126 replies to this topic

[KuroNyra]

Aloha, on 04 May 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

It still amazes me when I see a player not locking target when I spectate. I see them shooting healthy components instead of the ones about to fall off. I see them going after an unarmed target (all weapons destroyed) while being shot up by armed enemies. The R key is your friend. It's there to help you. Refusing to use it to spite LRM carrying teammates is downright idiotic.

You have to be an idiot to even think about deliberatly handicap a kind of weapon user...

But hey, it's the Internet, you find all sorts of morons. Sadly, most of them know how to create a thread.

[Apnu]

Khobai, on 04 May 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

The problem is quite simple

1) long-range meta dominates
2) without brawling LRMs have trouble holding locks

Easiest way to fix LRMs is simply to bring back brawling... then locks get held and LRMs are more useful.

I agree, but it won't happen. Now that the GRF-2N is out and the 'Phract is getting ECM, there's going to be so much ECM in the queues LRMs will be impossible to use.

If those brawlers aren't packing BAP to drop the 2-3 ECM we'll see on teams, LRM players should just quit now.

Yes, TAG, don't leave home w/out it, but TAG requires face time and once the target's TAG is disrupted, and there's ECM, its all over.

If PGI would quit denying locks under ECM, we'd not have this problem. ECM should, instead, limit info gathering, make locks take longer, not deny everything under the bubble.

The preponderance of ECM in this game, and the way ECM works is what pushes the sniper meta.

[InspectorG]

Wouldnt want them to have to get their own locks like everyone else, eh?

2 kinds of Puglandia lurmers:

Those who dont ask for locks and bring their own TAG.

Those who want others to risk their armor so they can sit in the back and 'support'.

[Tahribator]

I posted my "extended" thoughts about this issue on my blog.

[InspectorG]

tortuousGoddess, on 05 May 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

450m is not at all too close, it's the range you're at when you're properly supporting your brawlers and not hanging back where your tonnage goes to waste.

People also forget that 450m is hella lot less travel time for the lurms compared to 1000m.

Why i dont mind the mobile LRM mediums, they can get, dump, move, and skirmish if they were smart enough to bring a backup weapon.

Back of the map wannabe artillery needs a whole team designed around it and is a waste in most Pugs. They become Locust food.

[Apnu]

Gagis, on 05 May 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

This is why the only LRM boat that does not make me cringe is the Trebuchet 7M. It has a very good firepower/tonnage ratio, can move itself to very favourable firing positions and usually carries its own TAG. LRMs are a harassment weapon, and are best used in mechs that actually can get in place to harass the enemy.

I don't think I have ever seen a LRM Assault that did its share of work in a match, and even most LRM heavies are a stretch.

Have you been on the receiving end of a HBK-4J? Imagine 20 LRMs hitting at the speed of a LRM 5. Its sick, plus high mounted, asymmetric missile point with high mounted energy point in the head for TAG. Its the perfect LRM machine.

However I agree that 100 ton assault LRM boats are not good. All that armor only to stand back... way back because of a weak engine... and puke LRMs? Ugh. AWS-8T/R I get, but an AS7? KGC? Having one of those on your team is only slightly better than having a 0 ping.

I feel the same way about the ERPPC/GR DWFs wandering about. All that armor, all that tank, in a slow, poor arm swing, mech that lags at the back. Granted, my HBK-4G loves finding those things, easy kills and damage padding.

Still there's uses to LRM heavies. I'd be driving a CPLT-C1 if we didn't have to suffer those freaking ears. Put the old arms back and those suckers are mean LRM support mechs. I'd also point to the AWS-8T and 8R, great LRM mechs, High TAG point, mid-torso LRM launchers, nice backup weapon choices (try them with 2xLRM15, 2xLL, TAG). I've carried quite a few games in the CPLT and AWS LRM'ing.

But, IMO, mediums do LRMs better. Generally because they're usually faster so they can re-position quickly or keep up with the murder ball. And they aren't high priority targets. If I'm in a TBT-7M and I'm with a JM6 dakka boat, everybody's going after the Jager, I'm free to support the JM6's targets and soften them up for a killing blow.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

However I agree that 100 ton assault LRM boats are not good. All that armor only to stand back... way back because of a weak engine... and puke LRMs?

