271 replies to this topic

[MechB Kotare]

I agree with those who believe LRMs require skill. Their DPS in combination with laser vomit builds can manage pretty decent numbers as long as you use them at shorter range.

It is the LRM stacking (Lrm spamming) that needs to be removed, i'd love to see LRM direct fire capabilities buffed in exchange of those indirect ones nerfed.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 24 March 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

continues to ignore what was said to further beat own imagined epeen

Wow, your bullsh1t level has finally gotten over 9000, as has your sense of self importance. At this point, welcome to the ignore list, just so I can't keep the pointless rant crap from cluttering my reading any more than it already does.

How ye have fallen.

MechB Kotare, on 24 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

I agree with those who believe LRMs require skill. Their DPS in combination with laser vomit builds can manage pretty decent numbers as long as you use them at shorter range.

It is the LRM stacking (Lrm spamming) that needs to be removed, i'd love to see LRM direct fire capabilities buffed in exchange of those indirect ones nerfed.

could not agree more, hence my basic post back yonder, before the epeen aggro went into overdrive

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

Actually... LRMs are capable of indirect fire, without a c3. They are less effective and efficent as such, but as long as one has a spotter of any sort, LRMs can be fired indirectly, in TT rules.

Which is why indirect/non NARC'D/TAG'd LRMs should have approximately twice the spread as direct LoS LRMs.

Between that, the advantages of TAG, Artemis, and the Skill tree nodes like "Missile Spread" it would greatly encourage people to get their own locks, and such, without completely removing them from the current indirect usage.. but simply making them vastly less efficient at it.

Things like base spread and velocity would still need addressing, and of course, direct LoS LRMs would have much faster time on target, since they should fire at a flat arc vs the ballistic one of indirect, but pretty sure it would be highly doable.

LoS needs to be less effective (sans TAG and NARC anyhow), Direct Fire buffed, a fair chunk. That would remove a lot of the derps hiding at 1000 meters asking for locks.

[MischiefSC]

Okay, so pointing out that LRMs are bad is... self important? Did you really just put me on ignore because I am not willing to pretend LRMs are good? Or that your anecdotal arguments are relevant to the actual demonstrated performancr of LRMs in more skill balanced environments? Wow. Okay, good luck with that.

For everyone else - yes, LRMs are bad. If this is a surprise to you, well, surprise. There's a few players who can do alright with LRMs. Most people don't. Those who can generally do alright in direct fire as well. What's crazy is that this still seems to be a surprise to some people.

Edited by MischiefSC, 24 March 2017 - 02:05 PM.

[MischiefSC]

MechB Kotare, on 24 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

I agree with those who believe LRMs require skill. Their DPS in combination with laser vomit builds can manage pretty decent numbers as long as you use them at shorter range.

It is the LRM stacking (Lrm spamming) that needs to be removed, i'd love to see LRM direct fire capabilities buffed in exchange of those indirect ones nerfed.

Flamers require skill, so do Mgs or just running around with no armor NARCing people. It's return on effort plus the impact of that effort on the teams win/loss that's important. Shooting while people are shooting at you is usually harder than shooting people who can't shoot back and aiming with the crosshair is harder thsn getting a lock. Hence the perported skill disparity. Both have positioning skills associated.

LRMs spread damage, are slow to target and indirect fire usually drives people not moving up to shoot, leaving teammates to get focused. I'd love for LRMs to have a tight grouping, fly at AC20 speed and still track with Los. Make them a useful direct fire weapon and buff them appropriately.

[CDLord HHGD]

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

proof you are bad and should feel bad.

Trew stoary

This was done just now with my AH build. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Ghogiel]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

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

Cool lurm story bro

[Kubernetes]

I imagine medieval knights felt the same way about crossbowmen and musketeers.

"I've spent my life training to become a finely-tuned killing machine and this newb just two days out of Crossbow Loading Academy isn't going to---*GURK*"

/ragequit

[Evil Ash]

Players don't like low interaction, LRMs don't require the player to necessarily stick their head out into combat or having to see the enemy, assuming the team is decent enough

[MacClearly]

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.

I completely agree with what you are saying.

My unit will from time to time run lurms on Polar or Boreal. We do for kicks and we prey not to run into Kcom when we are doing it. Outside of Kcom, 228, MS, etc we can get away with it a lot of the times.

