271 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Dirus Nigh, on 28 March 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

OK, you dont know what you are talking about. There is nothing in MWO that represents a C3 network. Target data sharing is part of the basic L1 rules. Spotting for indirect fire is part of the L1 rules. Please explain how any thing in MWO makes your weapons more accurate because a team mate is closer to the target than you.

I believe he is just mistaken on what C3 networks did in table top. Or made an assumption that the C3 network was needed for indirect fire of LRMs.

C3 networks had the following effects.

Mechs sharing a C3 network could use the range modifier of the closest mech in the network to a target that both the firing mech and the designated mech had line of sight to.

So a Mech standing 5 hexes away from a target that they had a valid line of sight to could be used as range modifier source for a mech 15 hexes away that also had a valid LOS to the target if both mechs were on a shared C3 network. This applied to any and all weapons.

C3 networks actually grant no benefit to LRM indirect fire nor are they need for LRM indirect fire.

Indirect fire of LRMs required a friendly mech to provide a "lock" for the indirect fired LRMs the spotter needed a valid LOS the launcher does not. However there were modifiers for indirect fire.
The base target number was the gunnery skill of the indirectly firing unit modified for all applicaple penalties (movement/terrain/heat scale/damage) and of course all applicable penalties for the targets movement. In addition to these standard targeting penalties there would be a +1 TN for indirect fire and any movement penalties that were applicable to the spotter is added to the firing units TN.

So gunner skill 3 walking Archer firing at a target indirectly at medium range would have a 3 (gunnery skill) +1 (walking penalty) +1 (indirect fire penalty) +2 medium range penalty. The spotter was running in the turn they are spotting (+2 running penalty) and the target had moved 4 hexes (+1 movement penalty) for a total TN of 10.

[Unquietemu]

Let me explain why people hate LRM's...

1) People think its a noob weapon that's easy to use - it is. It also has lots of counters, so it's actually a noob weapon that has strong counters.

2) People say LRM boats don't "share the armor". We don't. If we did then we would be wasting one of our only avvantages. Instead, the last mech standing is usually a light. This is because LRM boats are at a massive disadvantage in almost all fights . Also, LRM boating creates massive plumes that lead players to the less than capable pilot firing them. It's called support and by support I mean shooting blindly into the air hoping that I might hit something, and as we know, nothing supports the team more than hiding in a ditch . That's why I make my team fight at a disadvantage in all engagements . Its a smarter kind of warfare, so naturally, the people on my team who complain about me are secretly jealous.

3) Spread damage - People don't like LRM's because they don't provide fast direct kills and lots of face time with the enemy. The truth is, yes, LRM's spread a ton of damage. What they are meant to do is give players who don't have the time to invest in the game a weapon that is easy to use, that on papers looks effective and powerful.

4) People thing using LRM's doesn't get you kills - This is a common misconception. LRM's actually do loads of damage and yes, most that damage is spread damage. I've done more kills using LRM's than any other weapon system. Why? Becuase my aim isn't great and I play a ton of LRM mechs. When they are far away, and they don't have LOS and it's polar and they don't have ECM, and I have a narc raven on my team, I get kills . Also, I get kills when the enemy is trying to run away, because my teammates carried me. I don't need to carry, I just press mouse 1.

5) Inability to defend oneself - many players think LRM boats are the only mechs that can't defend themselves. And unless it's an assault mech against a light that's mostly true. The fact of the matter is, that a proper LRM boat should have good backup weapons. My most successful LRM boat builds usually have weapons that aren't LRMs, in fact the ones that have multiple non LRM weapons tend to be better... It's like there's a positive correlation between using non LRM weapons and how well I do . Overall my LRMs are deadweight in a fight and are probably wasted tonnage. I could technically fight with the few lasers but I'd be severely handicapped against almost any other mech.
Conclusion:

LRMs are great for new players who want to dip their toes in and not feel stomped against higher skilled opponents. It offers a chance for players to see some of the depth of the game before delving into more complex weapons. Unfortunately some players don't graduate beyond LRMs and to the higher skill and more effective weapons.

[Shifty McSwift]

Unquietemu, on 29 March 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is, that a proper LRM boat should have good backup weapons.

If they have good backup weapons they aren't a boat at all, they are just a guy who has an lrm heavy build.

