404 replies to this topic

[Johnny Imba]

Gleitfrosch, on 21 April 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

The only annoying thing about lrms are the lrm 5 boats.

The permanent hits blind you completly.

Yeah but they are the easiest to counter with AMS.

[Dee Eight]

I had a discussion over voip this morning while in my NVA-S... a guy with an lrm boat was demanding someone put up a UAV (as he hid behind cover). I replied that its every LRM user's responsibility to find their own locks or they shouldn't be using LRM as a weapon system. His response was that it was the team's job to support him...I replied "No....its the job of LRM boats to support the TEAM, not the other way around".

[Exilyth]

AMS + ECM and what is LRM?

[Sebaztien Hawke]

As a newer/ returning player to MWO, the thing that frustrates me about LRMs is that when I pilot a heavy, the opposition seems to have a truckload of hem them... But when I take my fast Cicada with ECM and TAG laser, NO ONE on my team has mounted any

But generally, yes - LRMs annoy me. I don't enjoy usimg them myself, either.

[ANOM O MECH]

KAPPE8, on 21 April 2017 - 01:14 AM, said:

there should be a reportable offense called 'being worthless lrm trash' next to 'assisting the enemy team'
for now i have been using that to report every single worthless lrm garbage player
because if you waste a mech with lrms you are as a matter of fact literally assisting the enemy team by wasting a player slot and tonnage on your team

You report people for bringing lurms....and you think that is a reportable offence?

[riffraff777]

MischiefSC, on 06 April 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

LRMs are bad, so are plenty of mechs and builds. So are tons of things people do. Calling bad out as bad is one thing, being a **** is still being a ****.

Dude -- they're just another weapon, get over it. Poor play/bad aim is just poor play/bad aim, whether it's with a LRM20 or a Gauss Rifle.

Edited by riffraff302, 22 April 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[riffraff777]

Sebaztien Hawke, on 21 April 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

As a newer/ returning player to MWO, the thing that frustrates me about LRMs is that when I pilot a heavy, the opposition seems to have a truckload of hem them... But when I take my fast Cicada with ECM and TAG laser, NO ONE on my team has mounted any

Try taking out a Cicada X-5 with ERL, 2xML and 2xLRM5.

Edited by riffraff302, 22 April 2017 - 10:47 AM.

[riffraff777]

Dee Eight, on 21 April 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

I had a discussion over voip this morning while in my NVA-S... a guy with an lrm boat was demanding someone put up a UAV (as he hid behind cover). I replied that its every LRM user's responsibility to find their own locks or they shouldn't be using LRM as a weapon system. His response was that it was the team's job to support him...I replied "No....its the job of LRM boats to support the TEAM, not the other way around".

Indeed. Walk and work with your heavies and assaults. The best cover is moving cover. My highest damage LRM matches are played as second line fire support. Doesn't hurt to work in a little SRM and lasers in your build if possible.

Edited by riffraff302, 22 April 2017 - 10:55 AM.

[MischiefSC]

riffraff302, on 22 April 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

Dude -- they're just another weapon, get over it. Poor play/bad aim is just poor play/bad aim, whether it's with a LRM20 or a Gauss Rifle.

Bad weapons are bad weapons, good weapons are good weapons. There's nothing to 'get over'.

It's really, really simple. Have someone take LRMs to top tier competitive play or a top ranked team in FW. Beat good players consistently using LRMs and then show everyone why math doesn't work the way it does.

It's never happened because LRMs are bad weapons that promote bad play.

I'm sure you're a great guy, you should play the game how you want and have fun. However the way you play significantly increases the odds of your team losing. If you don't care about that then good on you - again. It's a game, have fun. However for people who like to win and for whom winning is fun then doing things that increase the odds of their losing are not fun and having teammates who play in a way that makes losing way more likely is not fun.

[Moomtazz]

riffraff302, on 22 April 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

Try taking out a Cicada X-5 with ERL, 2xML and 2xLRM5.

Assuming you are serious, this is a poor mix of weapons. If you think this is a legit build, then I can see how there is a large gap between players who like LRMs and those who don't.

[BigScwerl]

BabyCakes666, on 06 April 2017 - 07:45 AM, said:

LRM hate is real and its stooped

What is "stooped" ?

are you bending over to pick something up?

Edited by BigScwerl, 22 April 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Dee Eight, on 21 April 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

I had a discussion over voip this morning while in my NVA-S... a guy with an lrm boat was demanding someone put up a UAV (as he hid behind cover). I replied that its every LRM user's responsibility to find their own locks or they shouldn't be using LRM as a weapon system. His response was that it was the team's job to support him...I replied "No....its the job of LRM boats to support the TEAM, not the other way around".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vyx]

LRMs are just another weapon. They have their advantages and limitations -- just like any other weapon.

Their claim to fame is that they are a "force multiplier"; they are the archers/javelineers of the medieval/ancient battlefield. If your team does not have anything but LRMs, you will lose -- the enemy will rush and overwhelm you. Your team must have a base level of firepower to augment; that is, a certain percentage of it's forces that are focused on direct fire and direct engagement (brawlers). With the enemy engaged in this manner, the LRMs can magnify the damage done to the front line of the enemy by providing indirect fire. This makes short work of the foes by heaping tremendous damage on them. When the brawlers don't have to sustain so much damage due to the fact that the enemy falls quickly, they can brawl again, and the cycle can continue. It becomes a rolling wave, and the enemy routes.

If no one is willing to engage, then LRMs make for poor indirect fire weapons. Standing back and firing volleys at shaky locks is near-worthless. It is only by coordinating the brawlers attacks and the LRMs volleys together that the team achieves greatness.

