Completely wrong.
If you are getting your own locks, have tag and artemis, LRMs will spread between the three torsos.
Correct, there is truly no way to "pinpoint" missiles beyond a certain point. This is one of their major drawbacks as it will *typically* take longer to kill off a mechs with LRMs that with most other direct fire weapons with comparable damage ratings. Same with Streaks... They'll hit, but you can really control what they hit...
Okay, just did a little test to verify the above assertions:
I dropped on Frozen city with a mech equipped with:
LRM60
Narc
Tag
I did this several times just to make sure I tried a couple of different combinations.
I chose Frozen city b/c you can torso-twist (not move your feet) and fire at a cicada at ~488M which seems a reasonable distance. This way, any effect of distance is a constant since I ensure I'm always at the same place.
So this is what I found:
No Tag or Narc, it took 3 alphas (180 missiles) to kill the Cicada (CT kill)
Tag *or* Narc - it still took 3 Alphas, but it seemed to happen earlier in that 3rd salvo (CT kill)
BOTH NARC and TAG - it took 2 Alphas (120 missiles - CT Kill)
So it *could* be construed that these help and together they *really* help.
Back to the original issue though; how many times do boaters bring both compared to neither? I know, some of you will say you always do, and if thats true, this thread was probably never really directed to you because you're at least being pro-active.
If you are going to pug it, then you have to look out for yourself, bring loadouts where you don't depend on others to carry you or get targets for you. These are the guys that are being singled out, the ones that believe the team is there to serve them and not symbiotically...
Highlighted those weapons specifically to point out that competitive play will use whatever works best, even stuff that would usually get you laughed at in pug queue. If LRMs worked they'd be getting used. Full stop. It's not some terrible bias or attempt by THE MAN to keep DEM LURMERS DOWN, it's just the math.
LRMs get more hate specifically because the skills used in LRMs are functionally teaching someone the opposite of what makes them a good player otherwise. As a given rule playing with LRMs is teaching someone to derp and reinforces a derp playstyle. To do damage with a laservomit build you need to be getting LoS. You need to be jockeying for a good position up with your team to get a clear shot. Sure, there's always leeches who hang in the back and play 'sniper' builds. I don't consider 'sniper' builds significantly better than a XL LRM-boat Stalker. Almost universally long range weapons work just as well up close and someone with 30 tons of UACs and CERMLs on the front line is overall more useful to his team than someone with 30 tons of Gauss hiding in the back, especially in FW. For the comp-tier 8v8 trading game there's exceptions to that because the point is generally to win trades until you know you can win the push, then push. FW doesn't play out the same as a given rule.
What wins is what wins. That's what matters in the context of the argument. Bringing LRMs to FW makes you less likely to win. Hence the angst.
MovinTarget, on 16 August 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:
Okay, just did a little test to verify the above assertions:
I dropped on Frozen city with a mech equipped with:
LRM60
Narc
Tag
I did this several times just to make sure I tried a couple of different combinations.
I chose Frozen city b/c you can torso-twist (not move your feet) and fire at a cicada at ~488M which seems a reasonable distance. This way, any effect of distance is a constant since I ensure I'm always at the same place.
So this is what I found:
No Tag or Narc, it took 3 alphas (180 missiles) to kill the Cicada (CT kill)
Tag *or* Narc - it still took 3 Alphas, but it seemed to happen earlier in that 3rd salvo (CT kill)
BOTH NARC and TAG - it took 2 Alphas (120 missiles - CT Kill)
So it *could* be construed that these help and together they *really* help.
Back to the original issue though; how many times do boaters bring both compared to neither? I know, some of you will say you always do, and if thats true, this thread was probably never really directed to you because you're at least being pro-active.
If you are going to pug it, then you have to look out for yourself, bring loadouts where you don't depend on others to carry you or get targets for you. These are the guys that are being singled out, the ones that believe the team is there to serve them and not symbiotically...
Run CLRM5As. Chain fire with LoS, even at a Commando.
Almost entirely CT.
Problem is that even 1 AMS will shut it down, however it is an absolute CT drill. In that context, with that specific loadout of chain-fired CLRM5A.
Highlighted those weapons specifically to point out that competitive play will use whatever works best, even stuff that would usually get you laughed at in pug queue. If LRMs worked they'd be getting used. Full stop. It's not some terrible bias or attempt by THE MAN to keep DEM LURMERS DOWN, it's just the math.
