Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:14 AM
I almost feel like I should play the few more matches needed to hit Tier 2 before I would be allowed an opinion worth glancing at, but here goes.
1.) LRMs are a noob-trap.
The natural instinct is to deal damage without taking damage in return. In Teir 5 and 4, people tend to understand LRMs as a way to do that. They can fire even without LoS, and they can get satisfying hit markers and the enemy lights up like a Christmas tree. At the same observation, they feel powerless against LRM barrages, because they haven't figured out how to hump cover, don't have Radar Dep unlocked or don't use ECM - own or friendlies. Also, friendly ECM carriers don't escort people.
As a reaction, people get the "can't beat them, join them" conclusion, and mount those LRMs. Players with less than stellar reaction time, aiming, etc. also hop onto the LRM bandwagon. Weaker players in general flock to LRMs as their solution to compensate for their sub-par skills and because it caters to the observation to deal damage without taking damage. People are afraid to get shot, because when they started playing, stepping out of cover get them focussed and killed. Instead of realising the importance of positioning and timing, they substitute differently.
2.) LRMs are deceptively easy to use.
Lock on, fire. It's an impulse, followed by a simple reaction. Poor players don't think about travel time, about hitting cover, let alone hitting things right in front of them. There is tons of players that will happily unload their LRMs into a buildign right in front of them. Once they see some hits with some launchers, they load up on ammo and more/bigger launchers, again compensating lackluster damage and success with more of the sub-par weapon. The cycle perpetuates itself until we see quad LRM 20 Scorches with tons and tons of ammo.
3.) Hating on LRMs is systemic.
LRMs are annoying to get shot by if you don't know how to avoid them, and at the same time, LRM players tend to live the longest, and thus, are the most spectated. Together with the twin PPC Cheetah, the twin ERLL wallcamper 'Cat, and other memebuilds that seem really good to the sub-par player. So, you have reasons to dislike LRMs as an enemy, and as a friendly, you see a single LRM boat getting shot up before the match ends in a defeat. Now you have people rightfully calling out the bad player, and you internalise that LRMs are bad, so egged on by concensus, you egg them on, too. People are herd animals and reaffirmation by group think perpetuates the LRM hate.
4.) LRMs can be good in the hands of competent players with a supporting team.
... and thus, you see bad players feeling vindicated/affirmed in their bad choices. I would never blast an LRM10 Hunchies for doing his thing. But the Lurmdiak with a few medium lasers that lumbers onwards without any situational awareness that riddles the next best rock with explosions is just insulting and a waste of an important element to team composition. Especially in PUG play, if you play LRMs, bring TAG, bring BAP, bring targetting computers, have ample backup weaponry, and go with your team - don't expect to be carried.
5.) ... and carrying Lurmers makes them more secure in there choice.
Because, if you have a bad lurmer that you won despite off, they'll think they contributed. It's like a Zeus that accidentially takes point, dies in a push he didn't know he initiated, with the heavies and mediums doing the work. The Zeus player might think he did good, even if he did good by accident. Same with Lurmers. Unless they did their part, observed ranges, travel time, helped focus targets down, armor shared and used their backup weaponry to good effect, they didn't do good - they performed better because other people made up for their shortcomings.
6.) NARC, TAG, et. al. aren't rewarded enough.
And thus, those important tools that could make LRMs better aren't all that visible. Not gonna deeper here.
7.) Bad players are bad. But bad lurmers are much more visible.
And you lose games because of bad players. But whereas the medium that yolos into the enemy firing line dies early on, the Lurmers survives longer - and becomes spectated. When an assault can't hit a thing and runs into an ambush, cored from the rear, people see that as a regular event. But that player messed up, too. But the Lurmers doesn't even die in the heat of battle, but because they are singled out and mopped up. Most bad lurmers fire their minimum arming distance LRMs below that range in a panic, overheat from incessant LRM15++ barrages, or have a piddly amount of back up weapons, but ~10 tons of LRM ammo. All that tonnage and crits towards a mediocre weapon system, piloted by a mediocre player, in a potentially great mech.
And thus, LRMs get hated on, and for most of the time, the hate is warranted. The good LRM players are few and in between, and they more often than not rely on team support. Damage is meaningless for LRMs, too - your 800 damage in an LRM boat is barely enough to kill a single target. LRMs cannot focus and kill a component, cannot leg a light, cannot XL check a mech. They're attrition machines, in a game where it's key to take out components and find the right angle to take a mech out the most efficient and fastest way.
I tried LRMs for a while, on and off, and neither in solo or group queue do I have even remotely comparable success to the good old mix of ballistics (AC5++, AC2 are jokes) and SRMs with a few energy weapons. Even Streaks which fire center mass and aren't great at component killing, either, perform better than LRMs. But all of those weapon systems require aiming, positioning, and the ability to read the scan of the target. LRMs don't.
LRMs are a weapon system that attracts bad players, and perform badly, resulting in multiple layers of failure that award them their disdain.
10
tker 669, on 09 April 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:
