the only fun thing to do in this game. I can have fun with a good lose as well as a win. Why does the competitive crowd even matter or come up in these conversations? They are actually a very small portion of the population. (If I listen to them, I'd never touch my Thors, and then I wouldn't have had as much fun as I have with them. They are not the end all, be all of this game.)


Why does everyone have this "boat" concept so deeply engrained in them? Why is it "boat or go home"? Balanced builds can actually be very effective, depending upon how they are used. The trick is to force yourself to play to your enemies weaknesses, rather than just always playing to your own mech's strengths. (They are long range only? Close in and use your closer ranged weapons. They are a brawler, close range only? Well, good thing I packed a couple long range weapons on my mech.) Of course, this is more difficult, because you do have to quickly assess what your opponent's weakness is to be able to exploit it.



Also, consider damage per match per ton. Basically, the heavier your mech, the less "efficiency" you get when dealing the same amount of damage in a match. Light mechs actually reach (what I find as an average "good" number) 5 Damage per match per ton a lot easier, because they are committing less tonnage to the fight. (A 20 ton mech only needs to deal 100 points of damage to be as "efficient" at dealing damage as a 100 ton mech dealing 500 damage average a match. This is not implying that it's doing more, but it's being more efficient for what it is.)

I find that a 5 damage per match per ton is a reasonable goal, though even this isn't exactly indicative of very much... It's just another stat to consider as a means to gauge some measure of efficiency in a match.

Good points all around. I had never considered damage in a "per ton" light. It's worth thinking about.



Generally speaking now:

LRMs are a niche weapon that cannot be effectively balanced with other weapon types due to their basic nature. Rather than trying to force balance and break the game, PGI should focus on optimizing weapons for their niche roles so that pilots can play what they want and enjoy themselves. Metas cannot be killed; they merely evolve.

Two cases in point:

STO: Meta is to boat antiproton weaponry due to its high damage and high crit rates
GR:P: Meta is small weapons with fast deployment times for CoD style "spray and pray"

LRMs should not be comparable to pinpoint weapons for precision damage. LRMs are more of a blunt instrument that can home in on your position. To that effect, they work very well .

Regarding ECM, it is not at all a frightening thing in the Pug matches. In fact, I would say that it is over-hyped. In Unit matches, it is more threatening, but coordination with your team will neuter ECM. A single, Narc-equipped Raven can eliminate all of the enemy ECM fairly quickly and for roughly 90 seconds. That's a long time to receive LRM rain! PPCs will short out ECM for a few seconds as well, enough to score damage and send enemies scampering back to cover. Add in Tag, BAP, and UAVs and you have some very effective anti-ECM countermeasures. You just have to work as a team to bring them all into play.

LRMs cannot hold up against a concerted rush, again, due to their nature. That's okay. Not everything has to be balanced in direct proportion to everything else. LRMs are in this game for immersion, fun, and people like me who sometimes use them as a crutch during times of bad connectivity. Let's not lose sleep over the fact that ballistics or lasers are better for competitive play; I haven't met an LRM player yet who really wanted to play competitively anyways.

Regarding balanced builds, they really can work. The following vid is a Daishi build that includes twin LRM 5s for distance shooting and softening. Though not my best match in that Mech, it is perhaps the most comical and entertaining.

Edited by Nightmare1, 04 August 2015 - 03:19 PM.

[Tesunie]

I'll avoid a lot of things and keep this short.

Those builds I posted up, no matter what your opinion on them, have served me very well. If desired, I could post up my stats for them. They work for me, whatever my Elo may happen to be.

Rest about boating? Read this for more: http://mwomercs.com/...-mech-building/

For competitive players, they will always lean towards what gets the best results, for the minimum amount of effort. If pressing 1 button to deal a small amount of damage but is easy and has great efficiency, compared to another ability that takes the pressing of 4 buttons, in a special order, under a specific short amount of time to deal more damage but has more chance of error, competitive players will probably lean more towards the single button pushing skill for better efficiency, results and reliable effects. Just because "competitive players" do or do not do something doesn't mean it's the only way, or even the "best" way. (By best, I mean that anything else isn't worth using.) I will say, I have no problems with competitive players or their view point. They do things the way they do for their enjoyment, as well as for maximum efficiency. That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to play the game.