LRMs get more hate specifically because the skills used in LRMs are functionally teaching someone the opposite of what makes them a good player otherwise. As a given rule playing with LRMs is teaching someone to derp and reinforces a derp playstyle. To do damage with a laservomit build you need to be getting LoS. You need to be jockeying for a good position up with your team to get a clear shot. Sure, there's always leeches who hang in the back and play 'sniper' builds. I don't consider 'sniper' builds significantly better than a XL LRM-boat Stalker. Almost universally long range weapons work just as well up close and someone with 30 tons of UACs and CERMLs on the front line is overall more useful to his team than someone with 30 tons of Gauss hiding in the back, especially in FW. For the comp-tier 8v8 trading game there's exceptions to that because the point is generally to win trades until you know you can win the push, then push. FW doesn't play out the same as a given rule.
What wins is what wins. That's what matters in the context of the argument. Bringing LRMs to FW makes you less likely to win. Hence the angst.
Run CLRM5As. Chain fire with LoS, even at a Commando.
Almost entirely CT.
Problem is that even 1 AMS will shut it down, however it is an absolute CT drill. In that context, with that specific loadout of chain-fired CLRM5A.
Sure, but again, where are getting away from the original contention, besides, how long would it take for a single mech to take down a heavy/assault streaming lrm 5s
What Leaderboard? that from FP? there is no compteam (-KCom).
i never said by only boating flamers. u put a couple on a fast brawldeck.
nope, flamers are realy usefull for cc.
i come to the conviction that u have no idea what u are talking about.
What I did there was take the #1 argument I see against LRMs here, and the #1 way I'm suppose to prove that they work, and applied it to another weapon on your list (which happened to be Flamers).
Just like LRMs, you don't want to create a team of flamer boats. There is no comp team that would do that, right? So, if I applied the same logic everyone else does to "prove" LRMs, than I have to apply it to all weapons, right?
Well. That's a fault of the "logic" argument I've been dealing with. Just like how you are saying it can be good in small numbers ("put a couple on a fast brawldeck"), I've been saying the same thing for LRMs. You place a couple on some mechs, and only have a few in your dropdeck.
I've not been saying LRMs are a competitive weapon able to slay all that comes it's way. However, it can be an aid and a help to the team, depending upon how many you take (you can take too many) and how they are used (just like you don't go sniping with a SPL, there are ways to use LRMs incorrectly or not effectively).
Stahlherz, on 16 August 2016 - 02:30 AM, said:
You really correlate the losses to your LPLs and the win to LRMs?
That is a very subjective view.
I'm not using LRM at all and my ratios are very positive.
KCom doesn't use LRM and has a W/L ratio of 12+ in CW and our World Championship team is placed 7th.
No. I don't. I'm trying to make a point here. I'm saying we all have different skill levels, and we all preform differently. There is also always that element of luck. Just because I lost 5 games in a row with my LPL Nova is not an indicator that it's a bad mech. Same for my LRMs, just because I happen to win the first drop I play with it. If anything, it probably shows that I utilize LRMs better for the team and for a win than I do direct fire weapon, but it isn't an indicator either way with such a small sampling. (With me digging into stats.)
That was a counter argument to those who say that LRMs are "sandbagging" the team. It really isn't, depending upon how you use them. Too many LRM boats not using them effectively, and things can go bad. A couple of smaller launchers, even is on a single mech or spread over the entire team, can be an aid if you use them correctly. (I know I've often times used my LRMs when I'm almost dead and a direct fire engagement would have killed me. Still helping, without just being killed.)
MovinTarget, on 16 August 2016 - 02:34 AM, said:
I don't think he's advocating for lrm atlases that go 40kph and need help to get locks.
And Tesunie, individual player data is a bit anecdotal, there are 24 players in a game, one mech seldom dictates the success failure of an entire match... yes this can go the other way too, one boat out of 48 wouldn't make that much of a difference either but... think of the qp matches you've been where you realize your team has 5-6 lrm boats sitting in the back and you catch yourself thinking "we have too many lrms", now multiply that out for 4 waves and that is what people are railing against.
I'm very much against that. A slow LRM boat that depends upon the team is asking for trouble. They are best used to kite, pull the enemy (bait) and to be used in support as you close the distance or when you don't and/or can't get line of sight on a given target.
Oh. I get what you are saying, and I completely agree. There can be such a thing as too many LRMs. Especially in PUGs. However, that still doesn't mean that one can't bring a mixed loadout that incorporates some LRMs is all I'm saying. But, you already grasp that concept.
