77 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Deathlike, on 13 August 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

Assaults with LRMs are simply target practice vs any competent team.

any team that allows you to do that isnt a competent team

[Navid A1]

Mystere, on 13 August 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

Of course! They want their enemies to come at them like real "men".

Fortunately,

I brawl with lurms bruh!

[Telemachus -Salt Wife Salt Life-]

Didn't read this whole thread, but isn't that article that the OP is talking about from metamechs from a long time ago? LURMs are pretty much inferior to direct fire anyway.

Edited by Telemachus Rheade, 13 August 2016 - 09:38 PM.

[The Rogue Wolf]

Lykaon, on 13 August 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

8
I fail to see why indirect fire is such an offense to players.

It's not "fair". After all, we both know that if you had to step out where I could see you to shoot at me, I'd totally beat you, because I'm better.

[Pjwned]

El Bandito, on 13 August 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

As long as there is cover, any mech with faster than 80kph speed can shoot at the LRM mech and duck behind cover in time. All the while the LRM boat must first wait for the lock and then wait for the slow missiles to hit target that is already behind the cover.

That just seems like a trade you shouldn't be making or expect to work out well in the first place with LRMs, and not even because LRMs are bad.

Quote

Even more frustrating when they got Raderp module.

Radar deprivation should have its effect cut in half or more honestly. If the old seismic sensor was nerfed so that you have to stand still to use it then I don't see why something as powerful as radar deprivation should remain the way it is.

Quote

Most importantly, LRM DPS is negated by spread, while most other weapons at 400 meter distance can focus on a single section to take out the LRM mechs much faster. So even though the LRM boat technically dealt more damage in the exchange, it died a lot faster, while the enemy armor is probably no even breached.

That sounds more like a very prolonged engagement, which is not really what I was thinking of either; that or you were staring down a mech that you shouldn't have if it killed you so much faster.

[El Bandito]

Pjwned, on 13 August 2016 - 11:00 PM, said:

That just seems like a trade you shouldn't be making or expect to work out well in the first place with LRMs, and not even because LRMs are bad.

On the contrary, losing out on such trades is precisely why LRMs are inferior to DF weapons. LRMs are heavily dependent on just how dumb your opponent is.

[Pjwned]

El Bandito, on 13 August 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

On the contrary, losing out on such trades is precisely why LRMs are inferior to DF weapons. LRMs are heavily dependent on just how dumb your opponent is.

When you throw in a bunch of stipulations like that then what do you expect? How about I just assume that a teammate comes along to shoot a NARC at your target and then all of a sudden you can get a bunch of damage on them while firing safely from behind cover? I guess LRMs would suddenly be god tier now.

[El Bandito]

Pjwned, on 13 August 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:

When you throw in a bunch of stipulations like that then what do you expect? How about I just assume that a teammate comes along to shoot a NARC at your target and then all of a sudden you can get a bunch of damage on them while firing safely from behind cover? I guess LRMs would suddenly be god tier now.

If that would make LRMs God tier, then comp teams would have been using it. Just the fact that it relies on another's help means LRMs are very situational weapons, and only LRM5/10 are acceptable, even then. As a career lurmer, I should know.

[Galenit]

Cathy, on 13 August 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Just someone who thinks just because they have a blog and website, gives them an opinion on how others should play the game.

Maybe a long range missile touched his action man once

Did you ever see a metawhore using ams?

Thats why they cry and moan if there are more then 30 tubes in a match.

That moaning and crying is showing that they are not as good as they claim
or that lrms are not that useless as they claim.

[Pjwned]

El Bandito, on 13 August 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

If that would make LRMs God tier, then comp teams would have been using it. Just the fact that it relies on another's help means LRMs are very situational weapons, and only LRM5/10 are acceptable, even then. As a career lurmer, I should know.

So if you give me a situation where the LRMs are not even going to hit because you try to hit an agile target that has cover right nearby that means LRMs suck, and if I present a situation where somebody comes along with a NARC it still means LRMs are bad because "OH well uh uh uh uuhhh....i-it's s-still bad because you had to r-rely on s-somebody else."

Let's say you had at least a partial lock on your target from a teammate spotting them (which is not unrealistic) and you peek out to get line of sight yourself to land a decent LRM salvo, are they still bad because you relied on somebody else to help?

What if that target moves 10-20 KPH slower and has a hard time reaching cover without taking significant damage, or the more agile target isn't so close to cover to escape all the damage because they were making some sort of maneuver? I guess you could just assume that the enemy team isn't moving much because they don't want to get hit by LRMs, but if most of the team isn't really moving then that sounds like a pretty good way to lose horribly in most cases, as well as showing that LRMs are a good deterrent if that was indeed the case; mechs need to move around to do stuff and that means good opportunities can and do show up.

What if you're trading your LRMs with direct fire and then you get more LRM support from teammates for your spotting? I'll just guess they're still bad, or better yet let's just assume the enemy is absolutely terrible for taking any LRM damage ever.

