404 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Okay, so take a WW II battle. Both sides have 12 soldiers. One side has 12 infantry fielding infantry weapons and advancing together, shooting the enemy. The other side has 8 guys doing the same and 4 guys hiding in a trench, firing their their MGs up into the air so the bullets fall approximately where the enemy is so long as their teammates shout back approximate location.

That's what's happening here. LRMs are not artillery. They're in fact less effective versions of the firearms all the infantry carry; less accurate, less precise. If those guys took a good battle rifle and held the line with their squad they'd do much better but instead they're hiding in the back, spraying their guns into the air and cheering because sometimes falling bullets hit enemy targets.

That is an extremely poor analogy because soldiers did, in fact, use machine guns in exactly that fashion and it was, in fact, effective. The enemy is out in the open getting peppered, the guys in the trenches are more or less completely safe.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 April 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

That is an extremely poor analogy because soldiers did, in fact, use machine guns in exactly that fashion and it was, in fact, effective. The enemy is out in the open getting peppered, the guys in the trenches are more or less completely safe.

Kinda the exact purpose of trenches really...

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 22 April 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

You are misconstruing the Time Period where we are using tactics... indirect fire has been a fundamental part of Force Multipliers since people were using Slings, your downplaying the effectiveness of it is skewed by lots of factors while ignoring the bigger picture

So use them to good effect in competitive play or to dominate even in an environment full of potatoes like FW. In an environment where there's a leaderboard that's effectively tracking what works overall in team v team.

Because there is no team on the top of the FW leaderboard or in comp play that uses LRMs.

Slings are not indirect fire weapons. You're trying to falsely tie how LRMs work with any historic weapon - there is no historic equivalent. People use the best weapons they have access to. A force multiplier is only relevant when it actually makes your force more effective. LRMs do not - all they do is let someone who is unable or unwilling to actively participate still throw some damage out. However since there's always an equal number of players and approximately equal amount of tonnage on both sides the role is absolutely inferior because it robs your team of someone who can participate in the direct confrontation.

If someone is bringing an LRM Stalker they are robbing their team of a MAD IIC like a Scorch or other direct fire mech, or a BLR 2C. Mechs that can and do help carry the whole team. If the person in the LRM stalker 'supporting his team' was bringing either of those mechs it would directly improve their teams performance.

The only thing that 'justifies' using LRMs, the whole 'I can still shoot people I can't see' is that they made bad choices to begin with. They literally built their mech around the idea of them having bad positioning and falling behind. Because the other team will do more direct fire with better accuracy against fewer targets they will win that engagement.

And they do. Consistently. That's exactly why the teams in competitive play and all the top ranked teams in FW don't use LRMs. Because while they're fine for potato farming like QP because you can kill most pugs in QP with pretty much anything a good team mitigates and eliminates the value of LRMs, closes and destroys them. This is what happens, this is why there are no highly ranked LRM teams in comp or FW.

You guys keep making this argument. Trying to pretend that 'nobody else gets it'. However the argument you're making is a flat earth argument. All the observable data, the facts that have been proven out in the game in all the actual tracked, provable, demonstrated examples and not anecdotal opinions prove that LRMs are inferior to direct fire.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 April 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

That is an extremely poor analogy because soldiers did, in fact, use machine guns in exactly that fashion and it was, in fact, effective. The enemy is out in the open getting peppered, the guys in the trenches are more or less completely safe.

It's a good analogy because it was just as effective. If the battles involved only had 12 soldiers on each side, and one side at 12 people aiming and shooting at the enemy and the other side only had 8 doing the same while 4 guys hid in a trench and sprayed bullets into the air the team who's aiming and shooting and advancing would win the majority of the time.

Repeating what I said above - what does and doesn't work in the game isn't just a guess or assumption. It gets tested and those results play out in the leaderboard and in competitive play league matches. LRMs lose consistently. Go win comp with LRMs. Go top a leaderboard in FW with LRMs.

[Acehilator]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

I have seen how it works in gameplay. Two brawlers vs 1 brawler and 1 LRM boat. It happens all the time.

I don't lose - unless I've got a bunch of people on my team with LRMs. I'll say this again because people keep trying to pretend it's not true:

Take your LRMs to comp play or FW. Show me which top ranked competitive or even FW teams use LRMs. They don't, because LRMs are only useful against bad players and good players with direct fire consistently beat good players with LRMs. Because LRMs are bad.