Wait... LRMpuke is bad, but laservomit and Dakkabarf is good????

Riiiight, I don't see a triple standard here.

But with 3 more ECM mechs inbound, anyone who doesn't run one is a sucker nowadays. Why have 3 weapon systems in the game when you can have two?

Edited by Kjudoon, 05 May 2015 - 02:51 PM.

[Gagis]

Kjudoon, on 05 May 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

Wait... LRMpuke is bad, but laservomit and Dakkabarf is good????

Riiiight, I don't see a triple standard here.

Yes. LRMpuke fails to kill enemies, while laser vomit is extremely good at killing enemies and dakka barf is decently good at killing enemies. Therefore LRMpuke is bad, and laser vomit and dakka barf are good.

The standard is singular, and quite clear. You are valued based on how much you contribute to the actual fighting. LRM Assaults do not contribute enough to justify wasting a lot of valuable tonnage on them. Those assault slots and tons are very valuable, and if enemy has 4 assaults on the front line and your team has 3 assaults on the front and one asault shooting lurms on rocks and buildings from its spawn point, the enemy wins. Ditto for wasting 2/5 of your drop deck tonnage on a mech that does not participate in a push.

[Pariah Devalis]

First off, nobody said they would intentionally not lock targets to spite LRM users. Way to read into a simple, truthful statement.

To the point?

• LRM platforms without backup direct fire systems worth a damn are just fodder. As soon as anything gets under your min-range, you're boned as a dedicated LRM platform.
  
• From a safety standpoint giving yourself backup guns is a smart move. Take a few lasers, or perhaps one heavy ballistic, and, suddenly? You can defend yourself even if your LRMs are disabled.
  
• From an offensive standpoint, you can precisely aim your direct weapon systems while pummelling a target with the indirect stuff for a much more efficient use of ammo and shorter TTK on the target, in addition to being sure your radar locks will hold for the missile flight duration.
  
• Your LRMs function down to 180 meters with IS LRMs, and Clan LRMs do significant damage down to around 120 meters. 250 meters is a nice sweet spot where you can still inflict damage on the enemy with the LRMs AND fire medium lasers on them for fairly significant damage output.
  
• From a team utility standpoint, you take your own share of the damage in the fight, spreading the pain among your allies more, meaning each individual on your team takes less, proportionately. You are also closer to support in case you need it from your allies who are now benefiting from having that much more armor to survive helping you.

It is to these ends that I have developed an absolute hatred for selfish LRM users out there - and there are far too many of them. However, an LRM platform who moves with the team? Takes its hits? Provides direct firepower supplemental to the indirect firepower? Those I want on my team. Those are not leechers. They are earning their share.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 May 2015 - 03:17 PM.

[Vandul]

Gagis, on 05 May 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yes. LRMpuke fails to kill enemies, while laser vomit is extremely good at killing enemies and dakka barf is decently good at killing enemies. Therefore LRMpuke is bad, and laser vomit and dakka barf are good.

The standard is singular, and quite clear. You are valued based on how much you contribute to the actual fighting. LRM Assaults do not contribute enough to justify wasting a lot of valuable tonnage on them. Those assault slots and tons are very valuable, and if enemy has 4 assaults on the front line and your team has 3 assaults on the front and one asault shooting lurms on rocks and buildings from its spawn point, the enemy wins. Ditto for wasting 2/5 of your drop deck tonnage on a mech that does not participate in a push.

There is some truth here both physically and psychologically. This is why mediums often make some of the best LRM support platforms out there. Golden Boys and Hunchies (I like my Wolverine too) are especially good at this. The Catapult (C1, A1 and to a lesser extent the C4) are useful in this regard, only so long as they are up with the meat shields.

