271 replies to this topic

[dario03]

I don't hate LRMs. I just find them boring to play and to play against. I'm sure plenty of players have something they find boring but for me its lurms and streaks. If I land a good shot on the one open torso of a enemy while we are both moving through fire I feel like that is a bit of an accomplishment. Well gaming accomplishment which isn't much but an accomplishment during a time waster so whatever. And if somebody focuses out a torso on my mech I can see they are playing good and feels like there is a challenge. Don't really get that with lrms and ssrms.

[Bishop Steiner]

dario03, on 25 March 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

I don't hate LRMs. I just find them boring to play and to play against. I'm sure plenty of players have something they find boring but for me its lurms and streaks. If I land a good shot on the one open torso of a enemy while we are both moving through fire I feel like that is a bit of an accomplishment. Well gaming accomplishment which isn't much but an accomplishment during a time waster so whatever. And if somebody focuses out a torso on my mech I can see they are playing good and feels like there is a challenge. Don't really get that with lrms and ssrms.

I agree I don't get the

reaction,

but for me, that's never been my focus. Sure I love it when I do land a nice shot, but I like anytime I can dictate the flow of battle, be it from overwhelming direct fire, or by selectively harassing with LRMs. In QP, I can't count the number of matches where my VND-1AA has actualyl blunted advances, and or pinned the opfor in place, or drawn off and strung out the enemy trying to hunt me down... all because of a single aLRM15 rack (combined with 110 kph speed and JJs).

I have been able to do similar things with my ASN with 4x LRM5s, and such.

It's just a different part of the game. The simple fact I can get inside people's heads, even competitive players (though most will never admit it) is pretty satisfying to me. They are of limited value in higher tier team play, in QP or FW, so I rarely have more than one such mech in my Deck (and then only my defense deck), but in Pug Play, it's just another way to be a Chaostician.

[MacClearly]

SQW, on 24 March 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Recoil, cone of fire, pick a name. Pin point damage went of fashion in the late 90s.

Conservation of momentum. Photons have some and we are talking megajoules of them. BT books even mentions pulse lasers track upwards like machine guns. Even if you discount the lasers, BT universe PPC definitely does because it's basically shooting out a ball of plasma which has noticeable mass.

Anyway, my point is laser boat is far more of easy mode than LRM boat. My tier score moved more in one night with BNC-3M(C) last night than I have for 2 months playing with my RVN, BJ, HBK, CN and Jager (all positive K/D, W/L ratio).

You're confusing easy with effective.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

You're confusing easy with effective.

in games like this they tend to go hand in hand.

Maximum effect for minimum effort. The basis for pretty much every meta in this game. Dependent of individual skill and team cohesion, YMMV. But the basis is still what get's the job done easiest (which is actually the basis of "efficiency" itself. Extra effort for the same result is not efficient)

Time was the thrill was to accept handicaps to test one's skill (such as a boxing match with one hand tied behind the back). That mentality if all but gone, sacrificed upon the altars of Efficiency and Expediency.

[CDLord HHGD]

A real heat scale would help with PPFLD...

[Chados]

It makes me cringe when I see some boater with nothing but a LRM80 and 4500 rounds, and nothing else. That's begging every Jenner on the field to swarm you. You're useless inside 180m. I knocked off a Supernova one night with a Rifleman down to one medium laser. I used terrain masking to get close, pushed in to 50 meters, and he was knocking paint off me while I burned him for five points every time my laser recycled.

But I love my LRMs. I advocate LRM skirmishing. Using the LRM like any direct-fire weapon out there. But also playing to its strengths and packing adequate backup direct fire weapons. How? Pack no less than 20 and no more than 40 tubes, and carry 6 tons of ammo. The best platforms for this are the Catapult, Vulture, Timberwolf, Ebon Jaguar, and Archer. Carry an active probe, AMS, and as much armor as you can pack. And at least four lasers, mediums or ER mediums, or if the mech only has missile hardpoints bring SRMs. Streaks are best. A couple jump jets if possible (the best LRM skirmishers can't jump other than the Catapult). Cooldown modules are mandatory. And speed of at least 68kph. Find employment within the effective range of your secondary weapons wherever possible. You'll be able to get your own locks, shorten flight time, flatten LRM trajectory, and shoot over teammates and obstacles. You'll share armor with the team, and be able to alpha both LRMs and secondaries at the same time, though with heat revisions doing this is very dangerous. I alternate between the two when I'm that close and have a clear field of fire.