I play the game to have fun first. WInning is second, at best. Fun is the intent/desire. Winning is the goal/aim.

(Edit: Fixed a typo.)

Edited by Tesunie, 04 August 2015 - 03:32 PM.

[Anachronda]

Tesunie, on 02 May 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

If you look, they don't seem to be a 12 man. At least if they are, they are not all from the same unit. I see a possible 6 man, 3 man, and 3 PUGs. I also see clan vs IS, which means different weapon mechanics overall.

Those units roll together regularly and share teamspeak. It's likely they were together for that match, but they might not have been. They're also fairly good, as evidenced by their stats there, which also point to the fact they probably were using some good teamwork.

Edited by Anachronda, 04 August 2015 - 05:47 PM.

[Ascaloth]

I thought this was a thread to teach how to use LRM effectively and resolve doubts, not another "General Discussion: LURMS hurr durr sumthin" thread.

Gentleman, please...

[Kin3ticX]

The feast or famine nature of LRMs is a problem that should be covered in any LRM guide. I think with a little refinement, there can be an LRM guide everyone concerned can agree on.

The way PGI implemented LRMs made them a weapon system in conflict with themselves. What I mean by that is that they are a whole slew of weapons within the Btech lore and are found on many stock mechs (whether its all out fire support or some kind of bracket build), but are also controversial. This is where the community conflict comes in. Some pilots include LRMs for the sake of LRMs themselves while other pilots are very meticulous and technical, perhaps almost zero shits given about Btech, only what works.

However, in implementation, all evidence points towards LRMs being an entry level weapon which eventually wont have the power to keep you happy if you are aiming high. The weapon prevents torso twisting, it is unreliable (feast or famine), locking only requires holding the pipper loosely on targets, weak opponents give you all the locks you want, smart opponents make life hard, and pilots may pick up bad habits like hiding in the back more than they should. From a game design position, this means LRMs have a low skill floor yet provide decent power early on that can later be replaced by other means (hopefully) learned along the way. Look at the HBK-4J, a lot of LRM power in a 50t package, I hate them, but even that still falls victim to feast or famine.

Speaking of mix LRM builds, tonnage put into LRMs is often sunk tonnage as locks are not achievable whether its ECM stacks, bad maps, smart opponents or whatever.The basic idea is that specialists in their element will always trump generalists at any range. So LRM mix builds will either get range tanked (outgunned at range) or face hugged (outgunned up close). This is some good stuff to cover. So, LRM boats suffer feast or famine and trying to offset some of that with a mix build doesn't really help things either.

In terms of group play, there is even more controversy on whether LRMs should be used at all. At the highest levels of comp LRMs are almost never used, never by top tier units anyways. In community warfare, they are used in limited numbers, if ever, say like 4-6 of 48 mechs, but 0 is preferred in Mercstar.

The basic idea here is that units in favor of LRMs may want that flavor of indirect fire, but the more and more LRM boats you add, the more you cripple your overwhelming direct fire and increase your feast or famine effect (backfire).

TLDR, everyone has an opinion on LRMs, but in terms of writing a guide you shouldn't want to sell them for what they are not. It's not LRM hate, its just being accurate.

Lay it all out, but don't try to hide any information based on your party line, whether pro LRM or anti LRM everything. And watch out for LRM hate, discussion is good but telling people they are stupid wont persuade them to how you approach the issue either.

I try to stick to that writing my guides.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 05 August 2015 - 05:57 AM.

[Catalina Steiner]

heimdelight, on 03 August 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

Sure, you can play them, but they are significantly worse weapons than almost anything else available. I'd also like to say as a competitive player, I have never lost to LRMs and never taken them into a competitive match. Again, LRMs can be used in a competitive match, but it would end extremely bad.

Lol. Just lol.

Eglar, on 03 August 2015 - 11:57 PM, said:

Personally, for me playing LRMS means to rely on the inability of my opponents to cope and to rely on the maps I have to play on.