Boats are the IS heavies with more than enough space that just have all lrms and nothing else or a small laser "for the flavor" or whatever reason, they usually also travel at about 50-60kph.

Or the clan LRM guy who has all lrms but forgets he can still fire them at point blank.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 29 March 2017 - 01:59 AM.

[Xetelian]

ADR-PRIME

BJ-2(L)

SCR-D

TBR-C

Out of 77 mechs I have 4 with LRMs. That is how I built them, I have enough backup lasers to take down light harassment and when I run dry I can mop up any remaining mechs.


I don't use LRMs very often but I've had great success with the builds I'm using. I get my own locks and I play defense for the other LRM boats that didn't bring back up weapons.


When over half your total damage is invested into LRMs you're an LRM boat. When you pack 1440+ ammo you're an LRM boat.

You don't need to be weaponless out there.


I don't bother with Artemis on LRMs, especially clan LRMs because they stream fire and can be spread by twisting on any mech so bunching them tighter doesn't make sense to me. If I had a Catapult I'd probably run Artemis, any of the IS mechs that can pack in a good amount of LRMs I would probably put artemis.

I just chain fire and rain hell, I once stole 6 kills and did 1000 damage spread between 12 mechs but that doesn't make me a Pro. If you think your huge damage numbers amount to anything when spread between 12 mechs you're sadly mistaken.

[SQW]

I wonder how many people realize you need visual of your target for Artemis to take effect; lobbing them from the back is just wasting those crit slots and extra weight.

[PhoenixFire55]

Dirus Nigh, on 28 March 2017 - 09:33 PM, said:

OK, you dont know what you are talking about. There is nothing in MWO that represents a C3 network. Target data sharing is part of the basic L1 rules. Spotting for indirect fire is part of the L1 rules. Please explain how any thing in MWO makes your weapons more accurate because a team mate is closer to the target than you.

Since the person I quoted wasn't talking about MWO either you can take your comment and put it back right where it came from (i.e. your ar*e).

[Lykaon]

Unquietemu, on 29 March 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

Let me explain why people hate LRM's...

1) People think its a noob weapon that's easy to use - it is. It also has lots of counters, so it's actually a noob weapon that has strong counters.

2) People say LRM boats don't "share the armor". We don't. If we did then we would be wasting one of our only avvantages. Instead, the last mech standing is usually a light. This is because LRM boats are at a massive disadvantage in almost all fights . Also, LRM boating creates massive plumes that lead players to the less than capable pilot firing them. It's called support and by support I mean shooting blindly into the air hoping that I might hit something, and as we know, nothing supports the team more than hiding in a ditch . That's why I make my team fight at a disadvantage in all engagements . Its a smarter kind of warfare, so naturally, the people on my team who complain about me are secretly jealous.

3) Spread damage - People don't like LRM's because they don't provide fast direct kills and lots of face time with the enemy. The truth is, yes, LRM's spread a ton of damage. What they are meant to do is give players who don't have the time to invest in the game a weapon that is easy to use, that on papers looks effective and powerful.

4) People thing using LRM's doesn't get you kills - This is a common misconception. LRM's actually do loads of damage and yes, most that damage is spread damage. I've done more kills using LRM's than any other weapon system. Why? Becuase my aim isn't great and I play a ton of LRM mechs. When they are far away, and they don't have LOS and it's polar and they don't have ECM, and I have a narc raven on my team, I get kills . Also, I get kills when the enemy is trying to run away, because my teammates carried me. I don't need to carry, I just press mouse 1.

5) Inability to defend oneself - many players think LRM boats are the only mechs that can't defend themselves. And unless it's an assault mech against a light that's mostly true. The fact of the matter is, that a proper LRM boat should have good backup weapons. My most successful LRM boat builds usually have weapons that aren't LRMs, in fact the ones that have multiple non LRM weapons tend to be better... It's like there's a positive correlation between using non LRM weapons and how well I do . Overall my LRMs are deadweight in a fight and are probably wasted tonnage. I could technically fight with the few lasers but I'd be severely handicapped against almost any other mech.
Conclusion:

LRMs are great for new players who want to dip their toes in and not feel stomped against higher skilled opponents. It offers a chance for players to see some of the depth of the game before delving into more complex weapons. Unfortunately some players don't graduate beyond LRMs and to the higher skill and more effective weapons.