LRM skirmishing allows direct fire brawlers to do their thing with immediate and close added spread damage. You get kills, you rack big damage, but assists are how really to measure a LRM skirmisher's performance. If you aren't getting at least 8 assists in a match you win, and touching every dead mech in a match you lose, you're doing it wrong. Because the LRM skirmisher is of the team, by the team, and for the team at all times. If you've got a bad one, you're going down...but if you've got a good one, it's going to be a heck of a fight. A good LRM skirmisher is stripping armor for the dakkamechs, metahumpers, and laser snipers to score finishing blows. You're distracting reds on a push, running them off the front, ringing their missile alarms, and making them hide and play scared. You're showing where they are by triggering their AMS. They'll push on you, thinking you're a lone LRMer, and surprise! Your whole team is right there too.

I have a good bit of fun playing like this, especially if I'm backing an aggressive set of brawlers. I like to be right with the assaults, fending off lights, shooting over them into what they're brawling, moving with the push. You've got to be thinking three dimensionally, looking for good angles, watching your minimap and range information, and fighting in all six directions. And if I see a NARC or TAG symbol, I assume "primary target" and put birds on it if I'm in range.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 07:19 AM, said:

in games like this they tend to go hand in hand.

Maximum effect for minimum effort.  The basis for pretty much every meta in this game.  Dependent of individual skill and team cohesion, YMMV. But the basis is still what get's the job done easiest (which is actually the basis of "efficiency" itself.  Extra effort for the same result is not efficient)

Time was the thrill was to accept handicaps to test one's skill (such as a boxing match with one hand tied behind the back).  That mentality if all but gone, sacrificed upon the altars of Efficiency and Expediency.

I didn't start playing that long ago. A year ago, brawling was huge but that may have been partly due to being low tier? When I actually decided to put an effort into advancing up tiers, hunting lurmers in my Oxide helped shoot me through tier three. They were the easiest to kill. My point? That while I get what you are saying, it baffles me that people take that easy street with the risk of being such an easy target. It is also a silly thing to say that lurming is more difficult than direct fire.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

I didn't start playing that long ago. A year ago, brawling was huge but that may have been partly due to being low tier? When I actually decided to put an effort into advancing up tiers, hunting lurmers in my Oxide helped shoot me through tier three. They were the easiest to kill. My point? That while I get what you are saying, it baffles me that people take that easy street with the risk of being such an easy target. It is also a silly thing to say that lurming is more difficult than direct fire.

LRMing effectively, IS.

I can direct fire, and retreat to cover, with a poptart or peektart in under a second. (with a mobile mech). My shot reaches the target in a fraction of a second, and as such, is much easier to direct to a component.

Now compare that to the steps it takes to get your own lock (approx 3 seconds in best case), which you DO have to largely keep your pipper on the target itself to achieve. Factor in that ECM and Radar Derp and AMS counter Missiles to varying degrees. Factor in how Concelament/cover breaks your lock and you get to start all over again. Then factor in travel time of the missiles, during which I have to stay exposed and keep my aim in your proximity (though no, not directly on target at this time).

So if one is getting their own locks, which is how one maximizes tag and artemis for effective spread, 5-6 seconds minimum exposure, all the time eating hitscan counter fire.

That is objectively more difficult and less efficient than direct fire weaponry.

Yes, if one is simply sitting back and using other peoples target locks, NARC, etc, it is very simple, you can bake a cake while doing it. But one is seldom being remotely effective while doing so, either.

[Albino Boo]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

I believe his comment, which you quoted, clarified his point which was not actual "recoil" but an imperfect aiming mechanism.
Such as CoF, reticle sway, convergence, etc, to make dropping all the damage into one component more difficult.

