141 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Damia Savon, on 01 March 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

LRMs are deficient because of stupid, lame, whiney, wimps who cannot deal with them and want the game to be "left click..alpha.. I win". LRMs have been nerfed by PGI over and over again. Every time they get a little love, the try hard twits come here and sobs like little ******* and they get nerfed again.

No other weapon system in the game is so nerfed and has so many counters built into the game.

It is pretty ridiculous looking at the history of LRM nerfs, yeah, but...

Quote

Get rid of the fricken missile warning.

Not just no but hell no, that would be ridiculously unfair for indirect fire lock-on weapons.

Quote

Stop making ECM a hard counter.

This I agree with.

Quote

Toss Radar dep into the trash.

This I partly agree with. It doesn't need to be tossed into the trash, the effect just needs to be nerfed (preferably by at least half, maybe more) just like Seismic Sensor was and then it would probably be fine.

Quote

Boost the speed up to 300 m/s and you will see how nasty lrms really can be, in both indirect fire and direct fire mode.

We don't need another lurmpocalypse, the answer isn't to make a bunch extremely heavy handed buffs so that LRMs are easy god mode. I've read some suggestions about making LRMs go faster the farther they travel, and that could be okay, but just blanket buffing their velocity to ridiculousness is stupid.

Quote

What is funny is idiots whine about the only team based weapon in a TEAM game. They ***** about the lack of tactics but keep trying to kill off the one weapon system, lrm artillary, that can force actual tactical decisions by denying easy travel in open areas and reaching areas that direct fire cannot reach.

I cannot wait for the Archer to show up and have the skies rain LRMs for a weekend just to see the salty tears flow from the idiots who stand in the open or who cannot run around with impunity.

Just stop with the "LRMs suck threads". They suck because morons have begged PGI into nerfing them and that is all. PGI should stop listening to the fricking cry babies and boost them to where they should be so they are even more deadly that they currently are.

Which is called "team work" in a team based game.

Agreed.

[Damia Savon]

pattonesque, on 01 March 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

against people who know what they're doing, LRMs are mostly ineffective. either they'll break locks and your LRMs will impact against a wall, or they'll charge you and your LRMs will fail to detonate

honestly I would love for LRMs behavior to be changed so they're worth using but aren't overpowered. making them follow the cursor on a flat trajectory with drastically increased velocity and pinpoint while an enemy mech is in LOS might be an interesting solution -- the way you aim them suddenly matters and you get to put the damage where you want it, but you have to stare at the enemy to do so.

You do realize when you are getting your own locks that you are staring at your foe right? You understand that you have to hold that lock while they sloooowlyI travel to their target or they miss right? I swear it is like people don't grasp how lrms work.

[Lightfoot]

Video misses a few points.

1. LRMs are terrible unless used head-on. If you are as much as 15 degrees to either side of the target mech's CT they will impact the mech's shoulder and do only minor damage to the torso. This has been since January 2015's first patch. If you check the video all the LRM tests were done head-on. LRMs are not that good in live matches.

2. As far as the damage shield theory goes that is only true if the LRM mech is behind a hill. If with the rest of the team the LRM mech is almost always the primary target due to the visibility and disruption of shots. Once the missiles go up it's like a red flag to opponents all across the map.

The weakness of LRMs in face-offs is they do not have time to work and Artemis does not make LRMs 35% more accurate with Line of Sight which is the canon value of the Artemis buff.

[pattonesque]

Damia Savon, on 01 March 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

You do realize when you are getting your own locks that you are staring at your foe right? You understand that you have to hold that lock while they sloooowlyI travel to their target or they miss right? I swear it is like people don't grasp how lrms work.

Hi! I do in fact realize that and would appreciate it if you would perhaps tone down the rudeness! Gosh!

I don't think you read what I wrote closely, so I'll break it down for you. What I suggested was a ----->*change* <----- to the LRM mechanic in order to make them more useful.

