187 replies to this topic

[Raso]

Wait if you fire 6 LRM5s at the same time since CLRMs fire one missile at a time don't you ensure that an AMS has more simultaneous targets than when you fire off, say, 4 CLRM15s?Wouldn't 6, simultaneous CLRM5s be better at penetrating a targets AMS?

[Escef]

Raso, on 18 February 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Wait if you fire 6 LRM5s at the same time since CLRMs fire one missile at a time don't you ensure that an AMS has more simultaneous targets than when you fire off, say, 4 CLRM15s?Wouldn't 6, simultaneous CLRM5s be better at penetrating a targets AMS?

Indeed. Chainfired, 6xLRM5 makes people hate their lives and is delightfully trolly. Fired all at once, it's a fast-firing LRM30, which produces 6 streams of 5 missiles and is therefor more capable of overwhelming a defender's AMS than 15 or 20 racks... Not that most people use AMS, best defense against LRMs is good tactical positioning.

[Wolfways]

LRM's are just a terrible weapon however you look at them.

They are not long range.
They require at least one mech to stay facing the enemy until the missiles land.
They can be too big a force multiplier when used indirect.
AMS reduces their damage.
ECM negates them completely unless extra equipment is taken to counter the ECM.
Multiple small launchers are lighter, reload faster, and have less heat than a single launcher of equal missile count.

As much as I love the idea of using LRM's I cant justify using them over direct fire weapons. Even my main MDD-Prime has 2xcLPL, 2xcMPL, and 2xcLRM5.

LRM's need:
ECM reworked so it doesn't negate lock-on.
Incoming missile warning removed.
Faster missile speed.
Higher flight arc to hit locked enemy that move behind low cover.
Bigger launchers need to deal better dps than smaller ones of equal missile count.
Indirect fire should be limited to TAG, UAV, NARC.
Bigger maps that are not 90% cover.
They need to be fire-and-forget.

Probably more but I'm too tired to think right now

Edited by Wolfways, 18 February 2016 - 03:45 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

pwnface, on 18 February 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

There are always better options than LRMs in comp play. I'll tell anyone that. Anyone that actually plays comp knows this.

I like Jman5 because he likes LRMs and isn't afraid to try to use them even in competitive matches, he's not a goddamn super hero though and it's not like he's the best competitive player in MWO.

Don't recall saying he was. On the other hand he DOES successfully use LRMs in comp play, invalidating your claim.

As for being a super hero, don't recall you being elected to God's gift to comp play and spokesman for what is or isn't acceptable.

Don't take this the wrong way but I'd dang sure rather be facing you on the opfor than Jman, Superman capes not withstanding.

Of course, rather have either of you over Koreanese if he were still around, or Heim.

But since I've killed and been been killed by all of you, I don't much subscribe to hero worship, either way.

[wanderer]

Quote

You are either gimping your team (by not getting your own locks and sharing armor) or gimping yourself (using LRMs when you can direct fire), either way LRMs are not an optimal weapon. If you have trouble aiming or have a terrible computer I can understand using LRMs to help contribute more effectively, otherwise direct fire is the way to go.

I usually kill or maim what I'm shooting at and then start shooting at whatever happens to be in range even if it's out of LOS, because indirect fire lets me keep dealing damage while I move to engage another target still out of direct LOS. Time not spent delivering missiles at accurate ranges is time wasted for a missile boat.

LRMs are the gang-up weapon. You bully targets with direct fire when you can (and you add in your secondary guns), you turn 1v1s into 2v1s when you can't between direct firing, and you position yourself in deathballs so you can volley over the front of a wedge without worrying about team damage and giving another 'Mech the chance to line up clean direct fire. You spook lights. You take opportunity shots. You deliberately draw fire because LRMs are showy and attract enemy 'Mechs.

You do not sit on your laurels at 800m going "I'M HELPING!" as your launches plow half of Canyon Network's rocks into gravel. It is VERY EASY to be a trash missile lobber.

[Zordicron]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

Depends HOW you LRM, bro.

I usually get my own locks and stay between 250-400 meters out, so I can add my lasers as heat allows. I'm not sacrificing anyone's anything, not address any other good LRMers, like Jman5. I DO have the added bonus that I can hit targets outside my LoS as I maneuver to engage.

Bishop does it right.

How to use:
Stay close enough to get LoS targeting on your own, pick a target your teams brawlers are trying to fight.
use chainfire(if no AMS etc to ruin it) and voila'!!! you have the oldest of old school stun locks on whatever poor ******* is getting the endless rain.

I honestly hold fire until I can use this strategy(unless my lights have found a lone fatty, then it's stun lock time while they circle of death the poor guy) and most importantly, only bring enough ammo to last for the first maybe 2/3 the match. At that point the ammo becomes dangerous because you need to have either used or intend to use your own armor for your team's hitpoint pool and get in there with your "back up" lasers.

6x LRM5 Mad Dog isn;t a lurm boat. Its a skirmisher. Kind of like way back using lurms on a T-bolt(like at release), you used them up at 300M as raw dmg and intimidation weapons.

[rolly]

Deja vu? I dunno how many times this same topic happens. Some Steamy™ comes in and the forum warrior oldguard steps in. Its like Police Academy 5 or something. We need moar popcorn for this.

[Ximineto]

Well,i have 2 15 LRMs on my Mad Dog Prime,should i need to care????