Eglar, on 04 August 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

2. Performance heavily dependent on opponent Loadout and map.

Same is true for nearly every other weapon system.

Kin3ticX, on 05 August 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

In terms of group play, there is even more controversy on whether LRMs should be used at all. At the highest levels of comp LRMs are almost never used, never by top tier units anyways. In community warfare, they are used in limited numbers, if ever, say like 4-6 of 48 mechs, but 0 is preferred in Mercstar.

...and what does it mean? As for me you are saying that there are no competitive LRM players in "top tier units". I also made the experience that units (and even more big and "honourable" units) are sanctioning the use of LRM's. Even in your own unit you are called a "coward" and "uneffective in battle" when using LRM's*. In such units, a good LRM pilot can never grow up. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that big and successful units don't have good LRM pilots... at least with statements like I read in this thread lately. Players are systematically discouraged to use LRM's. And this thread won't follow this trend, quite the opposite.

I also don't understand that "feast or famine" statement. There should not be too much LRM mechs in one group but this is also true for any other weapon system. At least one (good) LRM mech can change the whole match. Not using one slot for LRM's is weaking the team in my opinion. But I can understand that you don't fill the slot because you don't have good pilots. That's sad but don't blame LRM's for it.

***

It's really hard to express myself because... I do not understand most of the latest comments. This thread is about becoming a good pilot that can use LRM's in an appropriate and successful way. Repeating lies and propaganda that LRM's are in general NOT successful and NOT appropriate in competitive matches is off-topic... nothing more, nothing less.

I can only imagine that you are extremely disgusted by LRM pilots and you want to discourage players before they even have the chance to become skilled with this weaponry. Yes, my question is: Who benefits from posts like this? If we don't have skilled and competitive LRM pilots, they should start right to become it. LRM's have lots of potential and everybody knows that. You should not have to many LRM carriers because this means indeed a "feast or famine" attitude and nearly every match will be lost with more than 1/4 LRM mechs in the team. But 1/12 or 2/12 LRM mechs in a team can totally distract the enemy and make them panic, so the team members can start a devastating and successful rush. Only LRM's can do that... if there is a skilled pilot who is driving the mech.

I won't forget to thank the most of you, especially Kin3ticX for his effort. We don't have the same opinion but I can see his effort to discuss in a constructive way. But to be honest, I feel sorry that there is so much misunderstanding and at least suspicion against a very devastating weapon system.

I have one more example. I don't use Gauss very often, I'm not very successful in using it. I hate this weapon and it's OP in my opinion. It makes MWO to a "Call of Duty" clone. Mechs should not die because of one good placed alpha strike.
BUT, I really acknowledge the skill of using a Gauss rifle. I would never do trash talking about this weapon.
Just because I don't like it, I'm not blind! I can see what others can do with this weapon and it's the same with LRM's! If you don't know what to do with it, it's your own fault.
One guy from a german unit was really annoying during the Battle of Tukayyid. Even when I made more damage, he asked me not to use LRM's in the battle. He was totally blind of my damage, my kills and my match score (regularly more than him and even best match score in many matches). And when I met him lately in a PUG match, he died in the first minute and instead of sitting in my cockpit and watching me doing 600+ damage and 3 kills with a LRM mech, he disconnected. Blind people like to stay blind.



*I'm sure everyone knows examples for this. There are lots of YouTube videos where enemy LRM mechs are called "cowards", "scum" or even worse. In much units they have an infamous reputation. Everyone knows that and this is sad. At least I don't care. I know that LRM's are very devastating and they require skill. That's all I need to know. It's not the best weapon but a very good one.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 05 August 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Dracol]

Tesunie, on 04 August 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

For competitive players, they will always lean towards what gets the best results, for the minimum amount of effort.

I would disagree with your assumption of why competitive players choose the meta they do. It's not about only 1 button versus 4, or minimal effort. Its about maximum efficiency.

MWO, at the comp level, is not a game about attrition. Its a game centered around bringing down mechs as fast and efficiently as possible. This is due to the nature on having no respawns.

