105 replies to this topic

[M T]

Ultimatum X, on 16 January 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Or, I "know how to use LRMs" (as if that's actually a thing, you need to be a complete moron or brand new to not be able to use them) and know exactly what I'm talking about.














Now put up your best LRM match scores, or STFU.


BUILD

Wow nice man, can you learn me to aim properly with LRM's too? All my mechs are currently full streak boats but i do crap when LRMing. They seem to not reach their final destination yet

Wheres the reticle to focus my weapon at?

Edited by MTs Cavia Porcellus, 16 January 2016 - 08:08 PM.

[El Bandito]

Lurms are life.

[Tripzter]

Main problem with LRMs are the LRM boats. Earlier was in a game where the enemy team had 6 lrm cats that qued together..

6

Edited by Tripzter, 16 January 2016 - 09:08 PM.

[Madcap72]

adamts01, on 15 January 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

Did I stand behind you on the platform of Crimson in my Locust yesterday? That poor Catapault. I shot it just enough to keep it squirming. LOL. It was trying to scare me off with 10m volleys untile it droped down and got eaten. All his buddies were trying to get a shot on me and got eaten up by the rest of my team on their other side.

All black with a white skull on the door?

If not, no.

Plus I would have dropped and arty strike on myself to get you, and then hauled *** torso twisting to friendlies.

[jjm1]

Well this thread is proof of one thing. LRMers think mighty highly of themselves.

Call it butthurt if you must, but MWO must have lost plenty of players to the slow brain drain that is LRMs. It's the rare and glorious LRM free matches that convince me how much more enjoyable the game would be if you could engage in a brawl with another mech without having to toss it in early simply because they have more LRMs on the field.

I recon if it wasn't for the lore anyone suggesting precision rapid fire artillery as an addition to the game would be laughed out of the room. Its a terrible idea, and its execution must be a nightmare for PGI. People complain about it because they like the game and are disappointed by the parts of it that are clearly pissing them off.

I believe I would be satisfied if there were some limits as to how many launchers could be fielded each side, I can learn to live with two or three at a time, they can be countered in pub matches, but six is guaranteed to be a deeply unsatisfying waste of a match, win or lose.

There is way too many times when advancing position is impossible without having a weapon range advantage in this game as well. Not really an LRM problem, just uninspired map design that punishes short range builds. Better maps would go a long way to making LRMs fair, they could even get a buff if all the maps had good tight brawling areas, sniping corridors and artillery zones. That way no build gets punished. The reason LRMs are nerfed is because some maps favour them too much and they will get effortless hit after hit completely free.

While I'm airing my many grievances:
Why doesn't mech selection happen after map selection in quick play? I know sorting teams by tonnage happens before anything which creates a technical dilemma, but its painful when your dropped into Alpine with a 40kph melee build. If people knew what map they were playing, then maps could be purpose built for highly specific builds.

done.

[wanderer]

Here, let me borrow your worthy prose.

Well this thread is proof of one thing. Laserers think mighty highly of themselves.

Call it butthurt if you must, but MWO must have lost plenty of players to the slow brain drain that is Laserers. It's the rare and glorious Laser free matches that convince me how much more enjoyable the game would be if you could engage in a brawl with another mech without having to toss it in early simply because they have more Lasers on the field.

I recon if it wasn't for the lore anyone suggesting precision rapid fire lasers an addition to the game would be laughed out of the room. Its a terrible idea, and its execution must be a nightmare for PGI. People complain about it because they like the game and are disappointed by the parts of it that are clearly pissing them off.

---

Beam weapons are the god-tool because convergence got turned off because PGI fails at coding.

We're pretty much stuck in the wonderful world of laservomit and precision dakka (speaking of precision rapid fire artillery) for eternity if that status quo remains. It's why anything that doesn't put everything into the same pixel is considered garbage by the meta in the first place.

Edited by wanderer, 18 January 2016 - 11:08 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Choppah, on 16 January 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

stuff

While in MWO, the ability to lock from behind cover allows some reward (albeit lower than a front line LRM mech) for no risk.

Ummm, how can you get Locks when you can't see SFA? What you speak of is piggy backing off of a spotter who at best is a ON-OFF targeting source, unless he is part of your 2-player LRM team and is willing to take all the risks involved in exposing themselves so you may get hard locks for your Missiles.

So NO, LRM carries do not HIDE behind cover and get their own required LoS LOCKS.

Sp please stop spreading such BS. The new players do not benefit from such rhetoric at all.

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 January 2016 - 11:34 AM.

[Zolaz]

If you want to run LRMs throw on a TAG and run (2) LRM 15s.

I was enjoying my BLR-1S with a Command Console, BAP and Artemis. Moves fast at around 72 kph with an 350 XL. Fastest lock on times with the CC and Artemis. C-bill bonuses from the TAG. Didnt have a problem with a solo light coming in on me. BAP and TAG took care of that and a UAV if more than 1 or 2 show up. (3) MPL was enough to scare off most lights, especially if you have your back to a wall. Those lights are going to get too hot trying to core through your armor.

The secret is supporting whoever is on the front line. On open maps you have clean line of sight for your Artemis to go into effect. You just have to know where the choke points are on some maps or where all the overhead obstructions are. Just like all the other non brawling weapons in MWO, LRMs require some situational awareness to use.

For all the people complaining about an assault LRM boat, sorry. Everyone was playing Heavies and Mediums and I was alternating between the BLR and ACH. The Light wasnt running LRMs ... it was a straight up brawler.

[jjm1]

wanderer, on 18 January 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

Here, let me borrow your worthy prose.

Well this thread is proof of one thing. Laserers think mighty highly of themselves.

Call it butthurt if you must, but MWO must have lost plenty of players to the slow brain drain that is Laserers. It's the rare and glorious Laser free matches that convince me how much more enjoyable the game would be if you could engage in a brawl with another mech without having to toss it in early simply because they have more Lasers on the field.

I recon if it wasn't for the lore anyone suggesting precision rapid fire lasers an addition to the game would be laughed out of the room. Its a terrible idea, and its execution must be a nightmare for PGI. People complain about it because they like the game and are disappointed by the parts of it that are clearly pissing them off.

---

Beam weapons are the god-tool because convergence got turned off because PGI fails at coding.

We're pretty much stuck in the wonderful world of laservomit and precision dakka (speaking of precision rapid fire artillery) for eternity if that status quo remains. It's why anything that doesn't put everything into the same pixel is considered garbage by the meta in the first place.

clever.

But line of sight weapons are staple of any FPS because that's where the fun in strategic positioning, steady aim and flanking is. Risk is what makes the game. I'm not saying LRM's are OP, I just generally I see them used as a lazy low risk points farming tool that has the unfortunate ability to be really annoying as well. I fully understand many people love that about them, its fun to be annoying, I was 13 once.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

jjm1, on 18 January 2016 - 10:37 PM, said:

clever.

But line of sight weapons are staple of any FPS because that's where the fun in strategic positioning, steady aim and flanking is. Risk is what makes the game. I'm not saying LRM's are OP, I just generally I see them used as a lazy low risk points farming tool that has the unfortunate ability to be really annoying as well. I fully understand many people love that about them, its fun to be annoying, I was 13 once.

so your saying. mousing an aiming reticle over a target and clicking is a skill worthy of praise and simply memorizing the "good" spots to camp at is a skill of the elite veteran FPS warriorz.

while.... knowing where to move dynamically to get firing arcs, out thinking your opponent's moves so that when he moves into a bad spot you already have him in your sites and a target lock. knowing when to fade and where to fade to to draw the enemy into the open. knowing which targets to prioritize so your buddies get the upper hand in a dual. Well thats just brain draining 13 year old skills i guess.

i was 13 too once.

Edited by Mellifluer, 18 January 2016 - 11:29 PM.

[Sassori]

It amuses me to no end that people think sooo many maps are just awesome for LRM's... it's like.. whut?

Most maps have so much cover that LRM's have to /work/ to get their damage in, unless they are targeting a noob.

Now I dislike spotters and indirect LRM fire not because of what it does, but because it promotes lazy.

In the source material we didn't /get/ weapon locks with LRM's at all until well after the Clans came.

I always try to get direct LOS on my targets with LRM's because it means I can apply my damage more reliably.

As for getting destroyed by LRM's? Don't fight in the shade. The maps have crazy amounts of cover, trying to weather the storm is as silly as standing in front of a 4xuac10 WarWhale.

[wanderer]

Christopher Dayson, on 19 January 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

In the source material we didn't /get/ weapon locks with LRM's at all until well after the Clans came.

I was getting indirect fire shots from my Archer from the first tabletop game I played.

That would be in 1986. The Clans show up four real-life years later with TRO 3050. Where is this magical realm where LRMs didn't work like they have since the start of the game, and why can't I banish people back to it?

[Choppah]

Almond Brown, on 18 January 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

Ummm, how can you get Locks when you can't see SFA? What you speak of is piggy backing off of a spotter who at best is a ON-OFF targeting source, unless he is part of your 2-player LRM team and is willing to take all the risks involved in exposing themselves so you may get hard locks for your Missiles.

So NO, LRM carries do not HIDE behind cover and get their own required LoS LOCKS.

Sp please stop spreading such BS. The new players do not benefit from such rhetoric at all.