I'm certainly not advocating boating LRMs, as I always find that highly risky to borderline foolish (I know some people can do it well, despite the risks). A few LRMs on a/some mech(s) in your CW dropdeck? Shouldn't be a problem and can be a boon even.
I still have a theory that a team set up with a few small LRM launchers on most/every mech might be able to do well. The theory is, no matter what happens everyone (or nearly everyone) can get damage on a target while they all try to close in for direct fire engagements. Never had the opportunity to try it out yet... It's worked as an individual, but I'm not sure if it could work well as a team...
Starwulfe, on 16 August 2016 - 05:23 AM, said:
Completely wrong.
If you are getting your own locks, have tag and artemis, LRMs will spread between the three torsos.
Depends. An LRM5 launcher already will be hitting mostly CT or a given ST if they are twisted, and that's even without Artemis, TAG or NARC. The larger you go (or the more you shoot at once), the more they will spread out.
I disagree with how LRM5s seem to work in this game, and with them being considered "the best LRM launcher in the game", but I can't change it so I best accept it. I do wish that they larger launchers were more comparable to each other...
MovinTarget, on 16 August 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:
Correct, there is truly no way to "pinpoint" missiles beyond a certain point. This is one of their major drawbacks as it will *typically* take longer to kill off a mechs with LRMs that with most other direct fire weapons with comparable damage ratings. Same with Streaks... They'll hit, but you can't(I presume you meant this? ~Tesunie) really control what they hit...
Shooting longer, or just tossing more damage at them faster. Depending upon the build and etc.
As for SSRMs, they actually can kinda be pinpoint... if you Facehug your opponent and press your launcher(s) right up against their mech. They shoot and detonate before they have a chance to spread, placing all damage on that one location. But, if you are going to do that... might as well use SRMs, right?
What I did there was take the #1 argument I see against LRMs here, and the #1 way I'm suppose to prove that they work, and applied it to another weapon on your list (which happened to be Flamers).
Just like LRMs, you don't want to create a team of flamer boats. There is no comp team that would do that, right? So, if I applied the same logic everyone else does to "prove" LRMs, than I have to apply it to all weapons, right?
Well. That's a fault of the "logic" argument I've been dealing with. Just like how you are saying it can be good in small numbers ("put a couple on a fast brawldeck"), I've been saying the same thing for LRMs. You place a couple on some mechs, and only have a few in your dropdeck.
I've not been saying LRMs are a competitive weapon able to slay all that comes it's way. However, it can be an aid and a help to the team, depending upon how many you take (you can take too many) and how they are used (just like you don't go sniping with a SPL, there are ways to use LRMs incorrectly or not effectively).
My only replay to your LRM stuff was
arivio, on 15 August 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:
because LRM are inconsistent.
My other posts where all against your
Quote
If I cared only what competitive players did, I'd only be running boated builds of only 4 weapon types (primarily), LPLs, SPLs, UAC10s/5s and possibly SRMs. All other weapons should not exist.
I can agree with LRMs being a little inconsistent. That's why I mitigate that with alternative weapons. But, despite their inconstancy, I find them rather useful to have often enough to warrant them.
As for that other statement, I did oversimplify a little, but the main weapons of the competitive players, especially in FP (the discussion here) are LPLs and SPLs primarily due to no needs of ammo, and UAC10s/5s for their DPS and moderate ranges. Then you might see some other weapons from there, but those are the most commonly seen weapons.
Not too long ago (a few weeks), I saw a post that was stating how great the LPL was and that it was a primary competitive weapon. Triple LPL builds are one of the biggest mainstays for competitive players I've seen.
Seen as you appear to know more about competitive play (or so you claim), what is the most common build you see? What is the most common weapon you see? List it down to the top four weapons you see, and not a list of any weapon you've seen in competitive play. Is my four weapon list so far off? (Hence, I exaggerated a little about "All other weapons should not exist" statement.)
1. Taking a few LRMs is not "sandbagging" your team.
Small doses of poison won't kill you. Doesn't mean it's not poison.
Tesunie, on 15 August 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:
So let me get this right, competitive players test and experiment. I'm not allowed to because I am suppose to take their word for it only. If my results disagree with theirs, I must be wrong because "I'm not a competitive player". Really? That's what you are telling me here.