1) entry level skill requirement for bare bones Lobbing LRMs from under cover from a "safe" distance off friendly locks = very low. But is this the sort of pilot anyone worries about? Nope. It's the guy who seems to be everywhere always no matter what you do there's missiles pinning you down. Once a player learns how to use LRMs to exert influance upon enemy movement they are starting to get it.Once you figure out that the LRM will not outshoot most direct fire weapons but what is uniquely does is project an area of influance that nothing else can touch.

2) Yep a LURMtater that parks behind a hill all match and lobs ordnance from 800+ meters back isn't sharing armor. They are however forcing the enemy to share theirs. A proficient LRM support pilot is a close support platform. Engaging the enemy at 600m or less (well within the normal engagement ranges of most mechs). If you think indirect fire is your only advantage look harder.Indirect fire is the obvious advantage but hardley the only advantage you can leverage.

3) LRMs spread damage but there are techniques to reduce spread. Use of Artemis and TAG/NARC tightens groupings. Massed LRM5 (group fired) over single large launchers (LRM5 have a tighter spread even after the recent nerf) Manuver for better angels shots from the flank or rear will concentrate hits on one side or on weak rear armor. But you are correct spike pinpoint damage is not what LRMs are use for. They are excellent at melting armor off enemy mechs that will need to engage your direct fire team mates without much armor spare for twisting away damage.

4) Getting kills is fine when it's in the best intersest of your team to do so. I know you are thinking " but when isn't it in the team's best interest?" No point in firing on a mech that is already crippled and engaged by multiple team mates. This is a secured kill. Chasing a running light mech with streams of LRMs isn't efficent targeting elsewhere will probably serve the team better than taking a lot of time killing a light. But if there is an enemy mech or two moving on a flank suppress those targets instead.Preventing damage to team mates who exstended out of defensable cover for the kill is of greater importance. Preserving your teams offensive capabilities is always in the team's best intrests.

5) Ironicly I find that non assault LRM carriers are conciderably better at self defense on average.I also rarely advocate dedicated LRM assault mechs (with exception to heavily quirked chassis or clan mechs that can fit sufficent secondary weapons to be flexable) The newbie LRMer is the guy who thinks it's all about sitting in cover with absurd levels of ammo and spamming ordnance. These guys havn't figured out that manuver is a huge part of LRM support when done correctly. By using a faster chassis you are more capable of defense by simply not ever being caught in an unfavorable circumstance.


I get what your doing here and it's transparent unless of course you really don't know how to improve your LRM game?

I am one of those players who enjoys becoming proficient in several types of combat. Brawling,Skirmishing,LRM close support and recently working on my gauss sniper game ( I am utter trash at it right now).

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Whelp show me where I ever said they competitive and I guess we would be on to something. Hell, I don't think they are particularly good. I just find it funny the disconnect we see with Competitive Players, and maybe some concern that people are throwing shade at their twitch skill epeen.... but....

If a weapon is NOT good, and is unanimously considered inferior to direct fire... yet someone like Jman5 can use them (even if not as well as direct fire).... that by it's very nature...no, does not say LRMs are competitive.. but that yes, there is a very high skill ceiling to them, or they would never be able to be used even remotely competitively, by even top tier players.

You take an inferior weapon, and compete at a high level with it.... it doesn't make the weapon better, but it inherently implies a significant amount of skill was required to make that weapon perform.

And whether it's pigheadedness, rank ignorance, fear to even admit a lock on weapon CAN take skill,whatever...it's just damn ludicrous to see the mental gymnastics some folks on here have gone to to denigrate anyone who uses LRMs for any reason, as being "unskilled players".

Meh.

With respect. This issue seems to be an irritant. Am summizing that has a lot to do with how much this comes up in the forums and how polarizing it seems to be.

So much of the argument seems to go back and forth from what can be perceived as symantics, the other thing is clearly if people are taking such a negative stance towards people who enjoy something, there's going to be conflict.

This is my take on what has been said and my opinion.

A very skilled player is able to somewhat mitigate the inherent deficiencies of lrms. Supperior positioning, intimate map knowledge, and ability to find good angles being key to (of coarse in my opinion but I think we are at least close to the same feeling on this part) maximizing the effectiveness or use of this weapon. This same player as I recall you saying also, would likely do better with the lasers or meta or whatever. However, guys of this kind of calibur are going to succeed.

