271 replies to this topic

[Kubernetes]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 March 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

Wow such amaze, you roll potatoes on Polar and Alpine. That hardly proves anything.

And once again silly argument is silly ... Neither FW or group queue allows you to pick maps, and since the dominant majority of existing maps aren't suited for LRMs nobody takes LRM dropdecks into these modes. Nobody but bads that you supposedly roll with your brawl deck.

Uh, you can't choose the map in FW but you can choose and modify your dropdeck. How many good units drop with LRM decks (I mean seriously, and not for laughs)? None that I know of. LRMs simply aren't viable against competent opponents, regardless of the map. All those wide open maps that are perfect for LRMs are also perfect for ERPPCs, Gauss, and ERLLs. Yeah, my unit drops with LRMs for laughs (with Narc support of course), but not if we know a good group is dropping on the other side.


Also, who cares about DPS? It's meaningless when a quarter of your missiles are hitting dirt and the rest are sandblasting every component of your target. Direct fire can place a big burst of damage into a single components. I'll take that over 'launch-and-pray' every single time.

Edited by Kubernetes, 31 March 2017 - 06:21 PM.

[Mole]

LRMs get hate at lower tiers because low tier potatoes don't know how to cover and get wrecked by LRMs and then complain about them being OP, blissfully unaware that the acronyms "LRM OP" immediately flag them as a potato to anyone experienced in this game. LRMs get hate at higher tiers because they encourage lazy gameplay and often dedicated LRM boats are piloted by potatoes who had gotten used to "stand, point, click" in lower tiers and do not know how to aggressively use their LRMs and resort to sitting at the back in an Assault 'mech with an LRM90, refusing to share armor and going "hold lockz plz" and then blaming their team for not holding locks when they lose, thus not contributing to the battle and also being generally annoying because they are too dumb to get their own locks.

[Thunder Child]

GUYS!
I've figured it out!
After reading through all 14 pages of this shite, I have decided that PGI needs to buff LRMs back up to 1.8 damage per missile, like they were in the glory days of Lurmageddon 2!

Because it is decisively clear that both sides of the arguement are in agreement on the fact that LRMs do indeed suck. Whether or not a player is "Skilled" or Un-Skilled" by using LRMs effectively, well, carry on and argue about that for another 14 Pages.
But it is very clear that LURMs need a Buff to bring them back to their Noob-Tube Glory. And since PGI is never going to rework the fundamentally flawed system that LRMs currently use, let's just go with the usual PGI Over-Twerk..... Um.... I mean, Tweak. 1.8 DAMAGE FOR ALL!!!
Hell, let's remove the decimal place, and make it 18 Damage per Missile, and remove IDF! That will make them Skill Shot Weapons then!

[FireStoat]

MRM's and ATM's will quietly shove LRM's into the waste bin where they belong, unless LRM's reached into a barrel of Lostech and suddenly gained velocity when fired at a target you have personal LOS and a lock to, and their Indirect fire current characteristics that we see now if you're shooting at something you have no LOS to but are using a borrowed lock.

That's too difficult for programmers to figure out (I guess) even if the current LRM firing characteristics are complete trash compared to table top. The new missiles will rule the field.

[Lykaon]

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

This post right here right MacCleary? this guy? This post?

He is actually right within his context of LRM indirect fire. A poptart can NOT actually fire while "IN COVER"

Since the poptart does need a clear lane of fire and flat trajectory to it's intended target it must "pop" up over the cover exposing themselves to potential counter fire.

This is NOT firing while "IN COVER" and is distinctly positioning over cover to aquire the neccissary direct lane of fire with a clear LOS to the target.

I know this seems like symantics to you but, follow me through this. Gimpy clearly meant to emphasize "IN COVER" as this is typed in ALL CAPS in the source posting.

Now I get that you meant that a poptart when sufficently skilled can be very difficult to hit you still missed the very obvious emphasis on "IN COVER".

Now I didn't even bother to latch onto this initially. but in the interest of shooting down your revisionist history of events you were actually off base and missed the emphasized point of "IN COVER".

I also did say that arguing about the percieved value of the damage applied was a seperate topic (and one I find interesting to explore) when I questioned the value of a significantly lower value of pin point damage vs a vastly superior value of diffused (LRM) damage.

But giving how vague you reply to Gimpy was and how bent you seem to get with people (me) making assumptions I will stick to directly pertenent facts.


I actually replied to this very same post. My counterpoint to risk vs reward was that someone who does sit in cover all match lobbing ordnance at locks gained by team mates isn't meeting the potential of the weapon system (LRMs) and as such not meeting the potential rewards of more active play.

So I was already involved in this line of discussion and my motivations were not at all pertaining to you (since at the time when I quoted your post I didn't actually notice it was yours).

I know it's hard to understand that maybe someone does something and it wasn't about you or for you or because of you. It seems you and solipsistic tendencies are well acquainted.

Edited by Lykaon, 01 April 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Lykaon]

FireStoat, on 31 March 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

MRM's and ATM's will quietly shove LRM's into the waste bin where they belong, unless LRM's reached into a barrel of Lostech and suddenly gained velocity when fired at a target you have personal LOS and a lock to, and their Indirect fire current characteristics that we see now if you're shooting at something you have no LOS to but are using a borrowed lock.