Yes, in fact, the experimenting done by teams of people who are focused on optimizing for victory are likely to be more objective than your personal anecdotes. Some humility on your part is warranted.
Tesunie, on 15 August 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:
3. This is a game. What else am I suppose to do with it?
Fun and winning are not opposites, they are complements.
Vincent Quatermain, on 16 August 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:
Small doses of poison won't kill you. Doesn't mean it's not poison.
Yes, in fact, the experimenting done by teams of people who are focused on optimizing for victory are likely to be more objective than your personal anecdotes. Some humility on your part is warranted.
Fun and winning are not opposites, they are complements.
AKA: "Listen to the competitive players only and ignore anything else."
Still doesn't fly with me. Sorry. Want to try actually presenting facts? Ones that don't involve "competitive players only" stuff?
Fact: LRMs do deal damage.
Fact: LRMs can deal damage while one does not have line of sight (while presumably one is trying to get direct line of sight).
Fact: LRMs can provide some measure of control. (Pushing people behind cover, even if you couldn't see them. Punishing someone for being in the wrong spot. Bait. A form of natural team force multiplier, if one can see, more can shoot. Etc.)
Fact: I've also tested them in group/FP play. I've tested and used every weapon in the game (for the most part).
I'd also like to mention, I've not ignored nor tried to hide LRM weaknesses. However, I wont ignore nor hide their strengths either. I'll take everything into consideration. As I've said before, they aren't the best weapon, but they aren't the worst weapon.
As for winning... I'd just like to mention a mathematical fact with this game. It's PvP. That means "Player verses Player". In a PvP system, no matter what, one player must lose for another to win. This fact can not be escaped. So, if you can't have fun when you are losing, than you might as well give up any PvP game, because you will have lots of "not having fun" because you will lose.
As for the other half of that, I'd rather just aim to have fun, win or lose. This way, the game is more enjoyable to play no matter what the outcome is. This is the purpose of "playing to have fun" compared to "playing to win because winning is fun".
NOW! Don't get me wrong. Winning can be fun, but some of my best matches has been when I lost. I aim to win, but my goal is to have fun. If I don't win, that's okay as long as I'm having fun. That doesn't mean I'm going to take willful actions to lose though, because I still aim to win my matches.
So far, your arguments still seem based solely off "but the competitive players do" and "winning is the only way to have fun" as though a non-competitive player never aims to win... As I said before, I don't blindly follow everything the competitive players say. I do take it under consideration, but if I don't enjoy Gauss Rifles and that's the best meta/competitive weapon at the moment... I don't use Gauss Rifles still. Doesn't mean I might not take them for a spin and check them out... but if I don't enjoy it than I'm not going to feel like I have to use it. I'll use weapons/tactics/mechs/etc that I enjoy using.
If I listened solely to the competitive crowd, I never would have gotten my Thor (Summoner) because they refer to it as the "suckoner". Thing is, I've had very good results with the Thor chassis. So, I'm happy I didn't listen to the competitive crowd on that, as it's a well preforming mech in my opinion, for my skill sets if nothing else. I'm glad I tested out the Thor personally, because I really like the way it plays.
In the end, we always need to keep one fact in mind. This is a game. A game is designed to have fun with. As being a game, it's also a place where there is little to no repercussions for trying things out. Thus, I recommend to everyone to always be willing to experiment. Try things out for oneself. It will not hurt you to do so. First hand experience is better than just following what everyone else does. Sure, in the end you may just end up using the same thing as them, but at least you tried to use other things yourself.
Test. Experiment. Try everything. There is no harm in doing so. Then, use what seems to work best for yourself.
LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 16 August 2016 - 02:44 PM
@MovinTarget
I would like to commend you on your patience and calm responses during this debate.
Just a few observations:
LRMs are a better weapon for suppressing simply on tonnage : ammo. The next best might be AC/2s. Keeping in mind that suppressing fire is trying to force your opponent to stay in cover. It might seem a waste of ammo, but if it allows your close range brawlers to close the distance without losing armour then it is effective.
No one uses direct fire weapons for suppressing fire, the ammo is too valuable to waste for autocannons, lasers too hot and MGs only useful at spitting distance and if the enemy has internal structure exposed.
What was described earlier is sniping. You wait for the enemy to poke out and hit them hard so they duck back under cover.
I would also suggest that with the scattering of the missiles, against a target that has lost armour, torso twisting doesn't help nearly as much as it does against direct fire weapons. This is also due to the missiles 'raining' down on the target, you can't really hide your exposed torso.