What is my point? People not in decent groups or who have tried not NBT or MRBC don't have the context or understanding of why they are so terrible of a weapon. Even people not very competitive in FW get to thrive a good deal of the time running lurms. Then they reach tier 1 and in quick play are able to do the same.

So it is very hard to tell someone that something that is working for them is hot garbage. They don't get that the level in quick play is so horrendous and at such an abysmal level, that, that is the entire reason that they get away or have any success doing it.

Just listen to people repeatedly touting the skill level being high for 'proper' lrm use. While some are better than others, to say using the weapon is difficult or on any level near using ppc/guass is absurd. Even landing straight ppc is much more involved and difficult (which is really not that difficult).

[Marius Romanis]

Let me put it simply, im in a bnc-3m on canyon network, stalker lurm boat, catapult lurm boat, trebuchet lurm boat on other team. I fight all 3 1v3 at 300 meters. Every time the missiles are coming in if i cant get behind a rock in time can simply twist the damage onto my weaponless arms. They manage to destroy both my arms and orange/ red my shoulder structure b4 all 3 are dead..... Thats why lrms are bad, most of the damage they do manage to land is doing nothing.

[Ted Wayz]

Evil Ash, on 24 March 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Players don't like low interaction, LRMs don't require the player to necessarily stick their head out into combat or having to see the enemy, assuming the team is decent enough

The good ones do. That is usually how to tell the difference between good and bad lurm pilots. if you are engaging in and around BAP range you are doing it right.

But maybe I should hate assaults because I am bad at them?

CadoAzazel, on 24 March 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Let me put it simply, im in a bnc-3m on canyon network, stalker lurm boat, catapult lurm boat, trebuchet lurm boat on other team. I fight all 3 1v3 at 300 meters. Every time the missiles are coming in if i cant get behind a rock in time can simply twist the damage onto my weaponless arms. They manage to destroy both my arms and orange/ red my shoulder structure b4 all 3 are dead..... Thats why lrms are bad, most of the damage they do manage to land is doing nothing.

Sounds like bad pilots, not a bad weapon system.

[Mcgral18]

They also can't do anything past 500M, with the ample warning you receive.

So, a weapon with a effective Max much smaller than the listed (not uncommon to Ballistics), but also with a Min range.
A tiny bracket in which Direct Fire is not a viable option, or where other options are superior. Both at longer range, and at shorter range


They aren't effective...until you find Potato
But I don't like building around Potato (aside from my Flamer builds Nom Nom Nom)

MechB Kotare, on 24 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

LRM direct fire capabilities buffed in exchange of those indirect ones nerfed.

My hope for ATMs
SRMs are just too restrictive, and LRMs bad.
Of course, ATMs will probably need to pay The LRM Tax as well, likely sharing the locking system.

[B0oN]

Im just saying this much ...

HBR ...
2 ERPPCs
LRM10 Artemis
Tag

= LOLBringer

Tried and tested

[SQW]

Meta warriors hating on LRMs is like Medieval French knights calling peasants armed with crossbows 'cheaters' - the former want the latter to fight on THEIR terms where pin point alpha has all the advantages instead being peppered over the hill where all those lasers and ac are useless.

Nobody like being killed by LRMs without being able to hit back and it's human nature to grumble when bested by another. And don't give me the line about LRM noobs - laser noobs that can't hit an Atlas at 200m are everywhere too.

[Mcgral18]

SQW, on 24 March 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

Meta warriors hating on LRMs is like Medieval French knights calling peasants armed with crossbows 'cheaters' - the former want the latter to fight on THEIR terms where pin point alpha has all the advantages instead being peppered over the hill where all those lasers and ac are useless.

Nobody like being killed by LRMs without being able to hit back and it's human nature to grumble when bested by another. And don't give me the line about LRM noobs - laser noobs that can't hit an Atlas at 200m are everywhere too.

False

I LOVE Lurm boats on the Red team
Red Potatos are the best



But on my Team?
I'd rather have a Light mech (with middling competence)

[Variant1]

BabyCakes666, on 24 March 2017 - 01:04 AM, said:

i get it LRMs cant do **** within 200M and spread damage but why all the hate

i no lrm boats cant defend them self's in a brawl

but im shore theirs a way to stop all the LRM hate

is there away to make a good LRM build that no one will ***** abut ?

or some thing along these lines

my friend is captain LRM and he dose fine

he pushes he brawls and he gets kills

just like any body else with a ppc gauss build

so do LRMs attract bad players or do LRMs make you a bad player?

As from my personal experience of both getting shot and shooting lrms ill try my best to explain.

