653 replies to this topic

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

What if we just like the circlejerk?

[a gaijin]

ChaoticUrlond, on 01 May 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

LRMs are not effective against any target no matter how much damage you say you can do against an enemy. SRMS or Streaks please.

The B33f disagrees.

[OP8]

Yeah unfortunately for this post, the people who really know how to pilot an effective LRM build, get annoyed to the point of just not giving a damn about the whiney holier than thou crap oozing from the LRM haters. I've got 70 masters in my garage, of every class and specialization, and after tens of thousands of games since beta, my LRM Atlas is the most useful, most money earning, and most often match leader in damage/gamescore/etc in the whole fleet. It has been tweaked to it's maximum potential and has over 2 million XP on that chassis alone. I know what I'm doing with it, and as long as my team aren't total rambo potatoes, I can keep the scales of victory tipped in favor of my team. Sometimes I have bad games either of my fault or rare enemy strategy, and HOLY SHEET I never hear the end of it from the [LRM's Suck] Fuq boi crowd. Someone ******* about my build EVERY game that I don't happen to make VIP by round's end. But what's funny, is that if at the end of the match, I was according the all the numbers the best player in the match, I take a screenshot for the trophy folder. Best score, most damage, most assists, solo kills etc, cumulative criteria met. I have over 400 screenshots of endgame stat tables declaring the LRM haters are out of their narrow unskilled minds. I'm the missile firehose of death that keeps targets fearful and suppressed, with a stats page to prove it. I'm sick of being heckled for it, and when people criticize it ingame, I immediately don't give a crap about their opinion of much else.

[MovinTarget]

Star Commander Horse, on 17 November 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

The B33f disagrees.

Missing the point completely, okay not completely but most would not agree with the OP's extreme prejudice against lurms and if you'd read the posts you'd see this.

This is a video of 12 COMPETENT and COMPETITIVE players that coordinated their drops with spotters, TAGs, NARCs and any other fixins that help maximize LURMS.

The Primary contention of many is SOLO players that bring lurm boats and no backup weapons, no friends to coordinate with and no TAG/NARC/BAP/etc are not helping their team effectively when they sit in the back and ask for targets or simply ignore the battle at hand and try to hit a commando running around on the side.

Edited by MovinTarget, 17 November 2016 - 09:01 PM.

[Tesunie]

VorpalAnvil, on 17 November 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:

So I went ahead and checked your stats and for someone who mains assaults, struggling to maintain a 1.00 KDR and Win/Loss is pretty pathetic, especially for someone who has as much experience as you and claims such prowess. As expected your stats in the other classes are even worse. But hey, thanks for playing our game.

Problem with your "leader board" theology (and I really hate that they placed that for public information without a "Opt in" feature, for the EXACT REASONS you are pulling here), is that he may run more than just an LRM based mech all the time.

FYI. I crunched my own numbers. I have a better W/L in my LRM based mechs across the board than I do with my direct fire mechs, with maybe an exception or two here or there. So, even if I don't get kills, damage or whatever, somehow my LRM based mechs contribute more to victory than most of my other mechs.

PS: I play a lot of different mechs. I play a lot of different styles. I'm also not afraid to experiment in live combat with different builds. So, before you even try to look at my "leader board" position, don't bother. I don't care.

PPS: Thread necromancy at it's best here. I thought and hoped this thread had died officially this time...

[Prussian Havoc]

OP8, on 17 November 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

Yeah unfortunately for this post, the people who really know how to pilot an effective LRM build, get annoyed to the point of just not giving a damn about the whiney holier than thou crap oozing from the LRM haters. I've got 70 masters in my garage, of every class and specialization, and after tens of thousands of games since beta, my LRM Atlas is the most useful, most money earning, and most often match leader in damage/gamescore/etc in the whole fleet. It has been tweaked to it's maximum potential and has over 2 million XP on that chassis alone. I know what I'm doing with it, and as long as my team aren't total rambo potatoes, I can keep the scales of victory tipped in favor of my team. Sometimes I have bad games either of my fault or rare enemy strategy, and HOLY SHEET I never hear the end of it from the [LRM's Suck] Fuq boi crowd. Someone ******* about my build EVERY game that I don't happen to make VIP by round's end. But what's funny, is that if at the end of the match, I was according the all the numbers the best player in the match, I take a screenshot for the trophy folder. Best score, most damage, most assists, solo kills etc, cumulative criteria met. I have over 400 screenshots of endgame stat tables declaring the LRM haters are out of their narrow unskilled minds. I'm the missile firehose of death that keeps targets fearful and suppressed, with a stats page to prove it. I'm sick of being heckled for it, and when people criticize it ingame, I immediately don't give a crap about their opinion of much else.