Yes, you can definitely kill a target quicker with direct fire. Pin point damage and quicker or instant travel time ensure this.
But are LRMs a useless weapon? No.
There are two unique aspects to the weapon.
1. They still do maximum damage at maximum range just like other missiles. Sure there is the scatter effect, but there is no drop off in damage simply due to range.
2. They are the only weapon capable of indirect fire meaning if you don't have line of sight to the target you can still contribute to the fight and therefore the team's success. The ability to contribute to the fight in some way if you are not positioned well enough to bring other weapons onto target should not be discounted.
Also remember that we are not all the same and some players find using some weapons more difficult than others. This is not necessarily an issue on skill, but reflexes, eye sight and then external factors such as ping and hit reg can all make a difference.
Is it selfish that i liked a comment where somebody compliments me??? Lol
My overall stance hasn't really changed...
If you are dropping solo and do not expect coordination (and its hard to count on ir in that situaion) it appears that lrms may not be the best weapon *to lean on heavily*
Today i was in a 6 man attacking with pugs and the defenders started off well. They had lrms on sulphorous and a good raven pilot narcing to start. They got up 6-12 but once we killed their raven it fell apart and we got the win handily. Not bragging but this is how it seems to go a lot of times. If they had coordinated past the first wave and had more than one spotter/narc'er, we could have been in for a fight all the way through because lrms are a devastating TEAM weapon. For all the virtues you've all enumerated.
Teams that coordinate 1-2 waves of lrms can do great, and if you know an accomplished spotter/tagger/narc'er you can do great, as long as there is a plan and contigency plans, etc.
Going in blind and expecting you lurms to find a home without coordination is less optimal under most circumstances.
LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 16 August 2016 - 06:38 PM
A healthy and constructive debate is good.
Also: "Fortune favours the prepared."
Team work will improve chances of a win, but a player who has prepared for lack of team work or for when it breaks down will still be able to function.
10 matches, at least 3-4 PUGs per game, some even with unit tags, are bringing WRK/TBR/EBJ LRM boats and not just one mech drop. 2 mechs in their decks are basically boats.
Its utterly disgraceful and useless because all you hear is "pop a UAV for locks" and this is on maps like Hellbore and Vitric where there is more cover than you can poke a stick at.
And of course, getting walked over as a result because they refuse to push/help or anything. Just sit back and play a LRM boat like you would in QP.
So so annoying, to the point it's almost not worth dropping FP currently without a 12-man to stop the LRM peanuts.
actually hellbore is one of the better maps for LRMS, vitric on the other hand is ****.
not that i would ever use LRMS
not that theres anything wrong with that
You really correlate the losses to your LPLs and the win to LRMs?
That is a very subjective view.
I'm not using LRM at all and my ratios are very positive.
KCom doesn't use LRM and has a W/L ratio of 12+ in CW and our World Championship team is placed 7th.
Probably more the fact he had LPL on a Nova rather than PPCs... I mean that JJ'ing and keeping those LPL on target isn't that easy compared to a PPC shoot and forget
LocationAny red light district or above 27,000ft on a mile-high club jet
Posted 19 August 2016 - 01:36 AM
hi guys. here's the scenario:
Map: boreal vault.
IS defending with 12x Metalurmboatz (all with tags of course) 12x attacking laservomit clan mechs. Assuming all 12x lurmers has identical skill levels like let's say they are as good as the pro-lurmers who have posted here in this thread and the 12x laservomit clan players are all in the same skill level as well and they will all just alpha straight to opponent CT.
Who will win?
Now reverse the scenario this time the 12x lurmers will be attacking boreal vault. Who will win?
I know the pro-lurmers are so eloquent and so savvy they will always win the argument (some even basing it in their Quick play experience but they still win anyway coz screw Faction Play its just the same as Quick Play according to them). I however strongly encourage those solid lurmers supporters to:
- first is to actually play more Faction Play, not just once or twice a week.
- refrain from playing lurmboats/hybrid lurms and instead bring 4 direct fire builds regardless of map and game mode.
- when attacking/counter attacking always be the first man to enter the gate, leading the push.
- always be in front leading the push in all 4 waves, if you have a lance of lurmers in your team, you hold locks for them.
Try playing as the frontline brawler for at least 30 faction play drops then go back in this thread and post your honest experience.
Edited by Jumping Gigolo, 19 August 2016 - 01:38 AM.
Jumping Gigolo, on 19 August 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:
I know the pro-lurmers are so eloquent and so savvy they will always win the argument (some even basing it in their Quick play experience but they still win anyway coz screw Faction Play its just the same as Quick Play according to them). I however strongly encourage those solid lurmers supporters to:
- first is to actually play more Faction Play, not just once or twice a week.
- refrain from playing lurmboats/hybrid lurms and instead bring 4 direct fire builds regardless of map and game mode.
- when attacking/counter attacking always be the first man to enter the gate, leading the push.
- always be in front leading the push in all 4 waves, if you have a lance of lurmers in your team, you hold locks for them.
Try playing as the frontline brawler for at least 30 faction play drops then go back in this thread and post your honest experience.
I'll start with: "I don't think it would be a good idea to boat that many LRMs" unless you are talking as a coordinated team, with planned spotters/NARCers and everyone knowing their job. And, to be blunt, my unit has tried it, and meet moderate success with it... (I also find it funny how people continue to throw the "boat LRMs and win" situation/requisite)
As for your list:
- Already done. I know I play FP once a week with my unit at the moment, but back not too long ago I was playing it a lot more than I do now. (Kinda was on a little break from MW:O, but I'm getting back into it again and actually playing more than once a week again!)
- I play all sorts of mechs. Some LRM based, others not. So I can say from my personal experience that LRMs can have their place. My drop deck currently has two mechs with LRMs and two without. I've found the LRMs useful during my matches, and in at least one match I can distinctly recall the LRMs really winning the match for my team... (There was no way I could fire directly without dieing, so UAV and LRMs dealt a lot of damage! I should also mention I wasn't the only LRM user there, but we didn't boat a whole team of them, just a few mechs with LRMs on them.)
My Mech builds at the time where Nova Prime with 2 ERLLs and 4 ERSLs (has changed); Nova D with 2 LRM15s, TAG and 5 ERSLs. Then I had two Summoners, one set up with 2 ERLLs, an UAC5 and a single LRM10 system; the other Summoner had 2 UAC5s and 4 ERMLs. A reasonable mix of weapons... As for team performance, I run well within the pack, performance wise as well as literally when playing. (With my unit, not solo dropping I might mention, as I don't solo drop in FP all that often. Have to be in the mood for it.)
Back a few months ago, my drop deck was four Crabs (and we all know Crabs can't place LRMs on them, right?). I did really well with them. I ran this drop deck for sometime (from the Crabs release) until we changed over to Clans (for the moment).
- I'm often, even with my LRMs, on the front lines. I can't say how many times I'm the one pushing forwards ahead of my team. I can't say how many times (in PUG matches, QP and FP) I'm laughing at myself going "So they are going to let the LRM mech take the lead?" I'm not even joking here... Sometimes it's a boon, sometimes it gets me killed (usually when the team doesn't follow. Like, the time I can recall a domination match, and I'm the only one on my team inside the circle. Once I died, the enemy eventually won by capture...)
- I try to hold locks, especially if I see the LRM markings on the target. However, as I've mentioned in my own LRM and spotting guides, I wont hold that lock if it will cost me my mech in the game. I expect spotters to aim to survive first, spot much farther down the line. It is nice when they can spot, but losing a teammate so I/an-LRM-user can deal a little more damage is a hindrance to the team, compared to them living and everyone causing more damage overall.
As I've stated earlier in this thread, I've use it all. Brawlers. LRMers. Snipers. Etc. I'm not familiar with only LRMs (though I do like my LRMs). I've never once stated that LRMs are the best weapons. I've also never stated them to being the worst. They have their uses. Just like every weapon in the game, they have their strengths and their weaknesses. It's a matter of how you wish to use them and what you want to get out of your mech. I just have a preference for mixed mech builds, and I'm not afraid to experiment and try new things out.
Just like the strengths of boating any weapon system, there is also a weakness. Just like a more balanced and mixed build has it's weaknesses, it also has it's strengths. There is a place for all of it in the game, and different things will work for different people.
I think someone else here said how LRMs work really well:
50 50, on 16 August 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:
Spoiler
Just a few observations:
LRMs are a better weapon for suppressing simply on tonnage : ammo. The next best might be AC/2s. Keeping in mind that suppressing fire is trying to force your opponent to stay in cover. It might seem a waste of ammo, but if it allows your close range brawlers to close the distance without losing armour then it is effective.