When a drop commander calls for "Charlie, CT", what they are looking for is to have every single point of damage their teammates dish out to be laser focused upon that CT. Individual pilots can improve their skills with all weapons to help realize that goal, except for LRMs. This is amplified by the smaller 8v8 battles the comp scene is comprised of.

Boating comes in handy for these surgical strikes. If you're in position to make an attack, you want to have maximum damage potential when you do. That's why they play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses versus building to exploit a variety of available enemy weaknesses.

Edited by Dracol, 05 August 2015 - 06:21 AM.

[Sugary]

awesome thread!
please keep it up this way
i'm gonna live forever with the amount of laugh i've had

[Kjudoon]

Catalina, this is a very good guide to teach someone how to do well with LRMs. It is the hardest weapon system in the game to master. Yes, hardest people. It's not hard to master ACs or Laservomit, and even Gauss is fairly easy if you have a sense of rhythm.

As for me, I love LRMs. I want to play LRMs, but the game has been weighted so heavily against them, I've had to give them up and go on to other things that I don't hate, but certainly nothing replaces the joy of LRMs for me even though they do less exciting videos when I record them. The problem is their efficiency and the absolute rage that is mounted against them by people who do want the Mech of Doody clone game with their instagimp 1500m sniper rifles and bazooka style of play. I know I went off topic but its the kind of stuff that infurates me for what could be an excellent diversification of the game, using the very methodology you point out in your guide.

Quote

I also don't understand that "feast or famine" statement.

To me, when I use this phrase in regards to LRMs is because they are so finely balanced between when the weapon is dominant and when it is garbage. In the past, when there was at least a +2 ECM mech difference on the other team, unless you had teammates who would spot, tag, narc or generally support team play by hitting R, you got curbstomped. Now with the nerf (THANK YOU, PAUL!), that number may have changed.

The AMS umbrella is also a big factor. The higher the skill the player, the less likely they are to take AMS because they know tactics to beat it. When it is heavy, LRMs are junk. When it is light, they can be beautiful, only mitigated by players who know how to use cover and terrain.

Maps play a factor and this is where map awareness, and knowledge of flight paths is CRITICAL for the skill of the LRMboat.

LRMs are a beautiful tactical weapon, but thanks to biases in the community, no need to go through the little slivers that make up the vocal minority, PGI has created a bad situation instead of making it a better all around weapon. In my opinion, AMS is the biggest factor in why small amounts of LRMS are nearly worthless, for they nullify single LRM batteries of under 20 when a crowd of 5 AMS can be active to shoot down any missile inside it's range that ignores physical objects for much of the match. Why would you put an LRM5 in a Grasshopper for instance, or an LRM10 in the chest of a panther? Because the chances of you getting a missile through is almost non-existant. The tonnage/damage ratio is way WAY too low compared to say a PPC or AC5.

This is the equivalent of stocking equipment that would shave off damage from an AC round by melting it with a laser in mid flight. or spraying low albedo aerosol to absorb laser damage. If you had such things, AC2 and AC5s would disappear as well as anything under a Large Laser. because the protective systems would be too strong. It strips out diversity from the game. It's also something anyone who wants to run LRMs needs to be aware of.

Of course, this is a minor digression as you are talking LRM-Boating. In that case, you're running at least 20LRMs on a Medium and 40LRMs on anything bigger to be considered boating.

Quote

I would disagree with your assumption of why competitive players choose the meta they do. It's not about only 1 button versus 4, or minimal effort. Its about maximum efficiency.

That's right. The meta is determined almost 100% by mathematics of efficiency measured in fractions of points and split seconds. Precise, repeatable actions that forward any victory are the only ones that matter. Meta is an expression of efficiency studies. Why else do some people create crazy complex spreadsheets (in all online games BTW) on how weapons or whatever mechanics of the game works? So they win. It is the most efficient way to win. In any competitive activity there is a significantly influential group that focuses on winning at all costs and they drive the game by ferreting out every exploit or flaw to come up with "The One" way to play and then run it to perfection. It's like bowling or golf. Your goal is the 'perfect game'. Bowling, get a 900 series. Golf, get 18 hole in ones. Those are expressions of perfection, and the meta for those sports no matter how attainable they may or may not be. I always joke that in American Football, the perfect team is the one that scores on every kickoff or punt, and needs no offensive players. That's a ludicrous meta, but it's still a meta in the gaming sense.