When I say that lurms have a low skill ceiling, I am not negating the above. These I consider transferable skills. What I am specifically referring to is that the actual mechanic of the weapon itself has a low skill ceiling.

So being that I run lurms, actually I really and truly try to practise everything in this game. I strive for mediocrity in all roles and all play styles at every weight class. Being this way means I actually do stuff I am not found of. However, even being a potato, I can achieve (in quick play) consistent and reliably good results. My C1 and Mad Dog have kdr's 1.8+ which is good for me as I have more mechs around 1.2-1.6. When I had some tendon issues I lurmed for a week straight and out of curiosity watched as I racked up 242 kills (mostly in a Mad Dog like close to 90% I would estimate) to a 139 deaths before I started messing around with other stuff (mostly lights) when hand felt better. There are only two other things that I could have to do as well or better, which would be running a UAC5 Night Gyr which I think is probably the easiest way to make money even after the nerf (I am a weirdo though as I do better in it than I do in the UAC KDK3), or run Battlemaster 2C/Marauder IIC laser vomit builds which I seem to get the most kills/average score and that kind of thing.

My point is that it didn't require skill. It is easy to use them, and not hard to get them to work. Seems like because of these reasons, we see too many of them in quick play. We also see terrible builds that make no sense. When I first started playing, lrm Atlas' were very rare. Same with the King Crab. I see them tons now along with Spirt Bear's, Scorches, Oxides and so on and so on...

This kind of bs is where the anger comes from. It isn't pure snobbery all of the time it's the frustration of how many people seem to have an absolute crap understanding of this game. At a very basic level. What I mean is taking the Night Gyr for an example, as good as it does the meta or UAC, due to space limits and tonnage availability, it makes one of the most heavy hitting lurm boats out there. I never think what an idiot that guy is like I do when I see someone doing it in an Atlas. But to take a Scorch with its insane brawling capabilities and turn it into a second line mech is off the chain baddy thinking. Even people in the upper tiers seem to be really clueless. Like putting lrm 10's on a AWS 8R....

While I know it is never going to happen, because of the kind of weapon it is and all of what goes with it, what I would be dying to see is that there was a cap of two or three lurm boats per team. Not just lurms though I would love to see that done with sniping/ppc gauss mechs as well. You see when you lore guys talk about roles, to even some of us not so familiar with lore, this sounds very appealing. A few scouts, some brawlers, a couple of snipers, some lurm arty support and fast skirmishers to round it off. That would make for a much better match in my opinion if that could be enforced, but considering how even weight classes are so lopsided.....

Edited by MacClearly, 29 March 2017 - 01:48 PM.

[MacClearly]

Gimpy117, on 27 March 2017 - 06:24 PM, said:

I don't really care about LRM's being competitive or not. it's about risk/reward and currently there isn't that much risk to sit behind a hill a throw auto targeting missiles 1k or so

LRM boats can never be bad IMO because it's the only weapon that can be fire IN COVER

no one else can do this. it's a giant advantage

A really good pop tart, not the guy that floats way up into the air so you can get full burn with a large pulse, but a good one will not only have this same advantage, he will be doing much more effective damage.

Even a semi competent guy who abuses or overuses the same spot and pops a little to high will perform much better than the lurmer.

Edited by MacClearly, 29 March 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[MischiefSC]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 March 2017 - 12:20 AM, said:

Competitive scene (if we are talking about it) hasn't seen 12v12 matches for like 3+ years now. And regardless, clan narc has effective range of 750m, you can focus an Arctic Cheezer or a SHC peeking/jumping from different spots 750m away all you want, you won't be able to kill it right away, and it only needs 2-3 narc hits to decimate your team.

So in a comp match you've listed 2 matches which I looked for and could not find, but I believe you. Good teams make bad mistakes and it's possible for someone to get caught out by LRMs and not push.

However you're still trying to pretend that this is going to work when in practice it doesn't unless the other teams is bad. There's hundreds of matches in the last season of MRBC and it's statistically possible that in one or two someone stood under the rain.

I get narced in FW all the time. Usually I just step into cover or ECM and the team takes it as a good excuse to push. If there's no cover or ECM I just twist and push - same as when we have to rush a firing line but I die mich, much more quickly to a firing line.

I don't recall the last time we lost to an LRM team and we play them often and we run almost universally brawling decks.