No one uses direct fire weapons for suppressing fire, the ammo is too valuable to waste for autocannons, lasers too hot and MGs only useful at spitting distance and if the enemy has internal structure exposed.
What was described earlier is sniping. You wait for the enemy to poke out and hit them hard so they duck back under cover.
I would also suggest that with the scattering of the missiles, against a target that has lost armour, torso twisting doesn't help nearly as much as it does against direct fire weapons. This is also due to the missiles 'raining' down on the target, you can't really hide your exposed torso.
Yes, you can definitely kill a target quicker with direct fire. Pin point damage and quicker or instant travel time ensure this.
But are LRMs a useless weapon? No.
There are two unique aspects to the weapon.
1. They still do maximum damage at maximum range just like other missiles. Sure there is the scatter effect, but there is no drop off in damage simply due to range.
2. They are the only weapon capable of indirect fire meaning if you don't have line of sight to the target you can still contribute to the fight and therefore the team's success. The ability to contribute to the fight in some way if you are not positioned well enough to bring other weapons onto target should not be discounted.
Also remember that we are not all the same and some players find using some weapons more difficult than others. This is not necessarily an issue on skill, but reflexes, eye sight and then external factors such as ping and hit reg can all make a difference.
To summarize this, if you don't wish to read the long version:
If you like LRMs, than you should be able to use them. If you like direct fire weapons, than use those. As long as you are willing to see the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon type and work with it, than there should be no issue.
LRMs can be used effectively, and have their uses in the game. Just like the MG, Flamer, LPL, etc. To many players the Flamer is a bad weapon. But to some people, they can use it to full effect. Someone above mentioned the Flamer as a competitive weapon, just to show an example. I believe the same goes for LRMs, or anything really.
I also believe that you can't fully understand something until you've tried it yourself. So, even if you don't think LRMs are useful, it would probably still be a good idea to use them for a while and gain a deeper understanding of how they may work. Same goes for MGs, SPLs, etc. As I mentioned, I've done this myself. It's why I think Jumping's challenge is funny, and is actually a really good idea. I've already have done it, and I would recommend others do it as well. Try it with and without some LRMs. Try it with brawlers. Than snipers. See what works for you!
This is a game. It's created to have fun with. It also has little to no repercussions. This means that you should feel free to experiment and try different things out on your own. See how everything works. There is no real harm in trying it out, is there?
PS: A thought that didn't make it into the previous post.
I wanted to mention, so you guys didn't think I was saying "LRMs are da greatest!!11!" that, although I can make mention of great matches where I felt LRMs had a huge impact, I can also tell of tales where they didn't do so well. For every tale of success, I could share a tale of failure.
However, I can also do that with all weapons and builds. That one time that my triple ERLLs cored someone out from good range. Oh, and that one time I turned a corner in the same mech, waved to the enemy team... and became a very well done Crab...
Or that one game where I fought through AMS with my pure LRM Summoner and dealt 1000 damage... can then be followed up with the match that we fought in the tunnel of Crimson and my teammates kept walking in front of each other and blocking each other... and I did very poorly (because tunnel and team...).
So, yeah. As I said before, every weapon and build (and mech) has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's all a matter of how you use your strengths, and how you cover your weaknesses. Do the strengths overcome the weaknesses? Can you play to your strengths and/or to your opponent's weaknesses? Etc.
LocationAny red light district or above 27,000ft on a mile-high club jet
Posted 20 August 2016 - 09:39 AM
@ tesunie
I have a few more question if you won't mind:
- based on the amount of CW drops you played, can you confidently claim that you are a very experienced in CW? I don't intend to compare who's AC20 has more length and girth. Because if you will ask me, I can confidently claim here that I'm a CW veteran as I've played CW 95 to 99% of my time playing MWO. To give you an idea, i play CW like an average 6 hours everyday for 14 months already. hence I strongly believe if I say something related to CW it would be credible.
- you mentioned that you play CW with your unit and barely solo pug. Ok fair enough. But will you recommend/encourage solo puggers (assuming those solo puggers are of your skill level) to bring lurmboats/hybrid lurms in CW?
- would you really recommend/encourage players who are new to CW (not necessarily new to MWO) to bring lurmboats/hybrid lurms in CW?? Before you answer this question think of you and me in a beer house drinking and I asked you this question with sincerity (and with a pistol pointing at you under the table hehehe).