You realize that when people are talking about using LRMs, they are talking about using them in solo QP 99% of the time right?
And in that gamemode, they work totally fine, if you know what you are doing... like every other weapon out there. The only difference is that bad play with them is really obvious and easy to see. Nobody sees the Gauss/PPC Meta build pilot with terrible hitrate.

And please stop with the utterly ridiculous analogies to RL weapons... comparing game mechanics to RL just doesn't work. Ever.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

It's a good analogy because it was just as effective. If the battles involved only had 12 soldiers on each side, and one side at 12 people aiming and shooting at the enemy and the other side only had 8 doing the same while 4 guys hid in a trench and sprayed bullets into the air the team who's aiming and shooting and advancing would win the majority of the time.

It's a bad analogy because those 4 guys using machine guns consistently ******* annihilated the 12 guys trying to cross No Man's on the other side of the ridge while the 8 others did nothing but run ammo, water, and provide occasional support or distraction. They could also always level the machine guns when the enemy finally came into view and have one man take down all 12 by himself if necessary, something that doesn't feasibly apply to LRMs and which further ruins the analogy.

I get that LRMs are bad weapons, I'm not in that debate. They are garbage-tier. That specific analogy, though, does nothing but demonstrate your lack of historical awareness.

Stop using it.

[Wolfwood592]

I just had to stop in and LOL because anytime I see someone throw the word racism into his/her argument to make it sound more abhorrent it makes me laugh.

Mechwarrior LRM hate is racism! Burn it to the ground!!!!!!

Edited by Wolfwood592, 22 April 2017 - 05:44 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

So use them to good effect in competitive play or to dominate even in an environment full of potatoes like FW. In an environment where there's a leaderboard that's effectively tracking what works overall in team v team.

Because there is no team on the top of the FW leaderboard or in comp play that uses LRMs.

Slings are not indirect fire weapons. You're trying to falsely tie how LRMs work with any historic weapon - there is no historic equivalent. People use the best weapons they have access to. A force multiplier is only relevant when it actually makes your force more effective. LRMs do not - all they do is let someone who is unable or unwilling to actively participate still throw some damage out. However since there's always an equal number of players and approximately equal amount of tonnage on both sides the role is absolutely inferior because it robs your team of someone who can participate in the direct confrontation.

If someone is bringing an LRM Stalker they are robbing their team of a MAD IIC like a Scorch or other direct fire mech, or a BLR 2C. Mechs that can and do help carry the whole team. If the person in the LRM stalker 'supporting his team' was bringing either of those mechs it would directly improve their teams performance.

The only thing that 'justifies' using LRMs, the whole 'I can still shoot people I can't see' is that they made bad choices to begin with. They literally built their mech around the idea of them having bad positioning and falling behind. Because the other team will do more direct fire with better accuracy against fewer targets they will win that engagement.

And they do. Consistently. That's exactly why the teams in competitive play and all the top ranked teams in FW don't use LRMs. Because while they're fine for potato farming like QP because you can kill most pugs in QP with pretty much anything a good team mitigates and eliminates the value of LRMs, closes and destroys them. This is what happens, this is why there are no highly ranked LRM teams in comp or FW.

You guys keep making this argument. Trying to pretend that 'nobody else gets it'. However the argument you're making is a flat earth argument. All the observable data, the facts that have been proven out in the game in all the actual tracked, provable, demonstrated examples and not anecdotal opinions prove that LRMs are inferior to direct fire.

Since your premise is requiring you to use a terrible LRM boat like a Stalker to make your example, therein lies a whole lot of your problem. Clan LRMs are way inferior to IS LRMs while Clan ECM is as common as candy at Willy Wonkas factory in CW, even then in a team set up with enough TAG/Narc units then they can melt faces in CW or Group queue. That requires a coordinated Drop Deck and Team but since that is already a precondition for your example then it is not a negative that you can use.

The vast overwhelming majority of LRMers are utter garbage but then the vast overwhelming majority of PPFLD cERPPC/cGuass users are the same level of incompetent using what you are saying is the best available. Subscribing what is Operator Error to Mechanical Failure is not a valid logical point. To say they are not good is strictly not a true statement.





Those are just a few old screenshots I had lying around and I do not even screenshot that much.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 22 April 2017 - 05:57 PM.

[Mechwarrior4670152]

Wolfwood592, on 22 April 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

I just had to stop in and LOL because anytime I see someone throw the word racism into his/her argument to make it sound more abhorrent it makes me laugh.