A separate point of much contention in this community. Laughably so.

People should not make real world arguments when talking about MWO. The physics of the weapons don't make sense and neither does the engineering. BT is game made around the size of a table top and all the game mechanics are based on decisions on what will fit with reasonably size models. By all means argue on the grounds of gameplay but don't make reference to real world physics and engineering because the game mechanics already break the rules.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

LRMing effectively, IS.

I can direct fire, and retreat to cover, with a poptart or peektart in under a second. (with a mobile mech).  My shot reaches the target in a fraction of a second, and as such, is much easier to direct to a component.

Now compare that to the steps it takes to get your own lock (approx 3 seconds in best case), which you DO have to largely keep your pipper on the target itself to achieve. Factor in that ECM and Radar Derp and AMS counter Missiles to varying degrees.  Factor in how Concelament/cover breaks your lock and you get to start all over again. Then factor in travel time of the missiles, during which I have to stay exposed and keep my aim in your proximity (though no, not directly on target at this time).  

So if one is getting their own locks, which is how one maximizes tag and artemis for effective spread, 5-6 seconds minimum exposure, all the time eating hitscan counter fire.  

That is objectively more difficult and less efficient than direct fire weaponry.

Yes, if one is simply sitting back and using other peoples target locks, NARC, etc, it is very simple, you can bake a cake while doing it.  But one is seldom being remotely effective while doing so, either.

I am actually kind of taken aback that you are taking that stance. I do run C1's and Mad Dogs to practise lurming. My stats on these mechs indicate that I am 'good' at it. I stay with the team and fire under 600m. I have not however deluded myself into the belief that this is hard. It is easy and only effective in quick play or with my unit with coordinated support. Doing this against good players or teams in FW or group queue is a bad idea. It's too easy to counter and the most skilled lurmer can't make up for the inherent deficiencies. I have experienced getting crushed by good units trying to do it in FW and handed out some of the most lopsided stomps against teams trying to do it to us. There are solid reasons why this attitude is the prevailing one even with guys like me who are casual as far as the competitive scene goes (or just very involved in FW). So while I can easily take you at your word as being well above average in your ability considered your knowledge and understanding of the game, I don't believe in most cases that lurming is high level or has a high skill ceiling.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 25 March 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I am actually kind of taken aback that you are taking that stance. I do run C1's and Mad Dogs to practise lurming. My stats on these mechs indicate that I am 'good' at it. I stay with the team and fire under 600m. I have not however deluded myself into the belief that this is hard. It is easy and only effective in quick play or with my unit with coordinated support. Doing this against good players or teams in FW or group queue is a bad idea. It's too easy to counter and the most skilled lurmer can't make up for the inherent deficiencies. I have experienced getting crushed by good units trying to do it in FW and handed out some of the most lopsided stomps against teams trying to do it to us. There are solid reasons why this attitude is the prevailing one even with guys like me who are casual as far as the competitive scene goes (or just very involved in FW). So while I can easily take you at your word as being well above average in your ability considered your knowledge and understanding of the game, I don't believe in most cases that lurming is high level or has a high skill ceiling.

having a low floor does not mean it can't have a high ceiling.

But due to diminishing returns, when you get to a high skill ceiling (which I am in no way in a class with someone like Jman5, just that the average skill level with LRMs is so low, it's not hard to be markedly above average if you just... work at it), it's just not remotely efficient compared to PPFLD and other direct fire options. The reason those are the meta is that they give you the highest returns for the least energy.

Hence, saying that using LRMs well does require a significant skill investment doe snot mean they are ever on par with direct fire weapons. The LRM is simply mechanically inferior. But it's not a hard equation, to do consistently well against equal or better competition, with a weapon that has as many counters and is as inefficient as the LRM? Sorry but someone like Jman5 is most certainly at a high skill ceiling with LRMs.

Direct ifre is so much more efficient though a person with 75% of Jman's skill will be his equal, if using the mechanically superior direct fire options. Being easier to do well, does not mean that anyone is saying direct fire users are inherently unskilled, which seems to be how so many people take it.