I used to be a big proponent of the Assault LRM Wagon (BLR-1S being a prime candidate), but have moved away from that in the last year or so. I am far more effective in my Golden Boy, staying up with the pack, painting my own targets (when possible), popping my own UAV's (when I have them) and assisting the main force with our goals. LRM's are a great way to force movement channels and keep the snipers down as well.

[Kjudoon]

Gagis, on 05 May 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yes. LRMpuke fails to kill enemies, while laser vomit is extremely good at killing enemies and dakka barf is decently good at killing enemies. Therefore LRMpuke is bad, and laser vomit and dakka barf are good.

The standard is singular, and quite clear. You are valued based on how much you contribute to the actual fighting. LRM Assaults do not contribute enough to justify wasting a lot of valuable tonnage on them. Those assault slots and tons are very valuable, and if enemy has 4 assaults on the front line and your team has 3 assaults on the front and one asault shooting lurms on rocks and buildings from its spawn point, the enemy wins. Ditto for wasting 2/5 of your drop deck tonnage on a mech that does not participate in a push.

and why does it "fail to kill enemies" (as quickly as the FLPPD meta, if you want to make this an honest statement)? Because whiners got them nerfed to uselessness. How about we make all weapons cone of fire spread and suddenly LRMs would be equal.

Also, "actual fighting"? What is that? Is there only one type of fighting that does damage, and the other that doesn't? Come on, let's use some intellectual honesty here. All fighting does damage and contribute. Your statement is like saying the guy in the unit with the grenade launcher doesn't help the squad. Come on....

[Phashe]

If your team desires or understands LRM support, they will lock. Otherwise, their loss.

[Pariah Devalis]

Kjudoon, on 05 May 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

and why does it "fail to kill enemies" (as quickly as the FLPPD meta, if you want to make this an honest statement)? Because whiners got them nerfed to uselessness. How about we make all weapons cone of fire spread and suddenly LRMs would be equal.

Also, "actual fighting"? What is that? Is there only one type of fighting that does damage, and the other that doesn't? Come on, let's use some intellectual honesty here. All fighting does damage and contribute. Your statement is like saying the guy in the unit with the grenade launcher doesn't help the squad. Come on....

I personally feel LRMs were done wrong in MWO from the get go. IMO, LRMs should be doing clusters of 5 damage chunks, AMS should not share among allies, and each AMS you have equipped should knock out one cluster per launcher fired at you. In other words, an LRM5 fires one chunk of missiles that will hit one location on an enemy mech, an LRM10 fires two chunks, 15 fires three, and 20 fires four, while a mech with 1 AMS will knock out one chunk per launcher fired at it (immunity to LRM5s) and mechs with two AMS would knock out two salvos per launcher (immunity to LRM10s). MW4's system, in other words, except without the god-radar from MW4.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 May 2015 - 03:23 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Pariah Devalis, on 05 May 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

I personally feel LRMs were done wrong in MWO from the get go. IMO, LRMs should be doing clusters of 5 damage chunks, AMS should not share among allies, and each AMS you have equipped should knock out one cluster per launcher fired at you. In other words, an LRM5 fires one chunk of missiles that will hit one location on an enemy mech, an LRM10 fires two chunks, 15 fires three, and 20 fires four, while a mech with 1 AMS will knock out one chunk per launcher fired at it (immunity to LRM5s) and mechs with two AMS would knock out two salvos per launcher (immunity to LRM10s). MW4's system, in other words, except without the god-radar from MW4.

So they should work like Clan autocannons with the ability to have a single kitfox invalidate an entire Catapult A1?

[Pariah Devalis]

Kjudoon, on 05 May 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

So they should work like Clan autocannons with the ability to have a single kitfox invalidate an entire Catapult A1?

LRM20 would still penetrate the KFX, with a 5 damage hit to a component. Per launcher. On a light mech. Or... you can shoot his friend standing right next to him, who is not benefiting from the KFX's triple AMS whatsoever, because these AMS would not share onto allies. "Selfish" AMS.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 May 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

but ams shoots missiles aimed to your allies?