Most PUGs cannot manage this. There is often a mindset of "I'm in it for myself" and the trust is simply not there. The brawlers are often craven and the LRMs are uncoordinated. However, in group play with VOIP and a team-play mindset, this works to tremendous advantage.

[MischiefSC]

LRMs are not a force multiplier. That's an absolute fib. What they do is let people who are unwilling to expose themselves to fire still shoot when a teammate exposes themselves to fire.

That's it.

Other than the ability to hide, compelling your teammates to soak massed fire for you to even be moderately useful, is the only thing LRMs do that every other weapon does not.

Direct fire does more damage more quickly to a more concentrated location. LRMs travel slower and are less accurate. The tonnage used on LRMs would, if used on direct fire, provide more *useful* damage per ton of weapon and ammo.

If you have direct fire weapons then you need to expose yourself to enemy fire (which reduces the fire your teammates receive) to deploy them. It teaches you how to do that more effectively because you must, by the dint of their nature, learn to do so in order to use them.

LRMs are worthless if a teammate is not taking risks to let you use them or you are not getting your own line of sight. If you're forcing your teammates to expose themselves to concentrated fire while you hide, you're a bad player. If you're 'getting your own locks' then you're using one of the least efficient and effective weapons for doing damage to mechs you have a LOS to in the game.

Either way it's a flat out inferior weapon.

It is not, however, a 'force multiplier'. All it does is let people who are unwilling to take risks still do (scattered and inefficient) damage to an enemy fighting a teammate who is taking risks.

[Lances107]

Problem number one the range is too great for LRMS, and it allows bad players to get kills, that they did not work for. Atleast with a ppc/gauss rifle the player has to WORK for the hit. The range of LRMS should be reduced something in the 500 to 600 meter range.

Problem number two the amount of weigh wasted on LRM boats is just outrageous. Some of these guys are bringing the biggest 100 ton mechs they can find loaded with LRMs into the match. Leaving there team complete f*******

Problem number three the utter arrogance of LRM boat people. They lob there missiles never see the enemy get damage points, kills, and they got the nerve to brag about it?

Problem number four these LRM gutless wonders will back completely out of the fight, just to avoid getting a scratch on there mech. Now anyone want to take a guess how that effects the team.

Do you have any idea how many times I have to power down my mech just too avoid these a holes? I do not mind new players who want to learn, I mind guys using LRMS incorrectly, and dragging there team down with them.

Your surprised with these four things going on people hate LRM pilots with a passion?

Edited by Lances107, 22 April 2017 - 03:17 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

LRMs are not a force multiplier. That's an absolute fib. What they do is let people who are unwilling to expose themselves to fire still shoot when a teammate exposes themselves to fire.

Wow... so thousands of years of actual Military History does not exist??? You are better than that Mischief, I know you are not really so stupid as to believe that statement you made.

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 22 April 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

Wow... so thousands of years of actual Military History does not exist??? You are better than that Mischief, I know you are not really so stupid as to believe that statement you made.

Are you seriously and truly trying to equate the use of artillery, which kills swaths of infantry and heavy vehicles with a single barrage, and LRMs?

At what point in history did battlefields require armies to only deploy 12 total units to the field on both sides?

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.

LRMs are in no way, shape or form like artillery. Thousands of years of Military History do exist - it just has nothing like LRMs because no military force in the world would be stupid enough to actively and intentionally deploy a weapon system that inherently flawed when they can just give the same soldier a better weapon and deploy him to a useful position.

[Vyx]

How about a simpler scenario, since this one seems too complex for some?

What side wins in a two-against-one fight? Clue: the side with two.

If my side can bring to bear the weapons of two mechs (the brawler and the LRMer) against the enemy's single mech, guess what? My side wins.

Sure you can use direct-fire mechs, too. The result is the same -- many against 1 still works. But many conditions including cover, lanes of fire, maneuvering for a shot, etc. make that difficult to do consistently. With LRMs, it becomes significantly easier to bring additional fire on a target you may not even directly see, to finish foes faster.

You've seen it work in game play. Why deny it? Drop your irrational prejudice and go with what works.

Or don't. And continue to rage and lose.

Edited by Vyx, 22 April 2017 - 04:20 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Vyx, on 22 April 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

How about a simpler scenario, since this one seems too complex for some?

What side wins in a two-against-one fight? Clue: the side with two.

If my side can bring to bear the weapons of two mechs (the brawler and the LRMer) against the enemy's single mech, guess what? My side wins.

Sure you can use direct-fire mechs, too. The result is the same -- many against 1 still works. But many conditions including cover, lanes of fire, maneuvering for a shot, etc. make that difficult to do consistently. With LRMs, it becomes significantly easier to bring additional fire on a target you may not even directly see, to finish foes faster.

You've seen it work in game play. Why deny it? Drop your irrational prejudice and go with what works.

Or don't. And continue to rage and lose.

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.

Edited by MischiefSC, 22 April 2017 - 04:24 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

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

Are you seriously and truly trying to equate the use of artillery, which kills swaths of infantry and heavy vehicles with a single barrage, and LRMs?

At what point in history did battlefields require armies to only deploy 12 total units to the field on both sides?

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.

LRMs are in no way, shape or form like artillery. Thousands of years of Military History do exist - it just has nothing like LRMs because no military force in the world would be stupid enough to actively and intentionally deploy a weapon system that inherently flawed when they can just give the same soldier a better weapon and deploy him to a useful position.

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