I marked the word that you seemed to miss in a special font. Did you see it? Please let me know if you didn't. I want to be clear!

By "pinpoint" I mean pinpoint damage, i.e. all of your damage going to a single component. Currently LRMs don't have this -- did you know this?

Lots of people don't!

The tradeoff would be this: when firing LRMs at a target in LOS, your missiles would a. have increased velocity and b. follow exactly where your cursor is pointing. You'd have to stare at your opponent for a longer period of time, but the tradeoff would mean you could deliver huge alphas to specific components of moving targets. I don't know that it would make LRMs more viable, but it's clear they need some kind of change.

hoep this help's

Edited by pattonesque, 01 March 2016 - 10:59 AM.

[Malachy Karrde]

Those that think lrms are garbage just don't know how to use them effectively. They are a great support weapon and are very useful under many situations. Yes, they are able to be countered, but anyone who has played with them for a little while can learn to counter the counters. Not a single weapon in this game is the end all. Meta tards prefer lasers, I prefer uac and like a varied load out that incorporates many varied weapons. People that dish on one weapon don't know how to do anything but one thing have a lot of blind spots. I'm tired of the arrogant meta is the only way types trashing what they don't understand just because they can't make it effective. There are dozens of ways to skin a cat. And if lrms help me skin some arrogant yahoo who thinks his way is better than mine, I'm not going to change what works for me and helps me kill that sort of ilk. If they want to believe that my way won't cut it as I turn them into slag, let them. I've walked over more than 1 laser vomit mech with my "worthless" dire wolf. I'll keep walking over meta warriors with big mouths. You all may think your **** doesn't stink but there is always someone better and they don't need to follow the meta flock to do it. In the end, the wolves always come out on top.

[Malachy Karrde]

Oh, and anyone who wants to join me in stomping the meta crowd are welcome to sign up with MVPs.. we exist to use non meta builds to take down the arrogant. Shameless recruiting plug for Minimally Viable PugS

[Thunderbird Anthares]

allow me to post my perspective
its really the IS LRM minimum range that is the biggest problem for me (which makes using a TAG suicide in some cases) and i would really love to not have this problem, otherwise me as a lurmer:

1) only "need" the lock on the called out target and/or a UAV placed by a competent light pilot

2) prioritize targets called out by teammates, especially those in trouble - otherwise kill whatever is the biggest and most vulnerable threat at the moment - this is one of the most important jobs for an LRM boat

3) i get HUGE effect on target when someone brings a TAG and/or NARC - you can literally see the target fall apart on the damage readout and "precisely" correct twisting gives him approx 8 more seconds of life at that point

4) i run with competent lights that keep the target they are shredding - i rain on its head, they come off with less damage on them and a cash bonus, i rain on a important target picked by them, win-win

5) team sometimes uses me as a ****** magnet - which is immensely entertaining for me, and painful for the victims

6) ALWAYS CARRY RESPECTABLE BACKUP WEAPONS - there are a few things more satisfying than an already damaged mech running to get himself that tasty cherry of a helpless LRM boat... only to start backpedaling out few seconds too late (or losing a leg, take your pick)

yes, the damage spread is a problem - but as far as im concerned, its not my job to "kill" targets - my job is to suppress, support, prepare targets for easier kills, and always make sure i can support as much of my team as possible on a moments notice - because people's enthusiasm tends to die down a little bit when rained on
so if you see me in a LRM boat - ASK FOR FIRE SUPPORT WHENEVER YOU NEED IT, please, i will only be happy to do so - this is a symbiotic relationship, not a contest

and if you want to use me as a bait, hell, go for it, chances are there are already 2 lights and a heavy heading my way anyway

my opinion?
meta pinpoint vomit is all face time - not only its a laughable crutch and goes completely against how BT works - but it also limits your options to less than a regular FPS shooter game
a properly coordinated team utilizing varied elements, from scouts to brawlers to snipers to LRMs, has more tools to archive victory, and more backups to fall back on, more ability to change and adapt tactics on the fly

sure, i keep hearing LRMs are not welcome in "the elite", whatever that means, but i tend to see that more as a flaw in the mindset of the teams rather than any real flaw - i've taken apart enough "metaboats" to be quite confident in that

and one more rant thought for the end:
what would you do if you suddenly did not have instant, 100% reliable, 100% accurate pinpoint accuracy at absolutely any range of your choosing, only limited by your ability to flip that pointer to that half of a shoulder showing?