[Telemachus -Salt Wife Salt Life-]

The problem with LRMs is that you can't pick the component you want to shoot. That's all. This is why direct fire will always be superior when an opponent knows to torso twist. Not sure why people are suddenly trying to justify LRMs being good lol. That time of the year?

Edited by Telemachus Rheade, 14 August 2016 - 12:28 AM.

[RestosIII]

Telemachus Rheade, on 14 August 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

The problem with LRMs is that you can't pick the component you want to shoot. That's all. This is why direct fire will always be superior when an opponent knows to torso twist. Not sure why people are suddenly trying to justify LRMs being good lol. That time of the year?

It always scares me when they come out of the woodwork. Gives me chills thinking that Paul is laying in wait for them to say something so he can pounce on the poor weapon systems and take them down to pre-buff flamer levels.

[adamts01]

Voq, on 13 August 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

Bandit has it right.
They should be a real weapon, not something you take out once in a while for a roll of the dice match.

Implementing his suggestions, while countering it with the recommendation to only allow lock ons with LoS (unless TAG or NARC) would make them way more fun. And require more skill (no more firing from behind cover while you friends feed you locks).

I agree LRMs are ****, but I don't want them to become just another LOS weapon like absolutely every other weapon in the game. I want to see indirect and direct fire ridiculously buffed, but ammo count cut to 1/4. That way you need to seriously trust your spotter, and make those precious shots count. I'm thinking like 40 or 60 missiles a ton. This would also give lights a role besides shooting, which everyone seems to think they shouldn't do. And if they're powerful enough, a single LRM5 or 10 might not be laughed off the battlefield. Making them LOS only would make the game even more linear and boring than it already is.

[RestosIII]

adamts01, on 14 August 2016 - 12:40 AM, said:

I agree LRMs are ****, but I don't want them to become just another LOS weapon like absolutely every other weapon in the game. I want to see indirect and direct fire ridiculously buffed, but ammo count cut to 1/4. That way you need to seriously trust your spotter, and make those precious shots count. I'm thinking like 40 or 60 missiles a ton. This would also give lights a role besides shooting, which everyone seems to think they shouldn't do. And if they're powerful enough, a single LRM5 or 10 might not be laughed off the battlefield. Making them LOS only would make the game even more linear and boring than it already is.

RIP Mad Dog Prime, you were bad enough before ammo became non-existant.

[adamts01]

RestosIII, on 14 August 2016 - 12:43 AM, said:

RIP Mad Dog Prime, you were bad enough before ammo became non-existant.

Not necessarily. Considering they system takes a while to get a lock, plus a while for the payload to get to the target, plus ECM and AMS counters, plus their situational nature depending where the fight is taking place, when those missiles do connect they should be terrifying. Really the big problem people has is that they're spammed and only valid if spammed. I think buffing them like crazy, but making ammo as precious as with the gauss or AC20, maybe more so because of their indirect ability, they'd be alright, and the 2xLRM20s on your Mad Dog Prime would be plenty for a mixed build. Because of all those counters they really need a different niche than our direct fire weapons, they should compete in a different way. They really need to be reworked from the ground up, including some info warfare from PTS.

Edit: TLDR, I think while overall missile count should be lower, damage per ton should be considerably higher. Most people hate LRMers because they hide in the back and spam. With my suggestion they could still do that, but probably wouldn't unless they really trusted their spotter. It solves a bunch of problems.

Edited by adamts01, 14 August 2016 - 01:53 AM.

[dervishx5]

LRMs do more psychological harm to the enemy than actual damage. Very few people can use them really effectively, and even then they're wasting their talents on the weapon when they could be pulling damage with better weapons.

[Stone Wall]

Deathlike, on 13 August 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

Farming LRM boat is hilarious. They simply can't fight back when you have cover... or when you close the gap.

Assaults with LRMs are simply target practice vs any competent team.

It's a great way to move up the PSR. Just bring LRMs and Lasers and outplay the W+D only LRMers.

dervishx5, on 14 August 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

LRMs do more psychological harm to the enemy than actual damage. Very few people can use them really effectively, and even then they're wasting their talents on the weapon when they could be pulling damage with better weapons.

In my Tier I can get 600-800 damage without even trying. Just hold the button down...

Roughneck45, on 13 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

Id be hesitant to add more damage if they are still lock on.

you're right. I used LRMs for the first time since coming back and I can get 600-800 damage without trying. I don't think they need more damage.

[Mystere]

adamts01, on 14 August 2016 - 12:40 AM, said:

This would also give lights a role besides shooting, which everyone seems to think they shouldn't do.

Only if spotters are richly rewarded.

dervishx5, on 14 August 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

LRMs do more psychological harm to the enemy than actual damage.

That's where I derive much my fun in PvP games.

Edited by Mystere, 14 August 2016 - 10:26 AM.