387 replies to this topic

[masCh]

Mcgral18, on 29 May 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

I've also scored #1 on a chassis tourney?

Then you would know it wouldn't take a random lucky match to make the top 50 list.

So why are the LRM pilots consistently scoring top in their matches then if the LRM weapon itself was bad?

[Weeny Machine]

With the mass inflation of ECM the LRM as a weapon system is next to useless.

Let's see though

1. Inefficient?
I smile when I read that. LRMs are no weapon system which is intended to lolalpha someone out of his socks. It is a surpression weapon and quite deadly when you are caught in the open or when you are engaged by an enemy. Imo it does that a bit too well. LRMs punish light mechs quite easily when they make an attack run. Not necessarily the harassers or snipers but the brawlers like Huginns etc

2. Noob weapon?
Well, if you fire your LRMs from 800+ metres it is as in 1. inefficient and of course a "noob weapon". If you want to do damage and be efficient you need to get about 400-500 metres to your target. And then things get really interesting.
What cracks me up though are people who ride the laser spam meta and call LRMs out. Lasers are the most idiot-proof weapon system in this game. Sorry, guys.



Summa summarum:

• With ECM inflation the LRMs are crap.
  
• The implementation is bad - no one wants to be perma pinned behind walls or unable to retaliate
  
• ECM is equally badly implemented.

[masCh]

Mcgral18, on 29 May 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

PUG life is always half Terribads. Well, perhaps 60%. Then occasionally just a quarter of the team, or in those absolutely terribad roflstomps a full 10 can be Bad.

It doesn't really matter what your Elo is when the buckets range 1000.

The original post was about a pug drop no?

This entire discussion is about LRM bias in pug drops.

Why should they get haunted if they can do as much as other weapon platforms?

Edited by masCh, 29 May 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 29 May 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

I've noticed if I don't have LOS on my LRM mechs I'll test the waters with a salvo or two and I've often noticed no hits on maps like that.

Maps like Caustic though? It's like a buffet.

all about positioning, minimap and map awareness. I tend to know where my LRMs won't be effective. Sometimes you can't take advantage, other times you can. And catch a fatboy out of position? A Mech like a 4J or 6x5 MDD can cripple it before it can effectively shift position. Even on Lights, I can either make most break off pursuit, or take a leg off, effectively killing them.

Only time I really can't make much use out of a mech like that is against a competent, high elo coordinated Zerg, or if my team folds like wet cardboard. But then, in both cases, I also pack significant back up weapons, have mobility, and try to be within 500 meters to maximize efficiency. LoS is even better.

I do tend to view LRM 80-100 Assaults as the general province of bad players, as very very few of seem willing to get their own lock, and usually are totally dependent of team locks, lack of enemy ecm, etc. My "Heaviest" LRM build is a Warhawk with LRM45. And an LB.20X and 2-3 Mlasers.

[masCh]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 29 May 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

I've noticed if I don't have LOS on my LRM mechs I'll test the waters with a salvo or two and I've often noticed no hits on maps like that.

Maps like Caustic though? It's like a buffet.

You might try what I found successful - mount an LRM5 and put in Group 6, and use it as a test shot to see which group of mechs have a lot of AMS, and shoot at the 2-3 mechs without as much AMS.

[Baba Yogi]

because of stupid mechanics lrms are either op or useless on battlefield, if u get clear los, they are the greatest most efficient dps you can get for the heat and tonnage cost, especially clan lrms. But indirect fire i believe should not be available without a tag laser, as it was supposed to be. Also they should not lose lock if target moves out of sight but should not hit every single missile either. Ecm thing needs to change as well though, so many mechanics that are detrimental to gameplay and i dont see any reason to keep them as they are. Lrms needs to normalize to have a solid place in the game.

[Dimento Graven]

Aloha, on 29 May 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

Last night in a PUG drop, one LRM player on my team types a simple request: "Hold Locks Please". It's a simple enough request, and not that uncommon. However, another player types "How about getting your own locks?", which leads to the LRM player to respond if the second player would like him to leave the match. The second player responds "Yes, please", and the LRM player complied. We already have one D/C, so now we're down 2 players.

Now I don't play LRMs very often, but I do it once in a while just to mix things up. I no longer remind the team to hold locks precisely due to that attitude towards LRM players. I admit I have seen some bad LRM players who just sit way back waiting for his teams to lock targets for them, but I've also seen good LRM players who are very effective in providing fire support and keeping the enemy pinned with LRMs. I feel that this hostility towards LRM players is unjustified and foolish. I would rather have a bad LRM player than playing the match short one player. At the very least he'll serve as canon fodder and absorb some damage, and maybe even strip off a few points of armor off an enemy.

Honestly, if you dislike LRM as a weapon system, then don't use it, but to tell your own team mate to leave the match is a disservice to your own team.

You know what, I'd like to switch this from a LRM-centric "woah is the poor computer guidance reliant player" and turn it around to a general:

"HEY MORONS, TARGET WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT TO GET BETTER AT THE DAMN GAME!" rant.