[Ngamok]

The6thMessenger, on 24 March 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

I don't hate LRMs, i hate the player that plays it badly, especially the damn potatoes that hang back and lurm despite having all that armor. People bringing LRM80 Supernova, and the arms aren't unlocked, not actively torso twisting. etc. etc.

And i admit, sometimes i get sloppy, sometimes i get narced in the middle of Polar Highlands and get ****** by hungry LRM-Boats.

But i tried it myself, and i know that it's hard to make it work.

I hate watching people over heat with enemies in their face shooting LRMs or the people who keep doing it under 180m especially in IS LRM boats.. I am pretty decent at using LRMs effectively when in one. I've been around since closed beta and have loved (*cough*) the rule of three, I tend to make each variant of a mech chassis I own play differently. So if one has missile tubes, I'll run LRMs on it, other will be SRMs, last one will be Laser/Ballistics. That way I don't get bored playing everything the same way. Example, of the 5 Stalkers I own, only one of them has LRMs. Others are all lasers or a mix of SRMs and lasers and the Misery with Ballistic and Lasers.

[Ngamok]

ScrapIron Prime, on 24 March 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

The smart Lurmer (if that's a word) fights just behind the brawler line so his/her missles have short flight times, so they can share in the damage soaking , and so they can force mechs back into cover, thus hindering the enemy's ability to concentrate fire and helping your brawlers concentrate theirs. You also need to have enough secondary weapons as to not be helpless.

My favorite LRM boat is in fact an assault mech. Highlander 733P with 2 Artemis 15's, 2 LL, 2 ML. Working at a 400-500 meter range right behind the brawlers, it always has something to fire.

This is me, I don't stand at 1000m like some people. I prefer to be in the mix 500-600m shooting my missiles.

[Kubernetes]

People hate LRMers because the "game" aspect of MWO creates an expectation that if you can hurt me, I can hurt you. Getting LRMed to death in the open induces a sense of hopelessness and rage. Snipers do the same to you, but at least with them you can console yourself that the enemy has skill.

LRMs also tend to suck in solo queue, so we get the idea that LRMs suck in general (except when they're killing you). But in group queue they can be nasty when done as a team with spotters using Narc and Tag. It's a weapon system that really requires a team to leverage its strengths. The other night a group from my unit went undefeated in scouting matches with 3 LRM Shadowcats and an SPL Nova. The Nova would run in trying to leg as many enemies as possible while the 'Cats would lurm the poor cripples to death. Silly, but effective.

[Sorbic]

The Basilisk, on 24 March 2017 - 02:51 AM, said:

Last but not least its the only weaponsystem that solely depends on your enemys faults to be effective.

This is and always has been a load of bull which only remotely applies when the LRM'er is terrible at his job.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 March 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

having a low floor does not mean it can't have a high ceiling.

But due to diminishing returns, when you get to a high skill ceiling (which I am in no way in a class with someone like Jman5, just that the average skill level with LRMs is so low, it's not hard to be markedly above average if you just... work at it), it's just not remotely efficient compared to PPFLD and other direct fire options. The reason those are the meta is that they give you the highest returns for the least energy.

Hence, saying that using LRMs well does require a significant skill investment doe snot mean they are ever on par with direct fire weapons. The LRM is simply mechanically inferior. But it's not a hard equation, to do consistently well against equal or better competition, with a weapon that has as many counters and is as inefficient as the LRM? Sorry but someone like Jman5 is most certainly at a high skill ceiling with LRMs.

Direct ifre is so much more efficient though a person with 75% of Jman's skill will be his equal, if using the mechanically superior direct fire options. Being easier to do well, does not mean that anyone is saying direct fire users are inherently unskilled, which seems to be how so many people take it.

It kind of does though. We see evidence of this in its ineffectiveness against good players, or hell even competent players. I am not that good and play an awful lot. Getting killed by lurms is rare for me, and when it does happen in the vast majority of cases either I am the last man left and the entire team is killing me or I have done something incredibly stupid.