- which is more efficient: killing an enemy mech dealing 500-600 damage (dealing maximum damage from maximum range whatsoever) or killing it with 1-2 alpha in the CT or to the ST if it's an IS mech with XL engine?
- let's say we're in Counterattack or Hold match wherein the score is 47 - 47and omega is destroyed. The remaining enemy mech is a fresh trial light/medium/heavy mech while your team is in a Metalurmboat. who do you think will win the match?
- and let's say we're in the same counterattack or hold match and the score is 44-44, enemy got 4 remaining direct fire mechs while 4 lurmboats remain in your team (as your 8 direct fire teammates and spotters/narcers) are all permadead. You think those 4 lurmers will beat those remaining 4 enemy fire mechs? (Let's even assume they don't have a single ECM mech with them).
Oh btw, I also tried it all... i was an LRM guy in my first 4 months of playing MWO. I can easily do 2-3k damage especially when solo pugging CW; when teamed up with other baby seals. I just play selfish, stand back behind them and lurm enemies while they die holding locks for me if I ran out of ammo I just eject and bring my next lurmboats (why would care using an ammo-depleted lurm mech for my teammates? No need to waste time just deal damage am I right?). But of course, when I realized that CW is totally different from QP and the concept of distributing the damage by sharing your armor amongst your team is equally important to dealing damage to your opponent; it's was the time I stopped playing a playstyle that requires the efforts and sacrifice of others for you to function as intended. If you can play a successfully coordinated CW drop with a mix of direct fire and lurms; so you can with an all direct fire mechs. MWO is a team game, yes it is. But there are situation that you have to step up by contributing your individual skills...by yourself. Using lurms in CW will just promote over-reliance with your (non-lurm) teammates.
P.S.
I have bad internet with 300+ ping). I still struggle hitting the right component even when leading aim. Almost impossible for me to hit fast mechs with normal srms coz most of the time will "teleport". Graphics will slow down very bad when "royals rumbling" with multiple mechs on the screen. and most of the time I need to play with a muted microphone hence TS is not really an advantage. still not an excuse for me to play in safe distance in CW. And You can bring lurms in CW and no one can prevent you from bringing those in CW. you can perform very good with LRM in CW but still it won't disprove the facts that:
1. It's not recommended for pugs.
2. The more lurms brought by your team in CW, the bigger chance of losing. (Same is true in QP).
3. Lurms won't carry the crucial matches.
4. Lurmers need others to function effectively.
5. LRM highlander will get ***** by a scouting arctic cheetah if the LRM highlander is left behind by his 11 other teammates who are regrouping at C4 in sulfurous rift :-P
Edited by Jumping Gigolo, 20 August 2016 - 09:58 AM.
Correct, there is truly no way to "pinpoint" missiles beyond a certain point. This is one of their major drawbacks as it will *typically* take longer to kill off a mechs with LRMs that with most other direct fire weapons with comparable damage ratings. Same with Streaks... They'll hit, but you can really control what they hit...
Well you can "improve" streaks a bit by chain firing. The algorithm for them automatically has each go to a "random" location that hasn't had another missile in the group sent to it already, until all areas have been hit at least once (the head can never be hit though). With 7 locations to choose from the front, and more from the back due to how small the rear hit boxes tend to be, and how much the front overlaps to the rear sides, a shot of 18 streaks for example (3 six-packs) will basically go to the 7 front armor locations twice each, a third time to four more locations. If you chain them, each group is treated seperately and its possible you might get three to same spot, more than 4 times. This of course becomes more important with multiple smaller launchers (streak-2s should always be chain fired, five of them could potentially hit the same spot five times, but fired as a group the most that'll hit the same spot is 2 missiles).
7
Starwulfe, on 16 August 2016 - 05:23 AM, said:
if I ran out of ammo I just eject and bring my next lurmboats (why would care using an ammo-depleted lurm mech for my teammates? No need to waste time just deal damage am I right?). But of course, when I realized that CW is totally different from QP and the concept of distributing the damage by sharing your armor amongst your team is equally important to dealing damage to your opponent; it's was the time I stopped playing a playstyle that requires the efforts and sacrifice of others for you to function as intended. If you can play a successfully coordinated CW drop with a mix of direct fire and lurms; so you can with an all direct fire mechs. MWO is a team game, yes it is. But there are situation that you have to step up by contributing your individual skills...by yourself. Using lurms in CW will just promote over-reliance with your (non-lurm) teammates. 