WAY over and above the ancillary benefits to those poor ******** who just for the life of themselves, can't play without the computer guiding their shots, actually pressing R and locking your target so that you can see where the most damage is on the enemy 'mech and THOUGHTFULLY and SPECIFICALLY aim at those locations is just OH SO MUCH more efficient than the idiotic "spray and pray" methodology so many of you poor dumb ******** employ.

Being one to play a sniper build, it's VERY NICE to see enemies being lit up on the mini map so that:

A. I can know where they are.
B. The target info can be shared and I can more efficiently finish off a leg, or side torso, or kill off an enemy.

You moronic nitwits that absolutely REFUSE to press R like it's some form of religious heresy PISS ME OFF!

DAMNIT! PRESS R WHEN YOU'RE SHOOTING AT SOMEONE...

[masCh]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 May 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

all about positioning, minimap and map awareness. I tend to know where my LRMs won't be effective. Sometimes you can't take advantage, other times you can.

I do tend to view LRM 80-100 Assaults as the general province of bad players, as very very few of seem willing to get their own lock, and usually are totally dependent of team locks, lack of enemy ecm, etc. My "Heaviest" LRM build is a Warhawk with LRM45. And an LB.20X and 2-3 Mlasers.

I agree.. LRM boating especially hurts if its done on Assaults, because the tank is sometimes behind the battle front.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Mcgral18, on 29 May 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

So a Super quirk robot that is not a slow as balls LRM assault and can actually pull it's weight?

Well my MDD-B has a 2.55 KDR and deals out an avg 418 damage a game.

More often than not, we notice bads with LRMs more than bads with pew pew or boom boom because they're the ones 3 grids away, bitching at us for not getting locks, or leaving them behind, or they're the last ones alive with fresh armor on an assault mech wondering what happened to the team.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cathy, on 29 May 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

My Hunchback -4J averaging 458 per game, K/D 3.29 LRM10 +artemis, Tag, mlx3

Damn what does a person have to do, to not be a wasted slot, I see half the team regularly failing to do half that good with direct fire weapons, and i'm not talking the lowest match making pool either..

HBK-4J
2x LRM10, TAG, 2x Mlaser, 3x Slasers (No artemis, couldn't find 2 tons I was willing to give up)
447 avg match damage, 2.4 KDr

My BLR-1S which was LRM 30, plus lasers?
459 avg damage, 3.6 KDr.

Mcgral18, on 29 May 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

So a Super quirk robot that is not a slow as balls LRM assault and can actually pull it's weight?

Fine by me.


PUG life is always half Terribads. Well, perhaps 60%. Then occasionally just a quarter of the team, or in those absolutely terribad roflstomps a full 10 can be Bad.

It doesn't really matter what your Elo is when the buckets range 1000.

so basically, it's always because the other team was worse. I'll keep that in mind. (Usually that's why you win in any match, but I'll keep it in mind)

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

masCh, on 29 May 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

You might try what I found successful - mount an LRM5 and put in Group 6, and use it as a test shot to see which group of mechs have a lot of AMS, and shoot at the 2-3 mechs without as much AMS.

Recon by fire?

I do it all the time in my LRM mechs. It helps me to figure out where the zerg is too as I'm seeing 3 or 4 AMS kick up to shoot down an LRM5 or 10.

It's also partly why I don't normally carry AMS (beside the whole finding a DHS or more ammo being a better use of tonnage).

[Templar Dane]

Aloha, on 29 May 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

Last night in a PUG drop, one LRM player on my team types a simple request: "Hold Locks Please". It's a simple enough request, and not that uncommon. However, another player types "How about getting your own locks?", which leads to the LRM player to respond if the second player would like him to leave the match. The second player responds "Yes, please", and the LRM player complied. We already have one D/C, so now we're down 2 players.

Now I don't play LRMs very often, but I do it once in a while just to mix things up. I no longer remind the team to hold locks precisely due to that attitude towards LRM players. I admit I have seen some bad LRM players who just sit way back waiting for his teams to lock targets for them, but I've also seen good LRM players who are very effective in providing fire support and keeping the enemy pinned with LRMs. I feel that this hostility towards LRM players is unjustified and foolish. I would rather have a bad LRM player than playing the match short one player. At the very least he'll serve as canon fodder and absorb some damage, and maybe even strip off a few points of armor off an enemy.

Honestly, if you dislike LRM as a weapon system, then don't use it, but to tell your own team mate to leave the match is a disservice to your own team.

The thing about "holding locks please" is that in order to keep that lock, one would have to get shot to pieces. The way it plays out is that you peek over the hill or around the corner, trade shots with another mech or get your face smashed by multiple mechs.

Once you've got no armor left, getting a lock for that LRM player that's hiding in the back.............yeah nope. The LRM player can take his turn peeking for locks.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 May 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

so basically, it's always because the other team was worse. I'll keep that in mind. (Usually that's why you win in any match, but I'll keep it in mind)

When half the team fails to get 200 damage?

