271 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

LRMs teach players to play poorly. It's a weapon system designed around someone else taking risks for you and requiring your team to carry you.

When someone takes LRMs to a win in a comp environment and actually shows that they are not flat out inferior, then great. Until then, they're the hallmark of bad players demanding someone else carry them and them bragging when carries to victory about how much (mostly worthless) damage they did.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 24 March 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

LRMs teach players to play poorly. It's a weapon system designed around someone else taking risks for you and requiring your team to carry you.

When someone takes LRMs to a win in a comp environment and actually shows that they are not flat out inferior, then great. Until then, they're the hallmark of bad players demanding someone else carry them and them bragging when carries to victory about how much (mostly worthless) damage they did.

nothing remotely suspiciously biased sounding here......

For the record? A GOOD player makes use of all the mechanics available to achieve victory... and good players know that damage dealt is a largely worthless statistic, good for epeen, and little else. Give me a moderate damage score, and multiple MKMDD and solo kills, and tbh those mean more to me than raw damage, or kills, or assists. As those are the only stats you can't really game and inflate.

As for mechanics? I will always strive for LoS (unless doing so get's me instagibbed) but as a smart LRM user, when I use them, I also freely will use other people's lock, UAVs, etc to add damage, suppression and cause units to move to cover, while maneuvering into position for my own LoS.

But if I have a decent NARCer on my team? I'd be stupid to expose myself more than needed considering the travel, lock and other time factors to using LRMs.. during which I am taking return fire with hitscan to near hitscan weapons.

And that is the think I think most epeener's dislike... a smart LRM user "doesn't play fair".... because if one is playing "fair" with LRMs the deck is stacked against you. You will never get the full range out of LRMs, and by the time you lock and hit with one volley of spread missile damage, you have taken 2-3 volleys in your fave of PP return fire.

So yeah, if the church of skill folk want to cry "fake damage, fake skills" etc? I'll simply say...adapt or get rekt, chump.

To actually be GOOD with LRMs takes a hell of a lot of work.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 March 2017 - 11:48 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

LRMs teach players to play poorly. It's a weapon system designed around someone else taking risks for you and requiring your team to carry you.

except when you use direct lrms youre getting your own locks. only indirect lrms require someone else taking risks for you.

which is why I suggested buffing direct lrms and making indirect lrms require a tag/narc. in addition to changing the nature of ecm so it no longer gives blanket stealth.

that rewards you more for getting your own locks, makes indirect fire and exploiting other people's risks less rewarding, but still allows LRMs to indirect fire as part of a consolidated team effort using TAG/NARC.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[InspectorG]

Khobai, on 24 March 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

except when you use direct lrms youre getting your own locks. only indirect lrms require someone else taking risks for you.

Skilled LRM user vs skilled ERPPC poptart.

Who wins more often and why?

[Khobai]

Quote

Skilled LRM user vs skilled ERPPC poptart.

please read my posts

I already explained that direct LRMs need a buff. And I explained how to buff them

Buffing direct LRMs lets them compete better with other direct fire weapons. Nerfing indirect LRMs by making them require TAG/NARC prevents exploitation of your teammates that are taking risks, except in cases where your teammates voluntarily use TAG/NARC in order to help their teammates hit with indirect LRMs.

Every major issue with LRMs is addressed.

Will LRMs ever be equal to ERPPCs for direct fire. No. But LRMs shouldnt be as good as an ERPPC at direct fire because they have the ability to indirect fire. Its simply a matter of finding the proper balance of how good LRMs should be at direct fire to offset their ability to indirect fire. Right now that balance is a bit off and LRMs could stand to be much better at direct fire and a little worse at indirect fire.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2017 - 12:06 PM.

[Ghogiel]

lurms are whack because hiding in the back whilr beating off is what most of them end up doing. 99% of good players aren't usually caught playing one, so when you do see a lurmer the odds are he's a T5 potato and just gets swatted by the superior players. Even in coordintated group on polar the lurmtards seem to get rekt because we just steam them over with only a few casualties.

Edited by Ghogiel, 24 March 2017 - 12:04 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ghogiel, on 24 March 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

lurms are whack because hiding in the back whilr beating off is what most of them end up doing.

I can do pretty much the same thing with poptarting. Hell I can even tie my JJs into my mouse, to have my hand free.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Wow, many of the recent posts are so full of venom and sweeping generalizations that they prove the OP's point nicely.

Poor players do poorly, regardless of the weapon system.

[CDLord HHGD]

I've been having loads of fun in my CN9-AH with Gauss + 3xLRM5 build lately.

[Bishop Steiner]

CDLord HHGD, on 24 March 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

I've been having loads of fun in my CN9-AH with Gauss + 3xLRM5 build lately.

proof you are bad and should feel bad.

Trew stoary

[CDLord HHGD]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

proof you are bad and should feel bad.

Trew stoary

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

nothing remotely suspiciously biased sounding here......

For the record? A GOOD player makes use of all the mechanics available to achieve victory... and good players know that damage dealt is a largely worthless statistic, good for epeen, and little else. Give me a moderate damage score, and multiple MKMDD and solo kills, and tbh those mean more to me than raw damage, or kills, or assists. As those are the only stats you can't really game and inflate.

As for mechanics? I will always strive for LoS (unless doing so get's me instagibbed) but as a smart LRM user, when I use them, I also freely will use other people's lock, UAVs, etc to add damage, suppression and cause units to move to cover, while maneuvering into position for my own LoS.

But if I have a decent NARCer on my team? I'd be stupid to expose myself more than needed considering the travel, lock and other time factors to using LRMs.. during which I am taking return fire with hitscan to near hitscan weapons.

And that is the think I think most epeener's dislike... a smart LRM user "doesn't play fair".... because if one is playing "fair" with LRMs the deck is stacked against you. You will never get the full range out of LRMs, and by the time you lock and hit with one volley of spread missile damage, you have taken 2-3 volleys in your fave of PP return fire.

So yeah, if the church of skill folk want to cry "fake damage, fake skills" etc? I'll simply say...adapt or get rekt, chump.

To actually be GOOD with LRMs takes a hell of a lot of work.

Bad argument is bad. Being good with **** builds or bad builds is a lot of work. Being good with standard heatsinks or a mech that only goes 32kph is hard. That doesn't make them good - it makes them bad and 99x out of 100 it makes you a jackass for taking it. The 1 in 100 matches you do well in are more about having been carries than you carrying. This isn't about adapting or anything else. Its about LRMs being bad, the nature of indirect fire in a 12 v 12 team game involving focus fire and all the usual stuff.

As said before, will say again. Go ahead and beat a top tier direct fire team with LRMs. Actually prove that LRMs are good and using them is not inherently inferior and by relation intentionally sandbagging your team. Then people will quit mocking it.

We all know that's not going to happen and that taking **** builds isn't something worth respecting.

Edited by MischiefSC, 24 March 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 24 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Bad argument is bad. Being good with **** builds or bad builds is a lot of work. Being good with standard heatsinks or a mech that only goes 32kph is hard. That doesn't make them good - it makes them bad and 99x out of 100 it makes you a jackass for taking it. The 1 in 100 matches you do well in are more about having been carries than you carrying. This isn't about adapting or anything else. Its about LRMs being bad, the nature of indirect fire in a 12 v 12 team game involving focus fire and all the usual stuff.

As said before, will say again. Go ahead and beat a top tier direct fire team with LRMs. Actually prove that LRMs are good and using them is not inherently inferior and by relation intentionally sandbagging your team. Then people will quit mocking it.

We all know that's not going to happen and that taking **** builds isn't something worth respecting.

and that was never my argument... though apparently I touched a soft spot...which is odd....since last I checked, you weren't exactly a top tier player yourself....

"Until then, they're the hallmark of bad players demanding someone else carry them and them bragging when carries to victory about how much (mostly worthless) damage they did. "

I could care less what Epeen nation thinks, or what works there... I've watched their matches enough to know I would be bored to tears. And nothing to do with skill... but sheer repetitiveness it inspires. I am merely taking you to task with your @sshat assertion that only bads ever use lrms, inflated epeen, blah blah blah, which is akin to a lot of the bile you've been spewing for the last year, since you decided PGI touched your paperdoll in the wrong way.

I'm not sure if you trying to parade around like a sheep in Comps clothing is sad or just laughable.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 March 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[oldradagast]

chucklesMuch, on 24 March 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

Aw but that mech is so much fun boating SRMS!