What I stated was factually correct and, in the very same sentence you quoted, I said it wasn't the most effective use. The game mechanics allow LRM equipped mechs to fire from behind cover while locking on from teammate's locks, NARC, and UAV. I did not state that such a tactic was mandatory, just an option. I quite often see Hunchback 4J's near a brawl, lobbing missiles from behind a ridge or building. Being a 50 ton mech they have the capability to disengage at decent enough speed to re-position and continue harassing the enemy for entire matches. I don't have a problem that tactic or with players using the mechanics built into the game, I do have a problem with that ethereal "fun factor" of this mechanic.

[Ultimax]

Mellifluer, on 18 January 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

so your saying. mousing an aiming reticle over a target and clicking is a skill worthy of praise and simply memorizing the "good" spots to camp at is a skill of the elite veteran FPS warriorz.

while.... knowing where to move dynamically to get firing arcs, out thinking your opponent's moves so that when he moves into a bad spot you already have him in your ...

There is a huge difference to holding a reticule over a component while you and target are moving and risking return fire, than just holding a big red box over the entire target + area around it and holding LMB down spamming LRMs while someone else does the dirty work of spotting a target.


Please don't say embarrassing things.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 19 January 2016 - 10:11 PM.

[Madcap72]

Ultimatum X, on 16 January 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Or, I "know how to use LRMs" (as if that's actually a thing, you need to be a complete moron or brand new to not be able to use them) and know exactly what I'm talking about.
















Now put up your best LRM match scores, or STFU.


BUILD

Wow... that's actually not super impressive when you have to boat an assault to put out those numbers.


I can do all that in a 65 ton Catapult with LRM5's.




Also, since you're putting up OLD matches, with outdated match scores, I suppose I can do that too.



Yea... once again, Cat with LRM5's slaying bodies faster than they could get in the fight because fire and maneuver.


You posted up scores refuting the other poster saying you know how to use LRMS, but all you've shown is that you know how to lrm boat.

[Acehilator]

I only run a single LRM boat out of all the mechs that I use, yet the tears are delicious.

Keep up the good whine! If you need to cry yourself to sleep, keep telling yourself that you are so pro and that it is only the game's fault LRMs killed you.

[Ultimax]

Madcap72, on 20 January 2016 - 04:12 AM, said:

Wow... that's actually not super impressive when you have to boat an assault to put out those numbers.


I can do all that in a 65 ton Catapult with LRM5's.

Also, since you're putting up OLD matches, with outdated match scores, I suppose I can do that too.

You posted up scores refuting the other poster saying you know how to use LRMS, but all you've shown is that you know how to lrm boat.

First its "you don't know how to use LRMs" from someone hiding their player tier.

Then it's "oh you used a LRM boat, and not a Catapult.." from someone else biding their tier.


Stop moving the goal posts, your LRM build is not some advanced form of gameplay and its easier to keep up with the team in a Catapult than a Warhawk.

Not to mention IS LRMs don't fire in a stream, and you're running effectively LRM 30 (a boat) with a higher rate of fire and significantly less spread.


It doesn't take special knowledge of the game to use a noob tube, please get over yourself.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 20 January 2016 - 08:28 AM.

[Roadkill]

Ted Wayz, on 16 January 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

And another bad (with LRM) reveals themselves.

LOL you had any history around here you'd have never said that, because you'd realize how silly you just made yourself look.

[Roadkill]

Ultimatum X, on 19 January 2016 - 10:11 PM, said:

There is a huge difference to holding a reticule over a component while you and target are moving and risking return fire, than just holding a big red box over the entire target + area around it and holding LMB down spamming LRMs while someone else does the dirty work of spotting a target.

I forgot... how long do you have to keep targeting that component with your Gauss Rifle after you fire in order to make sure the slug hits randomly all over the Mech?

[Almond Brown]

Choppah, on 19 January 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

What I stated was factually correct and, in the very same sentence you quoted, I said it wasn't the most effective use. The game mechanics allow LRM equipped mechs to fire from behind cover while locking on from teammate's locks, NARC, and UAV. I did not state that such a tactic was mandatory, just an option. I quite often see Hunchback 4J's near a brawl, lobbing missiles from behind a ridge or building. Being a 50 ton mech they have the capability to disengage at decent enough speed to re-position and continue harassing the enemy for entire matches. I don't have a problem that tactic or with players using the mechanics built into the game, I do have a problem with that ethereal "fun factor" of this mechanic.

Not to be argumentative but I can only respond to what is written. You wrote, and I quote:

Quote

While in MWO, the ability to lock from behind cover allows some reward (albeit lower than a front line LRM mech) for no risk.

Thus "Behind Cover" translates to "without the necessary requirement of having "direct LoS" to your target with which to gain said Lock... We can assume that those Front line Mechs gets their own locks via "direct LoS" to target no doubt.

Edited by Almond Brown, 20 January 2016 - 10:59 AM.