Edited by Thunderbird Anthares, 01 March 2016 - 11:39 AM.

[thehiddenedge]

I'm not going to defend LRM's because I hate them and think they are pretty subpar, BUT...

I was running in a group queue the other night with 5-6 LRM-heavy mechs and a NARC light while playing aggressively. We won quite a few matches in a row, even some being 12-0, 12-1. When coordinated they can be quite effective at pinning down targets for the team to focus fire on. So they have some uses... just not very many...

[Damia Savon]

Pjwned, on 01 March 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Not just no but hell no, that would be ridiculously unfair for indirect fire lock-on weapons.


We don't need another lurmpocalypse, the answer isn't to make a bunch extremely heavy handed buffs so that LRMs are easy god mode. I've read some suggestions about making LRMs go faster the farther they travel, and that could be okay, but just blanket buffing their velocity to ridiculousness is stupid.

Lurmpocalypse was due to Artemis iv. A speed buff gives missiles a chance to reach their target. 3 seconds for lrms
to reach max range is a lot slower than an ac10. As for the missile warning, why should there be one? Exactly what is the difference between me in an lrm boat behind a hill at 600m and me behind a hill about to shoot you with dual gauss from 600m away. In both cases you won't know what is coming and the gauss will hurt a lot worse. If I'm good, you won't be able to shoot me back in either cases. I'd be fine though with tying the missile warning to ams. You want to know if you are going to be hit with lrms, take something that warns you.

[Gyrok]

Thunderbird Anthares, on 01 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

and no amount of direct fire will get you indirect fire - try walking through that one

Airstrikes will...and a team should have 12 of those...

Edited by Gyrok, 01 March 2016 - 12:16 PM.

[Damia Savon]

pattonesque, on 01 March 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Hi! I do in fact realize that and would appreciate it if you would perhaps tone down the rudeness! Gosh!

I don't think you read what I wrote closely, so I'll break it down for you. What I suggested was a ----->*change* <----- to the LRM mechanic in order to make them more useful.

I marked the word that you seemed to miss in a special font. Did you see it? Please let me know if you didn't. I want to be clear!

By "pinpoint" I mean pinpoint damage, i.e. all of your damage going to a single component. Currently LRMs don't have this -- did you know this?

Lots of people don't!

The tradeoff would be this: when firing LRMs at a target in LOS, your missiles would a. have increased velocity and b. follow exactly where your cursor is pointing. You'd have to stare at your opponent for a longer period of time, but the tradeoff would mean you could deliver huge alphas to specific components of moving targets. I don't know that it would make LRMs more viable, but it's clear they need some kind of change.

hoep this help's

Sorry, but the OP and others who cry about lrms forget that relatively direct fire of lrms requires a lock and holding that lock for far longer than it takes them to fire ACs or laser vomit and twist. They act like the sky is falling because of indirect fire but forget how you get pounded going head to head. As for your changes, no just no. The last thing this game needs is more pinpoint damage. It really needs less pinpoint. The only weapons that should do pinpoint are gauss, ppcs, and ac2. Everything else should be hitscan, splash, have a cone of fire etc.

[pattonesque]

Damia Savon, on 01 March 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

Sorry, but the OP and others who cry about lrms forget that relatively direct fire of lrms requires a lock and holding that lock for far longer than it takes them to fire ACs or laser vomit and twist. They act like the sky is falling because of indirect fire but forget how you get pounded going head to head. As for your changes, no just no. The last thing this game needs is more pinpoint damage. It really needs less pinpoint. The only weapons that should do pinpoint are gauss, ppcs, and ac2. Everything else should be hitscan, splash, have a cone of fire etc.