All of which is moot. Go win MRBC or RHoD or consistently beat good teams with LRMs. Go take an LRM team and dominate a leadwrboard in FW. That's not happening because it's an inferior strategy and weapon system. That's not some moralistic judgement but an observation of performance. All the what-if and wishful theorizing fails in the face of what plays out in game.

Keep bringing LRMs, it keeps our W/L high. However being honest about the realities of what works and what doesn't is how you get to useful, meaningful conversations about balance.

[Mcgral18]

SQW, on 29 March 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

I wonder how many people realize you need visual of your target for Artemis to take effect; lobbing them from the back is just wasting those crit slots and extra weight.

There's always the lock benefit, even with indirect

Half lock time is important

[Ghogiel]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

So in a comp match you've listed 2 matches which I looked for and could not find, but I believe you. Good teams make bad mistakes and it's possible for someone to get caught out by LRMs and not push.

JGx LRMed last season on the heavy drop last match of the season I think. They might have even been playing 7 vs 8 that one and only pasha died. They stuck him in the low ground kill zone as tasty DWF bait on tourmaline, and lurmed from the high ground ridge just above it for a ggclose.

was hilarious.

Edited by Ghogiel, 29 March 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[Alreech]

LRM Boats in PUG ?
Forget it.
Most MWO players are to stupid to hold a target lock, even if their live depends on it (like if they are running around in circles with an other, stronger mech slowly tearing them appart).
Even if the are able to hold a lock, ECM and Radar Derp kills it quickly. Most light mechs don't mount a TAG, a NARC oder BAP to counter ECM and / or provide aim for LRM Boats. Sometimes the players are even to stupid to change their ECM mode...

Let's take a look on the "noob mechs"... the trial mechs.
AMS ? Nope.
Scouts with BAP / TAG / NARC ? Nope
The only Mechs with TAG are the LRM Boats... and that makes it worse.
Because it works without teamwork, at 750 metres.

PGI promissed a lot about mech roles, information warfare and teamwork.
Mech roles ?
Lights and medium are dead if they do something different than running around and brawl or snipe under ECM cover.

Information warfare ?
The minimap is useless thanks Radar Derp and ECM. But hey, if your team is mostly on the same teamspeak calling out enemys positions in that gives your group an advantage...

Teamwork ?
Put 2 PPCs and a Gauss / 2 Gauss and a PPC / 3+ Larger Lasers / 4+ Ultra ACs in your mech and you don't need teamwork. I's like instagib in UT, only slower.

MWO has 99problems, but the LRMs is a low one.
In many cases (replacing a SRM 2 with a LRM 20...) the LRM problems have the same source than most of the other (replacing the MGs with AC 20s...).

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 29 March 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

A really good pop tart, not the guy that floats way up into the air so you can get full burn with a large pulse, but a good one will not only have this same advantage, he will be doing much more effective damage.

Even a semi competent guy who abuses or overuses the same spot and pops a little to high will perform much better that the lurmer.

You are overlooking the other applications of LRM support. Falling into the usual argument of this apple makes a terrible orange thus apples are bad.

The direct fire poptart shares one similar (yet not identical) factor with LRMs. The poptart is utilizing a technique to maximize cover and minimize exposure.Similar to the capacity of indirect fire that LRMs possess.

While outwardly it may appear like a good compareson it really only applies to the hypothetical LRMer that hugs cover all match.The argumet of simularity is based upon a compareson of a poptart (a tactic that by it's definition must function in a particular way) and an LRM user (that does not have to hug cover to be classified as an LRM mech but can also maximize cover use via use of a tactic)

The validity of the compareson fall away the moment the LRM carrier is a mobile platform and engaging actively with direct fire. The tactics in use for the LRM boat are now vastly different than a poptart.

And now I will address the differences present even if/when the LRM boat is utilizing a static position and indirect fire.

The technique of poptarting is you take up position under cover with a clear lane of fire to a position the enemy is occupying or will soon occupy. it is by it's very nature narrowly focused on a specific fire lane and direction.Targets laying outside of the cone of fire presented by the angle of cover and line of fire are not under threat from the poptart.

A position occupied by an indirect firing LRM boat utilizes the angle of cover as a means of defense from counterfire however they are free to pivot in any desired direction while behind the cover. The area of projected threat for the LRM carrier is a 360 degree area exstending outward to nearly 1km in all directions. Any and all potential targets within this area regardless of clear fire lanes is potentially threatened by the indirect fire. The limiting factors are not a clear fire lane with a flat unobstructed trajectory along a narrow cone of influance (like the poptart) but limited only by range and lock aquisistion.