Right now, LRMs cannot fit the meta because their useful role has been made obsolete through the game's current design. They are fun to play, but they cannot be fun when facing off against the meta because they are unable to compete. This is bad game design and balance because having an entire class of weapons inferior yet put into the game kills variety. Unfortunately, the meta is against variety. It's about uniformity. The One Way, remember?

So, the guide is good. It teaches very good habits and ideas and skills (real skills not pavlovian twitching) that involve thought and knowledge. They will not be useful until PGI really reins in the meta set and starts looking for ways to equalize weapon systems, so they are various ways to achieve the same raw outputs like DPS, precision and the like. Anyone following the guide will improve both in their ability to build LRMboats, know their role and have fun in a casual setting. Just accept it for what it is.

Edited by Kjudoon, 05 August 2015 - 06:56 AM.

[Kin3ticX]

Catalina Steiner, on 05 August 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

I also don't understand that "feast or famine" statement.

When I envoke this statement I am talking about variance or std deviation of a particular tactic. For example, for the sake of arguement, lets say both a test direct fire mech and a test LRM mech have about 400-500 average damage. The direct fire mech may be doing 400, 500, 600 damage but the LRM boat might do 200, 400, 900 damage. This is a well motivated theory, it just has to do with reliability vs. feast or famine.

Meaning, if you did a big ol test project, LRM mechs would result in a higher STD DEV than direct fire tests.

I hope that clears up "feast or famine"

[Tesunie]

Dracol, on 05 August 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

I would disagree with your assumption of why competitive players choose the meta they do. It's not about only 1 button versus 4, or minimal effort. Its about maximum efficiency.

MWO, at the comp level, is not a game about attrition. Its a game centered around bringing down mechs as fast and efficiently as possible. This is due to the nature on having no respawns.

When a drop commander calls for "Charlie, CT", what they are looking for is to have every single point of damage their teammates dish out to be laser focused upon that CT. Individual pilots can improve their skills with all weapons to help realize that goal, except for LRMs. This is amplified by the smaller 8v8 battles the comp scene is comprised of.

Boating comes in handy for these surgical strikes. If you're in position to make an attack, you want to have maximum damage potential when you do. That's why they play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses versus building to exploit a variety of available enemy weaknesses.

That's basically what I said. They go for what is efficient, which often times is what is easiest and most reliable to use. Even if Dual AC20 is "effective", but if say hit registration doesn't register half the hits landed with it, then it wouldn't be used by competitive units because it isn't reliable. Same for any other weapon.

There are ways to very effectively play LRMs, even in a competitive scene. Same for balanced builds. I recall my unit's big CW group that I joined wanted to try LRM boating to victory. We nearly got it to work. In those matches, I was in my balanced LRM mechs, such as my Stalker 3F. I was actually one of the highest performers because I filled in a role. I could LRM with everyone else, and I could also deal direct damage to anyone who got too close. (My unit is very much willing to experiment with tactics, and those matches was a lot of fun to play.)

LRMs, even in competitive play, can still be used to lure opponents into a trap ("Look! An LRM noob! Charge him!") or as a fear weapon to stall and delay some enemies approach (even competitive players run for cover and breaking line of sight when they hear LRMs are incoming). LRMs are more than a damage weapon, they are a utility weapon. They can serve many purposes in a match, and it can be worth taking just a few LRMs sometimes.


Trust me. I do understand the weaknesses of LRMs. I also understand the weaknesses of more balanced builds. The problem people don't understand with balanced builds isn't that it's "weaker in a brawl than a brawler", it's the fact that it can "take a brawler outside brawling, and play outside their strengths". If you are mashing a balanced build against another specialized build within their specialty, then to quote other people "you are doing it wrong". It isn't the same typical way everyone else plays, and can backfire as much as any other build concept or loadout.


Most everything in this game is how you play it.