AMS will not target anything except enemy Missile Projectiles. AMS will fire at any eligible projectiles in range, but prioritizes those targeted at the mech carrying the AMS system.

http://mwomercs.com/...eting-computer/

upd: oh, you mean your silly idea

also the kfx doesn't need that ams, the catapult won't get a lock because ecm

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 05 May 2015 - 03:46 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

bad arcade kitty, on 05 May 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

but ams shoots missiles aimed to your allies?

AMS will not target anything except enemy Missile Projectiles. AMS will fire at any eligible projectiles in range, but prioritizes those targeted at the mech carrying the AMS system.

http://mwomercs.com/...eting-computer/

upd: oh, you mean your silly idea

also the kfx doesn't need that ams, the catapult won't get a lock because ecm

Silly? Perhaps. But I assure you people would start valuing AMS again if they were that effective. And LRMs would be able to do credible chunks of damage even in a partial hit, dishing 5 to a specific component per chunk as opposed to 1.1 damage per missile hit.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 May 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[InspectorG]

Kjudoon, on 05 May 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

Wait... LRMpuke is bad, but laservomit and Dakkabarf is good????

Exactly,
Lazor is insta damage and Dakka is less travel time compared to lrm. If you need me to explain the math, i dont know if i can help you, its pretty obvious.

However,

IMO, i think LRMs DO need more functionality, but i think the direct fire/ECM/indirect fire mechanic needs improved and LRMs need a function of aiming with the 'B' map to target beyond terrain.

This could also lead to more scout/spot roles for lights.

Pariah Devalis, on 05 May 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

Silly? Perhaps. But I assure you people would start valuing AMS again if they were that effective. And LRMs would be able to do credible chunks of damage even in a partial hit, dishing 5 to a specific component per chunk as opposed to 1.1 damage per missile hit.

Problem in if LRM is too effective, people will abandon Lazor and Dakka. So meta would be 1 weapon instead of 2.5.

The direct fire/ ECM/ indirect fire mechanic needs changed.

[Pariah Devalis]

InspectorG, on 05 May 2015 - 04:17 PM, said:

Exactly,
Lazor is insta damage and Dakka is less travel time compared to lrm. If you need me to explain the math, i dont know if i can help you, its pretty obvious.

However,

IMO, i think LRMs DO need more functionality, but i think the direct fire/ECM/indirect fire mechanic needs improved and LRMs need a function of aiming with the 'B' map to target beyond terrain.

This could also lead to more scout/spot roles for lights.



Problem in if LRM is too effective, people will abandon Lazor and Dakka. So meta would be 1 weapon instead of 2.5.

The direct fire/ ECM/ indirect fire mechanic needs changed.

Perhaps, then, indirect fire retain 1/missile spread. LOS locks gain 5 point chunks? Anything to give a good reason for LRM boats to get their hands dirty.

[AccessTime]

I think people are so used to dealing with bad LRM players that they don't know what to do when they come up against a good one. At higher levels, the real value of LRMs against skilled players isn't that you will kill/damage them, as most good players know the drill and can avoid being hit by LRMs. And even if you find a way to effectively trade or exchange fire, LRMs are a subpar weapon compared to any other type that you won't last long.

At this level, the strength of LRMs is that many players overcompensate. If one or two medium LRM mechs can keep players on the edge and playing in a way that is either predictable or disadvantageous to their group, the rest your team can capitalize on this. For instance on Crimson Strait, in one sense the map can be the bane of LRM mechs since the enemy will just confine themselves to underneath the overhang for the complete cover it provides. But this behavior is predictable, and a good team can also capitalize on it even if they are down one or two mediums.

As far as backup weapons, I'm all for them, but it takes forever to kill anything with 2 medium LASERs. They're a simple deterrent and not much else, you might be able to assist your team when overrun or finish off a heavily damaged mech if you aren't also damaged, but that's about it. And it's annoying how long it takes you to kill anything.

I also see a lot of really bad LRM play, and not much good. Not just the wrong type of play (ineffective) but the wrong mechs, wrong designs, etc.

Edited by AccessTime, 05 May 2015 - 05:12 PM.