That is the point I made earlier, almost always when someone is killed by lurms it is their fault and not anything to do with the skill of the lurmer. Now as far as skill goes, there are those who can be much more effective than others with a bad weapon, but it really has very little to do with being skilled with the weapon and I contend it is rather directly related to exceptional positioning and situational awareness to be able to succeed with a terrible weapon. So the actual skill is divorced from the weapon unlike PPFLD where there are aspects of both.

While it seems you find it contentious, it is why it always comes back to why comp teams or organised units are not using lurms in any serious manner. Why they are not used by the people who are the best in the game. Simply they are just not a good choice other than in quick play where the level of play is so low, you can get away with almost anything.

[MischiefSC]

Ted Wayz, on 24 March 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Viable in the non-existent competitive environment of MWO? That represents .01% of play.

But in the 99.99% remaining...they seem to work fine.

Maybe next time use bigger words. It might confuse people into believing you.

So your argument is that in pug matches people are so bad even stock builds can have a good game now and again, so thus stock builds are fine?

The argument against LRMs is and has always been that they're only useful against bad players and have a low skill ceiling. That means that good players can only get so good with them.

I have a 6MG, 2LPL, 2SRM6A King Crab I take out for kicks in QP. Sometimes I get a high scoring match in it. Everyone can list bad builds they can still score in QP with. WTF does that have to do with anything about game balance?

Again, you're trying to pretend that there's some moral fact to comp play vs QP or to try and imply that comp play 'doesn't count' because most people suck at the game.

The point is really simple. Comp play matters to game balance because it's the best environment to look at relative performance of equipment and mechs with player performance balanced out of the equation. That's it. LRMs are flat out inferior to direct fire. Full stop. Bad weapons can still kill bad players, even bad players can kill bad players with bad builds. Trying to pretend that has anything, at all, in any way shape or form to do with actual balance or how good or bad something is just points out that so few people actually understand why they won or lost a match.

[PhoenixFire55]

MischiefSC, on 25 March 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

The point is really simple. Comp play matters to game balance because it's the best environment to look at relative performance of equipment and mechs with player performance balanced out of the equation. That's it. LRMs are flat out inferior to direct fire. Full stop.

On Polar LRMs are just as viable in competitive play as direct fire, which is proven already by several A/B division teams winning MRBC and SL drops using LRM decks. Its not only about balancing weapons but also about creating proper maps, i.e. creating different flavoured maps instead of "balanced" ones that are all the same and lead to the same meta that completely excludes something like a brawler Atlas or an LRM boat. Old River and Frozen were good because they were small maps with little to no open spaces where brawlers and coordinated fast push dominated gameplay. Same way Alpine and Polar are good because there is not enough cover for the peek-a-boo alphamech gameplay and coordinated team moves and focused fire decide the outcome.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ngamok, on 25 March 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

I hate watching people over heat with enemies in their face shooting LRMs or the people who keep doing it under 180m especially in IS LRM boats.. I am pretty decent at using LRMs effectively when in one. I've been around since closed beta and have loved (*cough*) the rule of three, I tend to make each variant of a mech chassis I own play differently. So if one has missile tubes, I'll run LRMs on it, other will be SRMs, last one will be Laser/Ballistics. That way I don't get bored playing everything the same way. Example, of the 5 Stalkers I own, only one of them has LRMs. Others are all lasers or a mix of SRMs and lasers and the Misery with Ballistic and Lasers.

preach it!

Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if life was like Meta Comp Play.

Baskin Robbins, home of the 1 Flavor.
Pizza, any type you want, as long as it's pepperoni.
Seafood, only Lobster is good enough to serve

etc.

Seriously, when I was in my old unit and I'd see someone equip all 3 variants essentially the same, I was always like... wow.. does the playlist on your Ipod only have one song, too? (Which of course would be whatever song is number 1 on Rolling Stone magazine that week....)

[FupDup]

CDLord HHGD, on 25 March 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

A real heat scale would help with PPFLD...

Gauss Rifles and IS ACs are PPFLD.

Gauss Rifles and IS ACs generally create low heat, to the point of none at all for some (Gauss and AC/5).

Weapons that don't heat you up don't suffer heat penalties.