[1Grimbane]

pop the ballistic omni arm pods on. 20pts extra armor that way you an strip some and put a clan uac-10 in right arm and Oh YEAH put 6 lrm5's on with 10-11 tons o' ammo..... goodtimes indeed, gets frantic but fun

[pwnface]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 February 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Don't recall saying he was. On the other hand he DOES successfully use LRMs in comp play, invalidating your claim.

Semi-successfully at best IMO. Jman5 is the only person I can think of who runs LRMs in competitive play and QQ isn't exactly at the peak of competitiveness currently. When was the last time EMP, 228th, SJR, JGx, SRS or any other top team fielded LRMs in competitive play?

Edited by pwnface, 18 February 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[AnimeFreak40K]

The Atlas Overlord, on 18 February 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

^^ pretty much this right here, every time someone complains about LRM users.

Them -> "Hurr LRMs suck, You suck, L2P"

Me -> "Do better than me and I'll consider your point."

Me after looking at scoreboard (90% of the time) -> "Yep, point not considered".

And that is exactly why I ignore anybody that says anything that sounds "LRMs suck. You suck, L2P".

And given my results, I remain completely convinced that anybody who says this just hates being on the receiving end of LRMs. I mean, it just *sounds* like the same sort of sour grapes that used to come from people on the receiving end of PPC Pop-Tarters or Gauss-spam to me.

And of course, when I get the inevitable "well, if you used direct fire weapons you would do even better." I just shake my head because I know that more often than not, I do better in my LRM Troll-Cat than pretty much anything else in my inventory.

Have I started using other builds? Sure I have, but that's mostly due to different releases and playing around and experimenting...that and the Heavy queue tends to stay painfully overpopulated so if I want to get a match in a reasonable time, I jump in an Assault or a Light...and despite my best efforts, I have yet to get close to the performance I get in my missile boats on any consistent basis.

[pwnface]

AnimeFreak40K, on 18 February 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

And of course, when I get the inevitable "well, if you used direct fire weapons you would do even better." I just shake my head because I know that more often than not, I do better in my LRM Troll-Cat than pretty much anything else in my inventory.

This means you either have bad aim (no shame in that) or have bad awareness. If you consistently perform better with LRM builds, good for you. Just stop pretending that they are "good" weapons. LRMs are some of the worst weapons in the game, it just allows players who would perform even worse with direct fire a viable option to contribute to a fight.

[Deathlike]

I dunno what to say, other than I love farming LRM Maddogs.

It's even funnier when they bother trying to use LRMs at min range (the most inaccurate shot when you move at an angle).

[Zoid]

Ok, I'll just take my LRM Atlas instead .

When everyone starts shooting down UAVs, then I'll start worrying about bad builds. Until then there are much bigger issues that are making my team lose.

[Demoyan]

Escef, on 18 February 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

Last time I busted out my 6xLRM5 Mad Dog I got top damage in the match (over 600), a kill, and 3 assists. The person on my team that complained about my build was in a Warhawk (had 25 tons over me), lasted a little longer in the match than I did, got out less than half the damage I did, had 0 kills, and 1 assist.

No, no, no, please, by all means, tell me again how bad it is.

You got ONE kill and THREE assists. You spent the ENTIRE match spreading damage over four total mechs. Why should I have to tell you how bad they are? You just told the whole forums how bad they are yourself...

Prosperity Park, on 18 February 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

Stop telling players of a video game how to have fun. Go take your seriousness elsewhere, preferably a place without big SciFi stompy laser robots.

I'll stop telling players of a video game how to have fun when those players stop having a direct impact on whether or not I get to have fun playing a video game. Don't want to be told how to play? Be good or go play a single-player game. End rant.

[Soulscour]

Telling a Maddog pilot he can't use LRMs is like telling a catapult pilot he can't run LRMs. The mech is built for LRMs as an option. Its not like an atlas. What the hell is wrong with you people.

[Demoyan]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 February 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Cool story. Want to stop me? Come kill me. I'll be waiting to pick the meat off the bones of your carcass.

Unfortunately every time I do that I get reported for TKing people. Oh, you thought we were upset because your build was on the enemy team? No, I like it when that's the case. It's an easy win. This is about bad builds on OUR teams.

[Catalina Steiner]

Tyman4, on 18 February 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

(...)

This build is worthless. (....)

MDD-A, 4xERML, 6xLRM5

Uhm, what did you say???

[Bishop Steiner]

Demoyan, on 18 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately every time I do that I get reported for TKing people. Oh, you thought we were upset because your build was on the enemy team? No, I like it when that's the case. It's an easy win. This is about bad builds on OUR teams.

Just so long as you outscored me, you can speak your mind. I might still tell you to piss off, but you'll have earned the right.

Since about 80% of those I play with don't, though, including a shocking number of tier 1 and comps, I'm disinclined to care.

Besides of I recall my history correctly pwnface was famous for TKs.... Wasn't that what got you an MWO vacation for a bit, pre amnesty?

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

pwnface, on 18 February 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Semi-successfully at best IMO. Jman5 is the only person I can think of who runs LRMs in competitive play and QQ isn't exactly at the peak of competitiveness currently. When was the last time EMP, 228th, SJR, JGx, SRS or any other top team fielded LRMs in competitive play?

We did finish 7th in MLMW though, using Jman and his 4J. Sure, we aren't a match for EMP, 228 BW, SRS, or SJR; but we did best the top MS comp team and 228 SW.

But then again, we wouldn't have fared any better using the meta though. QQ is brain drained and rebuilding, but we are curious to see where we stand in MRBC now (definitely not A or B though).