404 replies to this topic

[Acehilator]

MischiefSC, on 25 April 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

No. The value of direct fire weapons is based on your ability to land hits. They can not 'mitigate' PPFLD save by never coming out of cover. You can't twist it away. Hence the periodic rise of poptarting. Minimal exposure to deliver full damage, if you have the skill, to a single location.

LRMs are not a force multiplier. That's a lie. That would only be correct if they made the WHOLE TEAM more effective at projecting force - they do not. All they do is allow someone hiding in the back, leaving their team to get focused, the ability to shoot scattered and inferior damage to people their teammates are getting shot to lock for them.

Any leaderboard. Any comp play. Any competitive environment that has good teams in them. In all these cases LRMs are proven, repeatedly, to be inferior. Full stop. Your opinion on that is irrelevant. You want to change it, prove it wrong. Nobody ever has.

If I remember correctly, you always spoke of "direct fire weapons" in this thread, so we are throwing Lasers and SRMs out now, too? You can't dodge PPC fire from 500m? Of course it is harder, it is just one example of why talking in absolutes when trying to prove a point is not a good idea.

What has force multiplication got to do with "a whole team"? When five people push around a corner and the space is already too cramped anyways and all available firing lines are already full, an LRM boat can add a sixth attacker to the mix without hindering the other five guys in any way. That is basic force multiplication. And why the hell are you bringing "hanging in the back" up again? And "getting shot to lock for them"? We already established that a properly played LRM boat moves with the team, shares armor and uses its own locks/direct line of sight as often as possible. Badly played PPFLD snipers are hanging back as often as LRM boats, stop bringing it up ffs.

Oh, what is it now? Forth or fifth time with the group stuff? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. I already said in my first post in our discussion that LRMs are only usable in solo queue, and I never said I want them to be usable in other modes.

Ruar, on 25 April 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

Moving with the team is not enough. You need terrain that is open enough to allow firing and then at the same time terrain that is open enough the enemy team can't take cover. You need people getting locks and holding those locks long enough for missiles to hit. You also need all of this to happen in conjunction with achieving the objectives.

The only time I've observed LRMs be a force multiplier is when the above items happen and the LRMs force the opposing team to move in a way to avoid getting hit. The same thing can happen from direct fire weapons and happens more frequently so it's not really a strong argument for LRMs.

As to the other part, I think you are wrong. I get just as upset about meta mechs who play poorly as I do LRM mechs that play poorly. And honestly, saying "something else sucks so why are you upset that this thing sucks too" isn't really the best way to go about convincing people LRM assaults are a good thing. Saying pugs suck so we might as well accept the mediocrity of LRMs is also a bad way to go.

LRMs are poorly designed and implemented in the game. There are limited times when using LRMs makes sense and the rest of the time a team is better off with direct fire weapons.

Terrain problems are mostly moot, River City and Mining Colony are the only problematic maps for LRMs, with Colony less than you probably think, and perhaps Crimson Strait if your team is hellbent on fighting on the lower level. All other maps and the places you typically fight on them are perfectly fine. And you don't need people getting locks, why are you guys insisting on it?

Force Multiplication see above in my other anwser. Also you can support Scouts in their fights with enemy Scouts, scare off unopposed enemy Lights or other mechs trying to flank, etc. etc. The flexibility is awesome, and terrain hinderance is not enough to curtail that advantage if you know what you are doing.

Regarding PPFLD mechs playing from third row, I did not bring it up as a pro-LRM argument. You brought it up as an anti-LRM argument, and I refuted your point. Pretty much the same with the whole pinpoint damage thing... almost everybody talking about how great and almighty it is makes it sound like the hitchance of people using it near 100%, and that near 100% of shots that hit in the first place went to the location you wanted it to. And I call ridiculous amounts of BS on that one. If it would be even remotely the case, 90% of people in the higher tiers would be using it instead of 30%, Lasers and SRMs would be near extinct too, and you wouldn't see me still using LRMs.

[MischiefSC]

Acehilator, on 26 April 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

If I remember correctly, you always spoke of "direct fire weapons" in this thread, so we are throwing Lasers and SRMs out now, too? You can't dodge PPC fire from 500m? Of course it is harder, it is just one example of why talking in absolutes when trying to prove a point is not a good idea.

What has force multiplication got to do with "a whole team"? When five people push around a corner and the space is already too cramped anyways and all available firing lines are already full, an LRM boat can add a sixth attacker to the mix without hindering the other five guys in any way. That is basic force multiplication. And why the hell are you bringing "hanging in the back" up again? And "getting shot to lock for them"? We already established that a properly played LRM boat moves with the team, shares armor and uses its own locks/direct line of sight as often as possible. Badly played PPFLD snipers are hanging back as often as LRM boats, stop bringing it up ffs.

Oh, what is it now? Forth or fifth time with the group stuff? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. I already said in my first post in our discussion that LRMs are only usable in solo queue, and I never said I want them to be usable in other modes.




Terrain problems are mostly moot, River City and Mining Colony are the only problematic maps for LRMs, with Colony less than you probably think, and perhaps Crimson Strait if your team is hellbent on fighting on the lower level. All other maps and the places you typically fight on them are perfectly fine. And you don't need people getting locks, why are you guys insisting on it?