That's too difficult for programmers to figure out (I guess) even if the current LRM firing characteristics are complete trash compared to table top. The new missiles will rule the field.

I was thinking much the same.

How much will the upcoming missiles systems impact LRM use and I have wondered if within the new context of sharing the battlefield with newer and more varied missiles systems may it encourage a reworking of LRM mechanics.

I would love to see your suggestion worked on and I have been advocating a similar reworking of LRMs.

Basicaly what you said.

Uplift DIRECT FIRE LRMs to be more competative with other direct fire weapons and retain a similar functionality to INDIRECT FIRE LRMs.

I also feel that without a redressing of mechanics and how the LRM will fit into the new battlefield we may see the LRM go the route of the flamer and end up collecting dust.

[El Bandito]

[MacClearly]

[redacted]

Meh, you are just continuing to carry on and you don't get that things don't occur in a vacuum.

Lrm's are easy to counter. They have a low hit rate and splash damage all over a mech. You can try and argue this all you like but you have nothing to stand on.

5's are garbage because it is easy to just mosey on over to cover or behind a rock with your radar derp and stop the plinking. I am sure though that you have some ridiculous made up scenario in your head, that along with dps numbers lead you to believe you have a point. You likely do, but it is most likely on top of your head.

So, go watch some div a MRBC and try and figure out a couple of things. Hey maybe it will inspire you to come up with some new bs scenario's even more rife with assumptions that you lay out and not prove your point with. That is, if you even have one other than wanting to argue with me. It is nice that you looked into me though and have this focus. Quite sure it is very healthy and normal too.

Edited by Odanan, 08 April 2017 - 01:22 PM.
quote cleanup

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 01 April 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

This post right here right MacCleary? this guy? This post?

He is actually right within his context of LRM indirect fire. A poptart can NOT actually fire while "IN COVER"

Since the poptart does need a clear lane of fire and flat trajectory to it's intended target it must "pop" up over the cover exposing themselves to potential counter fire.

This is NOT firing while "IN COVER" and is distinctly positioning over cover to aquire the neccissary direct lane of fire with a clear LOS to the target.

I know this seems like symantics to you but, follow me through this. Gimpy clearly meant to emphasize "IN COVER" as this is typed in ALL CAPS in the source posting.

Now I get that you meant that a poptart when sufficently skilled can be very difficult to hit you still missed the very obvious emphasis on "IN COVER".

Now I didn't even bother to latch onto this initially. but in the interest of shooting down your revisionist history of events you were actually off base and missed the emphasized point of "IN COVER".

I also did say that arguing about the percieved value of the damage applied was a seperate topic (and one I find interesting to explore) when I questioned the value of a significantly lower value of pin point damage vs a vastly superior value of diffused (LRM) damage.

But giving how vague you reply to Gimpy was and how bent you seem to get with people (me) making assumptions I will stick to directly pertenent facts.


I actually replied to this very same post. My counterpoint to risk vs reward was that someone who does sit in cover all match lobbing ordnance at locks gained by team mates isn't meeting the potential of the weapon system (LRMs) and as such not meeting the potential rewards of more active play.

So I was already involved in this line of discussion and my motivations were not at all pertaining to you (since at the time when I quoted your post I didn't actually notice it was yours).

I know it's hard to understand that maybe someone does something and it wasn't about you or for you or because of you. It seems you and solipsistic tendencies are well acquainted.

Gees I have clarified that for you a bunch of times. Even wrote you a 'treaties' for your big brain to absorb. What part of being able to fire and not take return damage are you struggling with? Don't worry about answering that as it was rhetorical (hey maybe you can look up rhetorical and treatise while you are at it).

At this point I am just openly making fun of you and your lack of knowledge, struggles with the language, and of coarse your ridiculous made up scenarios that prove nothing. Please continue harassing me as I don't care at this point as you are such a joke, no one with half a brain is going take you seriously anyways. Oh and don't expect me to actually read most of the garbage you type out as it is not worth the time.

[Willard Phule]

FireStoat, on 31 March 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

MRM's and ATM's will quietly shove LRM's into the waste bin where they belong, unless LRM's reached into a barrel of Lostech and suddenly gained velocity when fired at a target you have personal LOS and a lock to, and their Indirect fire current characteristics that we see now if you're shooting at something you have no LOS to but are using a borrowed lock.

That's too difficult for programmers to figure out (I guess) even if the current LRM firing characteristics are complete trash compared to table top. The new missiles will rule the field.

Except PGI has proven they are completely incapable of programming ATMs properly. The thing that gave them such an advantage in TT was the different ammo types that could be loaded. PGI can't even get single shot/shotgun slugs to work with LBX.

[HGAK47]

Come on were all guilty, we know its better and more viable to mix lrm and srm to increase chances against close quarters opponents.....

I cant help myself though, I either stack the lurms or stack the surms. Doing things properly..where is the fun in that?

[BabyCakes666]

HGAK47, on 01 April 2017 - 04:55 AM, said:

Come on were all guilty, we know its better and more viable to mix lrm and srm to increase chances against close quarters opponents.....

I cant help myself though, I either stack the lurms or stack the surms. Doing things properly..where is the fun in that?

lrm srm combo might make people hate lrms less

but MWO is all abut the boating

look at my TDR boat all teh puls

El Bandito, on 01 April 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

me when i check on this thread after like a week