Mechwarrior LRM hate is racism! Burn it to the ground!!!!!!

In general, I would agree.

However, when it gets to the point that they are TKing you simply for carrying the weapon?

Then I have to agree with the OP.

[Ogvai Ogvai Helmschrott]

Racism - Noun : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.


totally what this is...100%

Edited by Ogvai Ogvai Helmschrott, 22 April 2017 - 06:13 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

@ Zuul

Repeated screenshots do nothing to enhance your point.

[MischiefSC]

Acehilator, on 22 April 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

You realize that when people are talking about using LRMs, they are talking about using them in solo QP 99% of the time right?
And in that gamemode, they work totally fine, if you know what you are doing... like every other weapon out there. The only difference is that bad play with them is really obvious and easy to see. Nobody sees the Gauss/PPC Meta build pilot with terrible hitrate.

And please stop with the utterly ridiculous analogies to RL weapons... comparing game mechanics to RL just doesn't work. Ever.

Except you're the one trying to tie the use of LRMs to military history of artillery support and such.

Anything/everything works in QP. That LRMs kill mechs in QP is irrelevant to LRMs being bad. Taking bad mechs and bad loadouts gimps your team so of course some people on your team will complain.

Yeonne Greene, on 22 April 2017 - 05:31 PM, said:

It's a bad analogy because those 4 guys using machine guns consistently ******* annihilated the 12 guys trying to cross No Man's on the other side of the ridge while the 8 others did nothing but run ammo, water, and provide occasional support or distraction. They could also always level the machine guns when the enemy finally came into view and have one man take down all 12 by himself if necessary, something that doesn't feasibly apply to LRMs and which further ruins the analogy.

I get that LRMs are bad weapons, I'm not in that debate. They are garbage-tier. That specific analogy, though, does nothing but demonstrate your lack of historical awareness.

Stop using it.

Dude, ZUUL is the one that brought up 'force multiplier' and the historical role of weapons as a bad attempt to say why LRMs are useful.

Force multipliers and indirect fire IRL are, exactly as you stated, a completely different thing from LRMs and attempts to create that correlation is false.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 22 April 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

Since your premise is requiring you to use a terrible LRM boat like a Stalker to make your example, therein lies a whole lot of your problem. Clan LRMs are way inferior to IS LRMs while Clan ECM is as common as candy at Willy Wonkas factory in CW, even then in a team set up with enough TAG/Narc units then they can melt faces in CW or Group queue. That requires a coordinated Drop Deck and Team but since that is already a precondition for your example then it is not a negative that you can use.

The vast overwhelming majority of LRMers are utter garbage but then the vast overwhelming majority of PPFLD cERPPC/cGuass users are the same level of incompetent using what you are saying is the best available. Subscribing what is Operator Error to Mechanical Failure is not a valid logical point. To say they are not good is strictly not a true statement.





Those are just a few old screenshots I had lying around and I do not even screenshot that much.

Okay so I look forward to seeing you showing how LRMs work vs direct fire in an equal skill environment like competitive play.

[stillnight]

Weather people like it or not LRMs are part of the game and it's easy not to take damage from any LRMs like cover or ECM. If you're harassing people like the OP is saying then grow up and git gud or go play something else we don't need those kind of people in MechWarrior Online.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Dude, ZUUL is the one that brought up 'force multiplier' and the historical role of weapons as a bad attempt to say why LRMs are useful.

Force multipliers and indirect fire IRL are, exactly as you stated, a completely different thing from LRMs and attempts to create that correlation is false.

He may have, but that's a failure on his part to understand how LRMs can and cannot contribute in MWO. I am trying to save you from perpetuating the same mistake going the other way.

TL;DR: MWO LRMs don't work like real weapons for a list of reasons everybody here should already be familiar with. There is no analogy to real weapons that can function properly.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Slings are not indirect fire weapons. You're trying to falsely tie how LRMs work with any historic weapon - there is no historic equivalent.

Let the target tracking out, there is a weapon in history thats has the following characteristics that lrms have too:

Ballistic trajectory
Can fire over obstacels
Massfiring projectiles splatting all over
forces the enemy to take cover
Makes the enemys moaning and crying
Vulnarable against closing enemys

https://en.wikipedia...English_longbow


Maybe you can count all types of trebuchetes and catapults too ...

Edited by Kroete, 23 April 2017 - 12:32 AM.