I feel your pain.

The crime and shame of it is that neither your nor my gameplay (and I am a dedicated LRM enthusiast as well) makes invasive demands of our teammates in a match. While many of the #Haters out there (to perhaps include those who are trying to sharpshoot and undercut you here on the forums, in this thread) are the first to make calls in game for "sharing Armor" and to "regardless of your weapons load-out, to 'Come On Line' 120-meters from the Enemy and engage."

It is maddening arrogant presumption in my opinion.

Great post, keep fighting the good fight, and as ever good luck and good gaming.

#ToleranceAndInclusion

[Kin3ticX]

OP8, on 17 November 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

Yeah unfortunately for this post, the people who really know how to pilot an effective LRM build, get annoyed to the point of just not giving a damn about the whiney holier than thou crap oozing from the LRM haters. I've got 70 masters in my garage, of every class and specialization, and after tens of thousands of games since beta, my LRM Atlas is the most useful, most money earning, and most often match leader in damage/gamescore/etc in the whole fleet. It has been tweaked to it's maximum potential and has over 2 million XP on that chassis alone. I know what I'm doing with it, and as long as my team aren't total rambo potatoes, I can keep the scales of victory tipped in favor of my team. Sometimes I have bad games either of my fault or rare enemy strategy, and HOLY SHEET I never hear the end of it from the [LRM's Suck] Fuq boi crowd. Someone ******* about my build EVERY game that I don't happen to make VIP by round's end. But what's funny, is that if at the end of the match, I was according the all the numbers the best player in the match, I take a screenshot for the trophy folder. Best score, most damage, most assists, solo kills etc, cumulative criteria met. I have over 400 screenshots of endgame stat tables declaring the LRM haters are out of their narrow unskilled minds. I'm the missile firehose of death that keeps targets fearful and suppressed, with a stats page to prove it. I'm sick of being heckled for it, and when people criticize it ingame, I immediately don't give a crap about their opinion of much else.

LRMs are the Street Fighter haduken of MWO

[VorpalAnvil]

Tesunie, on 17 November 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

Problem with your "leader board" theology (and I really hate that they placed that for public information without a "Opt in" feature, for the EXACT REASONS you are pulling here), is that he may run more than just an LRM based mech all the time.

FYI. I crunched my own numbers. I have a better W/L in my LRM based mechs across the board than I do with my direct fire mechs, with maybe an exception or two here or there. So, even if I don't get kills, damage or whatever, somehow my LRM based mechs contribute more to victory than most of my other mechs.

PS: I play a lot of different mechs. I play a lot of different styles. I'm also not afraid to experiment in live combat with different builds. So, before you even try to look at my "leader board" position, don't bother. I don't care.

PPS: Thread necromancy at it's best here. I thought and hoped this thread had died officially this time...

I think the word you were looking for is "theory", not "theology". Let's say you're right and he does pilot more than just lurm assaults. That makes the stats even sadder. if your best performing mechs/builds are lurm based you're an objectively bad player. Lurms are really only good at sandblasting armor and farming damage and assists. If you are getting the bulk of your kills in your lurm builds it's most likely because the rest of your team is doing the real work with DF weapons and you are "securing" kills from the safety of the back lines. The fact is smart players aren't killed by lurms. I die so infrequently to them that when it happens it specifically stands out to me.

Regarding your first PS; The Seraphim tag told me all I needed to know.

[Tesunie]

VorpalAnvil, on 17 November 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

I think the word you were looking for is "theory", not "theology". Let's say you're right and he does pilot more than just lurm assaults. That makes the stats even sadder. if your best performing mechs/builds are lurm based you're an objectively bad player. Lurms are really only good at sandblasting armor and farming damage and assists. If you are getting the bulk of your kills in your lurm builds it's most likely because the rest of your team is doing the real work with DF weapons and you are "securing" kills from the safety of the back lines. The fact is smart players aren't killed by lurms. I die so infrequently to them that when it happens it specifically stands out to me.

Regarding your first PS; The Seraphim tag told me all I needed to know.

Whatever the word was used, you have a theory that, if someone says they are good at X, than they must rank well on leader boards. This implication is wrong, because it implies that said pilot only ever uses X, and never deviates or experiments with Y, A or B. It also misrepresents other data, and presents that the Leader Boards are a fact of actual skill level, and is the only representation of skill level.

You mention K/D, like it's relevant. One can do well and even get high damage scores, and yet not land a single kill. I did not say that I killed a lot of mechs with LRMs. I just stated that my LRM based mechs (key word here is based, as I do not boat LRMs) tend to have higher W/L ratios.

You are implying that damage and kills are the only aspects of which to rate a player. You forget other aspects, such as distraction, bait, suppression, scouting, etc. With LRMs, they are a utility weapon. They do not deal just damage, but also strike fear (if you wish to call it that) into the hearts of it's targets. No one likes to hear the dreaded "incoming missile" warnings. As soon as they do, they run and hide into cover till the bells stop sounding. Though people will state that they can drive opponents back into cover just as well with direct fire (and deal damage), it does not do so for as long as LRMs will tend to press them back into cover. Just as one example.

As another example of how one might use LRMs. I have several mechs that are "trap" mechs. They have LRMs on them to lure unsuspecting enemies onto closer ranges. They foolishly may presume that the mech is an easy kill LRM "boat". Only to come onto their target to discover something with more than just LRMs (preferably with allies nearby as well).

As I've stated before, I play a large variety of mechs. Some have LRMs. Some do not. I do well in many different mech builds, including ones with and without LRMs. If you where to look up my stats on the leader board, it will provide you no conclusive data as to how well I perform with LRMs. It also does not exclude bad matches from new mechs, unskilled and still working on creating a build that works for it (such as the Huntsman and the Linebacker for recent examples), or when I create a new build concept (which may or may not work). Thus, your leader board results are... inconclusive. K/D is also... Inconclusive (because people can "kill steal", or as some people refer to it as "kill secure"). Even W/L is inconclusive as a stat on it's own, as if you PUG a lot, than you are placed as a single pilot with 23 other pilots in a match, 11 of which will be your allies. A single person can not carry a team to victory, thus why W/L isn't even conclusive as well.

Then, if we decide to even got more in depth, damage dealt per match isn't even conclusive, due to possible damage spread, people spreading and shielding, etc. As I stated somewhere else, you can drop an Atlas with less than 100 damage... or it can take 200+ damage to kill it. So, dealing 400+ damage isn't indicative of anything, as you could have spent all that on a single target, or possibly killed (nearly killed, KMDD, etc) 4+ Assault mechs. (Then again, damage is damage, and every bit can be useful. There is more useful damage and less useful damage, but it all still can help.) Even then, a match is often not determined by just damage. I've witnessed many matches where the losing team did more damage than the winning team, but the winning team won because of a distraction, back attack or more focused fire. They may have even won by playing the mission objectives as well, such as Conquest, base capture in Assault or even pushing/pulling/luring the enemy off the Domination point and capping it out.

Overall, trying to argue someone's point down by their leader board rank, K/D, W/L, PSR tier, personal insults/attacks, etc is not a valid manner in which to conduct a discussion. If that was the case, than we should only listen to the top 10 leader board players and/or adhere to the T1 PSR ranked players statements. Neither situation is a very good one. (One of the reasons I hide my PSR rank.)

[Prussian Havoc]

Tesunie, on 17 November 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

(...snip...)

Overall, trying to argue someone's point down by their leader board rank, K/D, W/L, PSR tier, personal insults/attacks, etc is not a valid manner in which to conduct a discussion. If that was the case, than we should only listen to the top 10 leader board players and/or adhere to the T1 PSR ranked players statements. Neither situation is a very good one. (One of the reasons I hide my PSR rank.)

Elitist, exclusionary forum posts are nothing new... and rather sad at that.

[MovinTarget]

Really the issue is when players play one dimensional mechs with an expectation that the rest of the team will cover the other dimensions without communicating ahead of time.