The main reason that people get salty (myself included) is that lrms can fire indirectly. No retaliation tends to make people salty, a good example is Artillery in World of Tanks, it gets alot of salt for good reason because of its indirect firing capabilities.
There is no stoping hate against indirect fire, because of gameplay differences.

Lrms neither attract bad players or make bad players. Its simply not designed for high skill gameplay because of its cheap nature, it can shoot inderectly but its damage output isint precise or dependable like a gauss or ppc. There are ways to deal with them and for the user to work around them.

Also the min range can easily be dealt with by sticking near teamates, or using backup weapons. Backup weapons also help out if they get into a brawl.

Really in the end it comes down to what the user wants to equip. There always going to be an advantage and trade off.

Edited by Variant1, 24 March 2017 - 05:39 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Look. This isn't new.

The reason comp play is touted as proof isn't because of leet trolling but the nature of comparative analysis.

In order to evaluate the relative merits of something in something like MWO you need to solve for player skill. You need to have relative skill resolved for and as closely balanced as possible.

Skill is usually identified by a curve but that's a gross oversimplification of the variables that entails. You have to move way down into the furthest end of "top performance" so that everyone is operating as close as possible to "best possible". This eliminates as much as possible the variance caused by relative player skill. When the players are all within 1-2% of each other skill-wise then a 5% variance in mech/weapon/strat performance is critical and telling.

That's why comp play is the deciding factor in identifying what does and doesn't work in gameplay. It lets you say "all other things being relatively equal, A beats B X% of the time". Since those matches are competitive with the same people again and again it also gives a lot more consistency. This makes for vastly more useful results.

LRMs always lose when you get very far up that set of tiers. Good teams have tried to make LRMs work - if LRMs were a reliable way to win people would use them. However they are not.

This is a tested, proven hypothesis. There's no real debate here. It's a flat earth topic. It's seen, tested and proven. If someone wants to show that LRMs are viable they need to do so to the same standards by which they have been proven non-viable - in a competitive level environment, consistently and repeatedly.

Hence why personal opinions or skill at the game is irrelevant. It's about what has been proven in the most reliable environment.

[Bishop Steiner]

Kubernetes, on 24 March 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

I imagine medieval knights felt the same way about crossbowmen and musketeers.

"I've spent my life training to become a finely-tuned killing machine and this newb just two days out of Crossbow Loading Academy isn't going to---*GURK*"

/ragequit

Lol, and you jus tnailed the real reason so many people hate them. Yes you have scrublords who sit back 1000 meters being useless, but look at the lengths so many of our metalords go to deny the amount of skill if takes to be successful with LRMs.... "because lock on, dude", ignoring how long it takes to get locks (and the fact you can't just kind of put the pipper somewhere near, but to achieve initial lock do essentially have to track the outline of the mech itself, if getting your own locks, how easy it is to break locks thanks to ecm, radar derp, terrain, etc...) and then once you do get a clean lock, how long you have to stay in the open, eating return fire waiting for your speed of sloth projectiles to arrive on target, and instead focus only on the indirect aspect which is the least efficient way to use them, by far, but mostly because it's an affront to their narrow, twitch based sense of "skill".

Evil Ash, on 24 March 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Players don't like low interaction, LRMs don't require the player to necessarily stick their head out into combat or having to see the enemy, assuming the team is decent enough

decent player wont last long using LRMs that way against other decent players. They are already a handicap just to bring, but if you are going to rely on others for locks? God love you, because no one else will.

[SQW]

LRM is bad in comp because PGI idiotically adopted the no-recoil mechanic of shooters of the Doom era for lasers (pretend counter strike never happened guys!) while keeping LRMs spread from TT. Put all that on a map so small you can start shooting within 30sec of spawn and it's no wonder the competition tier favors direct dmg.

In QP however, one or two smart LRM boat paired with a competent narcer and your team can set the tone of engagement which is HUGE. I love team games over individual prowess and ego stroking so I will continue to make meta mechs scream at all the cheating LRMs with my RVN-3L.

[FupDup]

SQW, on 24 March 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

LRM is bad in comp because PGI idiotically adopted the no-recoil mechanic of shooters of the Doom era for lasers (pretend counter strike never happened guys!) while keeping LRMs spread from TT. Put all that on a map so small you can start shooting within 30sec of spawn and it's no wonder the competition tier favors direct dmg.

Why the heck would lasers have recoil? That makes no damn sense.