[Gleitfrosch]

LRM are a great way to weaken the enemy before he comes into firing range.

Stay in cover and have scouts locking the targets. You do damage while the enemies cant shoot back. And let the brawlers finish them when they come too close.

I guess most people who complain about LRM players are the ones, who got killed that way because they lack the patience to slowly move from cover to cover towards the enemies and walk directly through the open field.

[Shifty McSwift]

Gleitfrosch, on 23 April 2017 - 01:03 AM, said:

LRM are a great way to weaken the enemy before he comes into firing range.

Stay in cover and have scouts locking the targets. You do damage while the enemies cant shoot back. And let the brawlers finish them when they come too close.

I guess most people who complain about LRM players are the ones, who got killed that way because they lack the patience to slowly move from cover to cover towards the enemies and walk directly through the open field.

I think the thread is long past this but; the idea of an "LRM player" or boat/halfboat is actually a viable build in ways, I don't think anyone denies it, but only within the context of a team taking advantage, taking a full LRM boat in general to a random solo/QP match is as selfish as taking an SRM boat (somewhat moreso because of the need for SRMs to tank damage or provide target saturation to deal damage) just in its own way.

The LRM as a weapon seems to me to fill a perfectly valid function as a "support" weapon, providing extra dps, and "free" dps in those optimal conditions of firing out of sight and hitting, while either/or suppressing enemies to make them move to cover and providing crazy high cockpit shake on damage.

In the same vein that if everyone that can should take AMS for the combined support effect they provide, everyone that can take an LRM should to provide the potential for constant and "bonus" support (damaging targets from safety, and in doing so taking full advantage of team scouting).

It is just too meta to just boat everything apparently, variety is a madman's fever dream

[Johnny Imba]

> Can LRMs be useful? Yep.

> Are they easy to use? Yep - fire when beeeep easy af but its not that easy to use them to full effect. Like an ape can use a pistol but he will be a pretty bad hitman.

> Are they a force multiplier? Yes but thats situational. When only 4 mechs can stay next to each other its pretty nice to have a fifth able to fire over those 4.

> Are they a good weapon? Hell no. They are easily countered by a a lot of things like enviroment, ECM and AMS which makes them pretty unreliable as a main weapon when compared to direct fire weapons.

As a LRM-Boat you depend on the guys with the direct fire weapons for locks to fire indirectly. If you operate on your own line of sight you are at a significant disadvantage - your missiles are guided yes but they are damn slow when compared with to a PPC-Blast or AC-projectiles.

The "I hate Lurms because i always die to them"-crowd just has to learn how to avoid them. Im a mediocre pilot but i can do that - okay on the other hand i've used them enough to know how limited their usefulness actually is.

Edited by Johnny Imba, 23 April 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Gleitfrosch, on 23 April 2017 - 01:03 AM, said:

LRM are a great way to weaken the enemy before he comes into firing range.

Stay in cover and have scouts locking the targets. You do damage while the enemies cant shoot back. And let the brawlers finish them when they come too close.

I guess most people who complain about LRM players are the ones, who got killed that way because they lack the patience to slowly move from cover to cover towards the enemies and walk directly through the open field.

Except the complaints are coming from better players. The complaint isn't about dying to LRMs, it's the irritation that competitive players feel when they get sandbagged consistently by bads taking LRMs that they have to carry.

Everyone here complaining has a well over 1.0 w/l consistently. All the people saying LRMs are good have a sub 1.0 w/l. This isn't some magical coincidence.

Playing LRMs increases the odds of your team losing. People are at a disadvantage from being on the same team as 99.999% of LRM LRM players. That's the source of the complaint.

[Acehilator]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

Except you're the one trying to tie the use of LRMs to military history of artillery support and such.

Anything/everything works in QP. That LRMs kill mechs in QP is irrelevant to LRMs being bad. Taking bad mechs and bad loadouts gimps your team so of course some people on your team will complain.

I did no such thing.

And just because you can't make LRMs work in solo QP (if you even tried, I guess not) does not mean the same goes for everyone. Three of my five best performing mechs are LRM boats, one of them being No 1. But sure, there is NO possible way LRM boats are usable, they are ALWAYS a detriment to the team, and of course the ONLY reason I get very good use out of them is because I got carried by my PUG teammates.

You've got to be kidding me.

But sure, keep telling yourself that, keep talking in absolutes and most importantly, never challenge your preconceptions.