Your definition of "perform" (much better) is narrowly focused on damage and how/where it's applied and not on flexability of application of damage or ramifications of the threat of applied damage.

Basicly if you only mean which of the two has pinpoint front loaded damage than yes the poptart can do that while utilizing cover efficently.( the poptart is a better orangethan an apple) If you look at a bigger picture beyond a handpicked scenario then the poptart is still not doing what the LRM carrier could be doing.

I define effective in ways beyond what does the optimum damage set by a specific formula. To me a LRM boat that can pivot and lend supporting fire towards the rear to support an assault mech under attack from a light is more effective than a poptart dealing 20 point PPFLD shots every 6-8 seconds along a narrow cone of fire (arguable that a direct fire mech simply pressing the enemy will do more damage in less time).

The poptart is doing more damage that aids them specificly by racking up a good score the LRM carrier is doing damage to preserve the team's assets so the team can do more overall. Both contribute just the LRM user is not as easily seen or recognized.

I guess what I'm saying is if the compreson is between a proficient poptarter and a proficient LRM support pilot the LRM support pilot is far less of a one trick pony with a larger bag of tricks available to adapt to new circumstances. If the circumstances change for the poptart frequently the tactic of being a poptart is abandoned the LRM carrier is stil an LRM carrier utilizing new tactics.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 29 March 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

You are overlooking the other applications of LRM support. Falling into the usual argument of this apple makes a terrible orange thus apples are bad.

The direct fire poptart shares one similar (yet not identical) factor with LRMs. The poptart is utilizing a technique to maximize cover and minimize exposure.Similar to the capacity of indirect fire that LRMs possess.

While outwardly it may appear like a good compareson it really only applies to the hypothetical LRMer that hugs cover all match.The argumet of simularity is based upon a compareson of a poptart (a tactic that by it's definition must function in a particular way) and an LRM user (that does not have to hug cover to be classified as an LRM mech but can also maximize cover use via use of a tactic)

The validity of the compareson fall away the moment the LRM carrier is a mobile platform and engaging actively with direct fire. The tactics in use for the LRM boat are now vastly different than a poptart.

And now I will address the differences present even if/when the LRM boat is utilizing a static position and indirect fire.

The technique of poptarting is you take up position under cover with a clear lane of fire to a position the enemy is occupying or will soon occupy. it is by it's very nature narrowly focused on a specific fire lane and direction.Targets laying outside of the cone of fire presented by the angle of cover and line of fire are not under threat from the poptart.

A position occupied by an indirect firing LRM boat utilizes the angle of cover as a means of defense from counterfire however they are free to pivot in any desired direction while behind the cover. The area of projected threat for the LRM carrier is a 360 degree area exstending outward to nearly 1km in all directions. Any and all potential targets within this area regardless of clear fire lanes is potentially threatened by the indirect fire. The limiting factors are not a clear fire lane with a flat unobstructed trajectory along a narrow cone of influance (like the poptart) but limited only by range and lock aquisistion.

Your definition of "perform" (much better) is narrowly focused on damage and how/where it's applied and not on flexability of application of damage or ramifications of the threat of applied damage.

Basicly if you only mean which of the two has pinpoint front loaded damage than yes the poptart can do that while utilizing cover efficently.( the poptart is a better orangethan an apple) If you look at a bigger picture beyond a handpicked scenario then the poptart is still not doing what the LRM carrier could be doing.

I define effective in ways beyond what does the optimum damage set by a specific formula. To me a LRM boat that can pivot and lend supporting fire towards the rear to support an assault mech under attack from a light is more effective than a poptart dealing 20 point PPFLD shots every 6-8 seconds along a narrow cone of fire (arguable that a direct fire mech simply pressing the enemy will do more damage in less time).

The poptart is doing more damage that aids them specificly by racking up a good score the LRM carrier is doing damage to preserve the team's assets so the team can do more overall. Both contribute just the LRM user is not as easily seen or recognized.

I guess what I'm saying is if the compreson is between a proficient poptarter and a proficient LRM support pilot the LRM support pilot is far less of a one trick pony with a larger bag of tricks available to adapt to new circumstances. If the circumstances change for the poptart frequently the tactic of being a poptart is abandoned the LRM carrier is stil an LRM carrier utilizing new tactics.

No, no I am not. A pop tart can fire in a manner that it is difficult or impossible to fire back. It is that simple. While no one is saying that they do it the same, both can effectively fire behind cover.

I am also baffled why you are bringing up 'hypothetical LRMer that hugs cover all match'. You seem to have a strong predilection towards assumption and reading into what people say. Whether either player would hide behind anything for an entire match is irrelevant. Not part of the conversation at all. It was a simple and direct statement between two people about one particular function. That's it.

Again I don't know after our previous interactions why you are engaging me at all, as I really have very little tolerance for you. Again this is not going to be an exchange of ideas or discussion. I only do that with people I respect and for the most part people who are able to make a point, stay on topic, not get insulting, and especially not read into or assume a bunch of things not related. I actually think you accused me before of obfuscating. Anyways knock it off. Go your own way. Had enough of this kind of nonsense with another guy on here and do not want to continue.

[MischiefSC]

Ghogiel, on 29 March 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

JGx LRMed last season on the heavy drop last match of the season I think. They might have even been playing 7 vs 8 that one and only pasha died. They stuck him in the low ground kill zone as tasty DWF bait on tourmaline, and lurmed from the high ground ridge just above it for a ggclose.

was hilarious.

Bowero, a friend of mine, plays a NARC spider like an artist. It can be comedy gold to catch someone in the open and demolish them with LRMs because it's like an execution with a built in teabagging.

Same reason I love getting a kill with an AC20 Urbie.

I just don't pretend in either case that doing so makes me hardcore or that I'm not winning as much because the other team was foolish than because I was skilled.

[PhoenixFire55]

MischiefSC, on 29 March 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

I don't recall the last time we lost to an LRM team and we play them often and we run almost universally brawling decks.

All of which is moot. Go win MRBC or RHoD or consistently beat good teams with LRMs. Go take an LRM team and dominate a leadwrboard in FW. That's not happening because it's an inferior strategy and weapon system. That's not some moralistic judgement but an observation of performance. All the what-if and wishful theorizing fails in the face of what plays out in game.

Look, you are once again missing the entire point. Of course you win against LRM teams because you never face good teams with LRM simply due to the fact there is exactly one map (maybe two) where LRMs work. No good team brings LRMs on a constant basis because of that. Once again as I've already said if all drops of RHoD/MRBC were on Polar or similar maps with no cover you'd probably see a different picture.

[Shifty McSwift]

Wait was the argument ever that LRMs should be competitive with direct damage/high alpha strike weapons? They are a category of their own and constitute one supportive weapon with a different mode of fire that is suitable to different scenarios, most mechs looking to optimise their damage, range and combat conditions potentials would take some kind of LRM to ensure that even if it is only minimal extra damage, there will be plenty of occasions where one can take advantage.

Boating them can cut through this when the boat takes full advantage in those specific circumstances and/or uses other tech to boost his abilities, making them capable of outdoing other face strike high alpha damage types from the base advantages of the weapon, but in a straight up fight, yeah that alpha striker is going to cut that boat in half while most of his missiles are still in flight, because that is not the task LRMs are designed to be used optimally for, and it is usually all boats have.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 30 March 2017 - 12:20 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Go 1v1 as an LRM boat vs almost any build, see how often they lose in those conditions, then try to argue that lrms aren't a support weapon. They can be boated and can do huge amounts of damage in the best of circumstances, but those circumstances require coordination by a team.

Much like how if you were to combine LRMs with other weapons on a single mech to optimise damage dealing conditions as you can coordinate your usage of them in conjunction with those other weapons, if you boat only LRMs you need to combine your efforts with other mechs (who aren't LRM boats) to get those optimal damage numbers.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 30 March 2017 - 12:39 AM.

[MacClearly]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 March 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

Look, you are once again missing the entire point. Of course you win against LRM teams because you never face good teams with LRM simply due to the fact there is exactly one map (maybe two) where LRMs work. No good team brings LRMs on a constant basis because of that. Once again as I've already said if all drops of RHoD/MRBC were on Polar or similar maps with no cover you'd probably see a different picture.

I actually think the point is that even a good lrm team on polar is going to lose to a decent team on polar that is ppc heavy.