Then I'm disappointed you chose to be rude to me based on what you imagine folks other than me to be like.

[Malachy Karrde]

Gyrok, on 01 March 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Insulting your audience in an argument is a poorly thought out direction to begin with.

Aside from that, if I did not know how to play LRMs effectively, I would not have 1200-1300 damage matches in LRM boats derping in the yolo queue.

LRMs take lots of effort to play well...and even played well, they are still less effective than direct fire weapons. Anyone thinking LRMs are equal to, or better than, direct fire weapons does not have the ability to aim well enough to make direct fire effective.




So, you can magically make 6 ECM mechs just stop disrupting? You cannot narc them all...a tag laser will be ineffective the second you stop tagging, and you will be shot while holding the tag. The PPC will only stop ECM on one mech for a maximum of 5 seconds, you lose lock before they land. A UAV over a focused group will come down almost as quickly as it goes up, and if you can make LRMs go through rocks...show me video so I can report the bug.



Bracket builds are less harmonious, and require more face time than boated builds.

Boating ballistics is meta right now...so is boating lasers, so is boating SRMs. You can also mix lasers and ballistics or SRMs. LRMs, meanwhile, are just inferior. Any time your weapon system fires, and I can unload 50 points into your CT from 400m and still dodge your complete volley while taking zero damage...you are at a complete disadvantage. Trying to tell me you are somehow not is just absurd.



Most of the &quot;meta tryhards&quot; are good at everything, but only use weapons best suited to the purpose. There is no purpose that LRMs serve better than direct fire weapons, or a well placed strike.




I am tired of ignorant neckbeards and grognards trying to deny the fact that not all weapons are equally capable, and LRMs are terrible right now. Are we equal yet?

You can make LRMs effective in the trash tiers...sure. Try pulling that **** in tier 1 though...it will not work out so well for you.



You might be &quot;walking over tryhards&quot; in Tier 3 with a LRM whale. In the higher tiers, an oxide will &quot;walk all over your ignorant bad build, slow as hell assault, piloting ***&quot;.

Mmkay cupcake?




You keep right on believing that...when you actually crawl out of the underhive and end up in a match against me...we will see what the outcome shows...if you still run LRMs by that point.

First of all, I actually have killed you two or three times, I may even have a screenshot sitting around somewhere. Second of all, if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others. I have the utmost contempt for my "audience." The entire position of the meta crowd is insulting to every single player of this game. As to face time? Heh my dire wolf needs about 2 seconds of face time to plant anything but a ultralight mech, and less for those if I don't miss. The only mech I need more facetime against is an atlas... and those are usually pretty easy to core too but I'll take more damage. The funny thing is, they approach so slow my indirect fire has them down 25 percent or so before they even get in range... wonder how I do that...oh that's right lrms. And airstrikes? Give me a break one they barely ever hit... it's way too easy to get out of the way...and 2 they cost cbills..lrms are free and take up maybe 8 tons max, while doing a hell of a lot more spread damage (I don't play inner sphere much, inner sphere lrms are quite inferior to clan). So yes, consider this a slap across the face of every moron who follows meta. I will hunt you and kill you where I find you. With my balanced load out mechs [mix of lasers, uac, and missiles of all persuasions].

[Gyrok]

Damia Savon, on 01 March 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

Lurmpocalypse was due to Artemis iv. A speed buff gives missiles a chance to reach their target. 3 seconds for lrms
to reach max range is a lot slower than an ac10. As for the missile warning, why should there be one? Exactly what is the difference between me in an lrm boat behind a hill at 600m and me behind a hill about to shoot you with dual gauss from 600m away. In both cases you won't know what is coming and the gauss will hurt a lot worse. If I'm good, you won't be able to shoot me back in either cases. I'd be fine though with tying the missile warning to ams. You want to know if you are going to be hit with lrms, take something that warns you.

You have to expose yourself to the mech you are shooting with Gauss...meaning you can be spotted/shot in the process.

With LRMs, anyone can lock you, and a nub 900m away can lock and fire...meaning you are not potentially exposed all the time.

[Gyrok]

Malachy Karrde, on 01 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

First of all, I actually have killed you two or three times, I may even have a screenshot sitting around somewhere. Second of all, if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others. I have the utmost contempt for my "audience." The entire position of the meta crowd is insulting to every single player of this game. As to face time? Heh my dire wolf needs about 2 seconds of face time to plant anything but a ultralight mech, and less for those if I don't miss. The only mech I need more facetime against is an atlas... and those are usually pretty easy to core too but I'll take more damage. The funny thing is, they approach so slow my indirect fire has them down 25 percent or so before they even get in range... wonder how I do that...oh that's right lrms. And airstrikes? Give me a break one they barely ever hit... it's way too easy to get out of the way...and 2 they cost cbills..lrms are free and take up maybe 8 tons max, while doing a hell of a lot more spread damage (I don't play inner sphere much, inner sphere lrms are quite inferior to clan). So yes, consider this a slap across the face of every moron who follows meta. I will hunt you and kill you where I find you. With my balanced load out mechs [mix of lasers, uac, and missiles of all persuasions].

I would be delighted to see a screenshot showing you specifically killed me...I have not died to a DW in months...

I have never seen you in a match to my recollection...and that means you were not worth worrying about..even if we had crossed paths by some happenstance of fate...you probably did 100 damage and complained about "bad team" in your mixed build DW.

[Gyrok]

Malachy Karrde, on 01 March 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

So yes, consider this a slap across the face of every moron who follows meta. I will hunt you and kill you where I find you. With my balanced load out mechs

You are slapping your own team's face...keep dragging them down...

[Thunderbird Anthares]

and this is why we cant have nice things... cancerous elitists

[Pjwned]

Damia Savon, on 01 March 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

Lurmpocalypse was due to Artemis iv. A speed buff gives missiles a chance to reach their target. 3 seconds for lrms
to reach max range is a lot slower than an ac10.

LRMs already fly fast enough currently, and if you find that they miss too much then don't fire them from 800m away.

Quote

As for the missile warning, why should there be one? Exactly what is the difference between me in an lrm boat behind a hill at 600m and me behind a hill about to shoot you with dual gauss from 600m away. In both cases you won't know what is coming and the gauss will hurt a lot worse. If I'm good, you won't be able to shoot me back in either cases. I'd be fine though with tying the missile warning to ams. You want to know if you are going to be hit with lrms, take something that warns you.

Direct fire by definition means needing to be exposed in order to have line of sight to fire at the enemy, which means you risk taking return fire, while indirect fire does not mean needing to be exposed which means you can easily fire at enemy at no risk to yourself.

There isn't a problem with playing well enough to not take return fire when you use direct fire weapons on an enemy, but there is a problem with firing at an enemy indirectly at no risk while they don't have any warning until they get blindsided by a huge missile salvo. Tying the missile warning to AMS is also crap and still makes LRMs too good in addition to making AMS too good.

[Roadkill]

JC Daxion, on 01 March 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

You say that like someone has perfect aim..

No, I say that because LRMs spread damage even worse than someone with bad aim. Me. My aim is terrible. But even I get more kills (and more KMDD) with less damage using direct fire weapons than I do with LRMs.

LRMs spread their damage all over the place, and there's very little you can do about it. That's part of the tradeoff for indirect fire.

[Sader325]

Gyrok, on 29 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I cannot take credit for the video, however, it proves a point very well, and shows why you should try to explain to anyone running LRMs why they are deficient.

Watch the first 9 minutes.

Edited by Sader325, 01 March 2016 - 01:46 PM.