True, but he could have still kept 5 or so SRM packs and one decent size LRM launcher... or, if he loves LRM's, gone with 3 LRM10's or 2 LRM 15's and still had backup weapons. But no... he goes full on LRM and dies.

A few matches later, we had the King Crab chain firing 2 AC2's, closing to machine gun range to use his his machine guns, and he put a single LRM 5 on his mech. I don't even... Well, he had 3 large lasers, so it wasn't a total loss. I guess the larger point is bad builds are always going to be bad, which is not unique to LRM's. But, for whatever reason, LRM's seem to encourage it and they brutally punish that mistake when a foe gets under 180 meters.

[Khobai]

Quote

Poor players do poorly, regardless of the weapon system.

while true it still doesnt change the fact that lrms need a buff.

[Ghogiel]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

I can do pretty much the same thing with poptarting. Hell I can even tie my JJs into my mouse, to have my hand free.

And you'll be getting rekt either way.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ghogiel, on 24 March 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

And you'll be getting rekt either way.

cool story. Contributes nothing useful, as per norm, but cool story, nonetheless.

[Novakaine]

Well to sum this all up.
I say............

And always carry some backup.

Edited by Novakaine, 24 March 2017 - 01:26 PM.

[Mawcor]

Worth noting here is that a weapon doesn't get a lot of complaints just for being ineffective. Flamers and machine guns are also super niche, limited-value weapons. The LBX 2 is basically just an AC 2 with added spread, but none of those ever really generate vitriol the LRMs have at times. The point being, I wouldn't say effectiveness or lack thereof of LRMs is really why they are seen the way they are.

I think it comes down to two things, both of which have been touched on in the thread already, though I don't know if they've been fully elaborated on.

First, that issue of perceived unfairness. An LRM mech with a spotter in a good position, or who's firing into combat that's already underway, has a chance to do damage to someone with no real ability to shoot back. That can be very frustrating for the person being shot.

Second, is the issue of sharing armour. I think a lot of the dislike of LRMs on one's team isn't so much about the weapons themselves, but certain behaviors that LRMs allow. People get into a mindset of 'this weapon can indirect fire, so I can do damage without taking fire, so I should hang back and lob LRMs'. The argument might be made that someone who can do damage without taking return fire is doing better than someone who does the same damage but gets shot in turn.
The problem with this reasoning is that borrowing locks to do damage doesn't prevent the damage from happening but rather shunts it to someone else. Avoiding damage is all well and good, but avoiding it by forcing it onto another player is selfish. And maybe even detrimental to the team, since it encourages the enemy to focus fire.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

and that was never my argument... though apparently I touched a soft spot...which is odd....since last I checked, you weren't exactly a top tier player yourself....

"Until then, they're the hallmark of bad players demanding someone else carry them and them bragging when carries to victory about how much (mostly worthless) damage they did. "

I could care less what Epeen nation thinks, or what works there... I've watched their matches enough to know I would be bored to tears. And nothing to do with skill... but sheer repetitiveness it inspires. I am merely taking you to task with your @sshat assertion that only bads ever use lrms, inflated epeen, blah blah blah, which is akin to a lot of the bile you've been spewing for the last year, since you decided PGI touched your paperdoll in the wrong way.

I'm not sure if you trying to parade around like a sheep in Comps clothing is sad or just laughable.

Touched a nerve? It's big stomp robots. There is no nerve here. Just getting tired of the same repeated bad arguments justifying being bad.

I'll just ignore the ad hominem stuff, I get that since you're trying to defend a bad argument it's about all you can do.

So your point is that because you're bored of direct fire you like to take derp builds for kicks. Okay. Good on you, we all do that. It's QP, so what if you're sandbagging your team, half your teammates are doing it too that's why they're in QP. Nothing more irritating than being the only guy trying in a QP match.

LRMs however are bad, flat out inferior to direct fire and players already lacking decent direct fire skills who are playing LRMs are just practicing bad habits and it really sucks when they take those habits to FW or even group queue where people care a bit more about winning or losing. LRMs are more annoying than most derp builds because a guy in a Streak+LBX5 + 3 ersl Kit Fox at least is sharing armor and isn't using you as a human shield to try and farm his damage.

LRMs are bad weapons, taking them makes a mech a bad build. Of course people will rage over that. Doesn't mean people won't being bad builds - go ahead. It's a game. However it's asinine to say people shouldn't rage over teammates taking derp builds.