Pretty good indicator things went poorly. You can still carry at that point; it's when there are 8 Terribads it gets much harder.

Also depends on the Bads on the other side.


With that video posted, there weren't very many Bads, surprisingly. Quite a few at the 200-400 mark, but not sub 200.

To score well in the Tourney, you need 80% of both teams to do poorly, or be Bads. And farm damage, as that person did. And secure every kill you can, while inflicting the most inefficient form of damage (individually target arms and legs before killing when there's no risk of teammates securing it), secure that Most Damage Dealt reward, while farming away.

[Allen Ward]

The responds in this thread clearly show the attitude of the majority of the player community: ego trip. LRMs are a support weapon and they usually are used as an indirect firing weapon. How can anyone just say: get your own lock, it's not my job?

LRMs are here to support the rest of the team, they let the enemy take cover, slow their movement while allowing your own team to advance into good positions. The weaken the enemy armor so your teams PPCs and ACs can get kill shots easier.

Leaving your LRM team mates alone is just ignorant and selfish. It is not difficult to get a lock while firing at a target, it doesn't cost you anything. Nobody asks you to expose yourself for long times while doing so. But 80% of the players NEVER target enemies. The hit lock is to short and late to give your LRM mechs a target. If you peek around a corner, fire your PPC and duck back into cover, how shall anbody get a lock from that?

I do lock targets as often and long as I can, regardless of the mech I drive, just to give my team every chance to know where a mech currently is. The saddest thing is that Light mech players with ECM cover and speed shield don't play recon at all, no they try to play mini-rambo and don't share their ECM shield or bring a Tag, AMS and surely don't hold locks while circling that lone Atlas...why should they, a lucky missile volley could take away that "my kill experience".

[Astrocanis]

nehebkau, on 29 May 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

Personally, I bristle when someone types "Hold locks please LRMs here". When I translate that to how it affects my game it means "Please get your mech shot up for me by staying in the enemies line of fire so I can fire from behind you instead of ducking back into cover" or to "Please expect my FF lrm fire as you close circle strafe that target in your light mech"

So, when someone says "Hold locks please" I am likely to respond with "get your own" because for every excellent LRM pilot I have had a match with I've had matches with 199 bad ones. (and by the way the excellent LRM pilots would get their own locks)

Maybe I shouldn't be so jaded -- but it can get real hard not to. I wouldn't have asked the player to leave but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to get shot up so their weapon systems get used to its potential

It's just as possible that what you are reading as "die for me" is simply "please remember, for the sake of puppies and pie, TO PRESS FRIGGING 'R'!"

It's amazing how many times people won't do that.

[Zeusus]

Dimento Graven, on 29 May 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

You know what, I'd like to switch this from a LRM-centric "woah is the poor computer guidance reliant player" and turn it around to a general:

"HEY MORONS, TARGET WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT TO GET BETTER AT THE DAMN GAME!" rant.

WAY over and above the ancillary benefits to those poor ******** who just for the life of themselves, can't play without the computer guiding their shots, actually pressing R and locking your target so that you can see where the most damage is on the enemy 'mech and THOUGHTFULLY and SPECIFICALLY aim at those locations is just OH SO MUCH more efficient than the idiotic "spray and pray" methodology so many of you poor dumb ******** employ.

Being one to play a sniper build, it's VERY NICE to see enemies being lit up on the mini map so that:

A. I can know where they are.
B. The target info can be shared and I can more efficiently finish off a leg, or side torso, or kill off an enemy.

You moronic nitwits that absolutely REFUSE to press R like it's some form of religious heresy PISS ME OFF!

DAMNIT! PRESS R WHEN YOU'RE SHOOTING AT SOMEONE...

This I can definitely get behind.

[Escef]

lordtzar, on 29 May 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

The thing about "holding locks please" is that in order to keep that lock, one would have to get shot to pieces.

Are you seriously so dense that you think "hold locks please" doesn't have an unspoken caveat of "don't suicide"?

[masCh]

Mcgral18, on 29 May 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

With that video posted, there weren't very many Bads, surprisingly. Quite a few at the 200-400 mark, but not sub 200.

Seems all the generalizations made about ineffectiveness of LRMs are falling apart one by one doesn't it?

Edited by masCh, 29 May 2015 - 02:10 PM.

[One Medic Army]

If you want to be effective with LRMs, you need to get your own damn locks. End of story.

[Astrocanis]

One Medic Army, on 29 May 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

If you want to be effective with LRMs, you need to get your own damn locks. End of story.

I usually do. But imagine how much more effective at suppression and distraction I could have been with a lock or two.

People may run away from a large laser or two. They ALWAYS jump at LRMs.

For me, it's not about kills (although I seem to do ok with them), it's about making the enemy targeted worry a lot more about getting his arse blown off than chasing that Jenner (who usually gets the kill).