If you are dropping solo and planned you builds to at least be truly viable in two ranges (short/mid, mid/long, etc) and also tried (within their respective capacity to do so) to bring builds that excel for the mape/mode it would be better all around.

You need guys with range to give cover until brawlers get in to the brawl and you need brawlers when the enemy is all up in your craw. This is why you see so many direct fire mid-range builds. May not be perfect for all scenarios but can perform in most situations and not feel useless.

[Jumping Gigolo]

yippee!!!! this thread is alive again


Lurms is a bad weapon coz you cannot gen rush with lurms.

Edited by Jumping Gigolo, 18 November 2016 - 10:32 AM.

[Tesunie]

Jumping Gigolo, on 18 November 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

Lurms is a bad weapon coz you cannot gen rush with lurms.

I will state, this is probably the most reasonable statement as to why one shouldn't bring LRMs. Or rather, not bring them at least for the attack game mode when you are the attacker. (Still doesn't mean they can't be useful, but this is a very valid reason.)

[MovinTarget]

Jumping Gigolo, on 18 November 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

yippee!!!! this thread is alive again


Lurms is a bad weapon coz you cannot gen rush with lurms.

Funny thing is I witnessed a 12 man do this rather effectively on Vitric.

They went to that desolate crater to the side (not the G4 nipple, the other side) and were able to dumbfire on 2 gens while we had to figure where the heck they were...

It was a one trick pony, but it worked...

NOTE THAT I MENTIONED IT WAS A 12 MAN

Edited by MovinTarget, 18 November 2016 - 12:55 PM.

[Void Angel]

Wouldn't the arcing missiles' exhaust trails tell you where they were?

[Vlad Striker]

LMRers is hated by for only by reason: they do not trade health with team. If they stand away they do diminish total armor's strengh.
That's why assault LRM-carrier mech useless. They do not take damage during battle and multiply risks for whole team.
As for weapon itself it have its place as any other sort of weapons.

[Tesunie]

Vlad Striker, on 19 November 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

LMRers is hated by for only by reason: they do not trade health with team. If they stand away they do diminish total armor's strengh.
That's why assault LRM-carrier mech useless. They do not take damage during battle and multiply risks for whole team.
As for weapon itself it have its place as any other sort of weapons.

You can't blame the weapon for people using it in the one of the worst possible ways. Just like you can't blame the Sm laser for being bad because people try to snipe with it at 500+m.

[Xaat Xuun]

Now I wanna bring LRM's

[DaHuntress]

I will say this once... my account, my expenses, I will play what I want. And before you start responding that I don't know how to play the game, don't presume that you have any say whatsoever as to how I build my mechs... Don't like that, go ahead and block me; so I don't have to put up with your attitude of you have to play and build my way or else you can't play. I don't accept that attitude from anyone. I don't tell anyone else how to build their mechs... If I do see that a suggestion would be considered, I offer it, and wait for their consideration of it on their own terms; but in the end, it is THEIR choice about whether or not they consider it about whether or not it works for them... I know what have said here for the most part will fall on deaf ears, and frankly I wouldn't be suprised at that for the most part. But be you comp or casual, you have every right to decide for yourself what works for you; I tend to be someone who can brawl with missiles ( before anyone decides to open their mouth about it... )

One of the things that I find generally is that there are types of people out there regarding missiles: type one ( the rare type ) are those who know how to you missiles effectively, terrain, and buildings to maximize their use, and use ams to cut down incoming missiles. These are the brave ones who are willing to keep facing their targets so that their missiles hit effectively. Then there is type 2, ( those who don't know missiles ) who don't know about ( or care to know cause it affects how they play and build their mechs ) don't want to have to dodge missiles, use the terrain to defend against them, or spend 1.5 tons of their build to put into ams to help cut down the dmg from incoming lrms. God forbid they can't do their energy/ballistic alpha as often as they want. There is nothing wrong with learning all of the available weapons system the game offers; putting blinders on regarding other systems just because you either don't like them or are not willing to consider them isn't my fault, nor my problem; so stop trying to make it sound like that. I do know how to use all of the weapons systems in the game, I just have my preferences... just like y'all have yours.

[Carl Vickers]

Obvious troll poster with 1 post is obvious troll poster.