Force Multiplication see above in my other anwser. Also you can support Scouts in their fights with enemy Scouts, scare off unopposed enemy Lights or other mechs trying to flank, etc. etc. The flexibility is awesome, and terrain hinderance is not enough to curtail that advantage if you know what you are doing.

Regarding PPFLD mechs playing from third row, I did not bring it up as a pro-LRM argument. You brought it up as an anti-LRM argument, and I refuted your point. Pretty much the same with the whole pinpoint damage thing... almost everybody talking about how great and almighty it is makes it sound like the hitchance of people using it near 100%, and that near 100% of shots that hit in the first place went to the location you wanted it to. And I call ridiculous amounts of BS on that one. If it would be even remotely the case, 90% of people in the higher tiers would be using it instead of 30%, Lasers and SRMs would be near extinct too, and you wouldn't see me still using LRMs.

LRMs work in solo queue only because the other side is over 1/2 potatoes. You're just confirming what's being said. LRMs are only useful against bads and then only in ways inferior to direct fire.

Which is the whole point. That's where teams come in. I can get a positive win/loss in QP with an MG King Crab. SO is irrelevant to balance.

If you're the unicorn LRM boat playing from the front that everyone says they do but nobody ever sees doing it... direct fire weapons are still more accurate for the damage and heat and tonnage. If you're up front with LOS at least you're sharing armor, which is good. I've never seen such an LRM player in pug queue but we'll pretend that's the case.

You'd still do more with a direct fire payload. I'd be content to just see the LRM boat up trading however. It's just not something anyone actually sees. People say they do of course. Everyone says they do that. Just nobody ever seems to be doing it when we see each other in drops.

[CFC Conky]

Interesting discussion.

Strangely enough, in most of my PUG matches lately, the LRM shooters are up with the team, second line but still there. When I get whacked by them it's now usually because I've over-extended. I've learned to use cover a lot more effectively but it has taken time. This game has a steep learning curve and I'm a slow learner so it's taken around 200 matches for me to figure out how to reduce, but not eliminate the risk from LRM's (none of my mechs have ECM and I only take AMS about 25% of the time, preferring to use the tonnage for other stuff).

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

Edited by CFC Conky, 26 April 2017 - 08:42 AM.

[Acehilator]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

LRMs work in solo queue only because the other side is over 1/2 potatoes. You're just confirming what's being said. LRMs are only useful against bads and then only in ways inferior to direct fire.

Which is the whole point. That's where teams come in. I can get a positive win/loss in QP with an MG King Crab. SO is irrelevant to balance.

If you're the unicorn LRM boat playing from the front that everyone says they do but nobody ever sees doing it... direct fire weapons are still more accurate for the damage and heat and tonnage. If you're up front with LOS at least you're sharing armor, which is good. I've never seen such an LRM player in pug queue but we'll pretend that's the case.

You'd still do more with a direct fire payload. I'd be content to just see the LRM boat up trading however. It's just not something anyone actually sees. People say they do of course. Everyone says they do that. Just nobody ever seems to be doing it when we see each other in drops.

So far I have not been able to replicate the results of my Awesome-8R with any other mech, and even though I am a big fan of LRMs I still play way more games in regular mechs than LRM boats.

Also stop calling your King Crab an MG King Crab, the MGs are not the main weapon... and if you do a similar setup with 4x MGs, 3x LPL and 3x ASRM4 on the 000B, you get a really nice mech. But I guess that is not meta enough for you, and this is me getting off-topic.

I don't think we have ever seen each other in QP, but that is not really surprising, the community is small, but not that small.

[Ruar]

Acehilator, on 26 April 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

If I remember correctly, you always spoke of "direct fire weapons" in this thread, so we are throwing Lasers and SRMs out now, too? You can't dodge PPC fire from 500m? Of course it is harder, it is just one example of why talking in absolutes when trying to prove a point is not a good idea.

What has force multiplication got to do with "a whole team"? When five people push around a corner and the space is already too cramped anyways and all available firing lines are already full, an LRM boat can add a sixth attacker to the mix without hindering the other five guys in any way. That is basic force multiplication. And why the hell are you bringing "hanging in the back" up again? And "getting shot to lock for them"? We already established that a properly played LRM boat moves with the team, shares armor and uses its own locks/direct line of sight as often as possible. Badly played PPFLD snipers are hanging back as often as LRM boats, stop bringing it up ffs.

Oh, what is it now? Forth or fifth time with the group stuff? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. I already said in my first post in our discussion that LRMs are only usable in solo queue, and I never said I want them to be usable in other modes.




Terrain problems are mostly moot, River City and Mining Colony are the only problematic maps for LRMs, with Colony less than you probably think, and perhaps Crimson Strait if your team is hellbent on fighting on the lower level. All other maps and the places you typically fight on them are perfectly fine. And you don't need people getting locks, why are you guys insisting on it?

Force Multiplication see above in my other anwser. Also you can support Scouts in their fights with enemy Scouts, scare off unopposed enemy Lights or other mechs trying to flank, etc. etc. The flexibility is awesome, and terrain hinderance is not enough to curtail that advantage if you know what you are doing.

Regarding PPFLD mechs playing from third row, I did not bring it up as a pro-LRM argument. You brought it up as an anti-LRM argument, and I refuted your point. Pretty much the same with the whole pinpoint damage thing... almost everybody talking about how great and almighty it is makes it sound like the hitchance of people using it near 100%, and that near 100% of shots that hit in the first place went to the location you wanted it to. And I call ridiculous amounts of BS on that one. If it would be even remotely the case, 90% of people in the higher tiers would be using it instead of 30%, Lasers and SRMs would be near extinct too, and you wouldn't see me still using LRMs.

I'll be honest... I paused when you said LRMs can support scouts against other light mechs. We both know that LRM users rarely fire at locks on fast lights. Friendly fire, losing locks, and the inability to hit quick moving targets all contribute to the reluctance to fire at lights.

Then there is the fact you completely swept terrain to the side as if it doesn't matter.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You see LRMs one way, I see them another. You've justified your opinion in your mind and simply negate anything that runs counter.

And for rear line mechs, I have no clue what you are talking about that I'm saying. I don't like assaults in a support role, period. LRMs... snipers... it doesn't matter. Assault mechs should be up front assaulting. Some heavy mechs can sit back and snipe, but it's a better job for mediums. Heavies should be up front with the assaults. Please stop trying to twist things to suit your opinion because it's not what I said and it's annoying seeing you make up straw man arguments.

IMO there are roles on the battlefield and different mechs are better suited for filling those roles than others. Unfortunately the game is designed so people can ignore roles and play however. Which leads to inefficient builds and poor play. That doesn't mean the community should be accepting of such decisions and we should try to help people understand why their choices are less than optimal. It shouldn't lead to harassment, but criticism is definitely warranted.

[MischiefSC]

Acehilator, on 26 April 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

So far I have not been able to replicate the results of my Awesome-8R with any other mech, and even though I am a big fan of LRMs I still play way more games in regular mechs than LRM boats.

Also stop calling your King Crab an MG King Crab, the MGs are not the main weapon... and if you do a similar setup with 4x MGs, 3x LPL and 3x ASRM4 on the 000B, you get a really nice mech. But I guess that is not meta enough for you, and this is me getting off-topic.

I don't think we have ever seen each other in QP, but that is not really surprising, the community is small, but not that small.

6 MGs, 2lpls, 2xsrm6a. It's an MG King Crab. I have still gotten 800+ damage matches and the damage it does is more focused than the LRMs on your Awesome. Think about that for a second.

That you're best results are using LRMs is a statement about how you play the game. Play how you want and have fun. However buy your own admission LRMs are for pug queue, not group, fw or comp. That's because they're only useful against bad players. That's the whole crux of the argument. You want to bring LRMs or streaks and farm bads in pug queue, okay. Have fun. However those are bad weapons against good players and direct fire is better. One doesn't negate the other. Play, have fun. LRMs are derping, that's okay. Pug queue is the derp queue. However direct fire is better.

You want to test that, sure. Happy to. Even in pug queue - you do 50 matches in the best LRM boat, the Awesome, and I'll do 50 matches in one of the best direct fire mechs - 5 LPLs. We'll see who wins the most out of their 50. Sound fair?

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

You want to test that, sure. Happy to. Even in pug queue - you do 50 matches in the best LRM boat, the Awesome, and I'll do 50 matches in one of the best direct fire mechs - 5 LPLs. We'll see who wins the most out of their 50. Sound fair?

You dont like lrms ...
Our stats are nearly the same,
but taking mostly my dogs (different numbers of launchers and tubes)
give me 0.55 more w/l then yours but only 0,07 less k/d.

Dont know why is that, if lrms are that bad?
Maybe iam a little to brave (or stupid),
i seldom have more then half of my mech left?
Should i say, that i more then i should die by overheating?

Sure in groupplay it may be different, but that do not matter for me.
Comp play? Nothing for me, iam to old for that. And is that not the same as group or group-fw? Or would you call pug-queue comp?
FW? Pug-FW, no problem, if i play (not so often) iam mostly in the upper 1/3 of the team.


But if you want to talk about group-, fw-, or comp-play go to that sections of the forum,
this is more about pug play.

Edited by Kroete, 26 April 2017 - 11:57 AM.

[Ruar]

The real problem with LRM mechs isn't going to be seen between two competent players. Take two not as capable players and put one in a direct fire mech and one in a LRM mech and the direct fire guy is going to have better stats and be more effective.

This morning I was on the losing side of a match where an LRM Battlemaster and a Timber Wolf were sitting too far back instead of helping the push. Had those two mechs moved forward and shared their armor we would have been able to win, but because they stayed back our front line died and then the support mechs were popped one at a time.

LRMs in the hands of a good player will do decent results. A direct fire mech in the hands of a good player will have more consistent results. An LRM mech in the hands of a bad player will rarely provide any benefit to the team.

[the sixth tier]

social justice is getting out of hand

[Kroete]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

The real problem with LRM mechs isn't going to be seen between two competent players. Take two not as capable players and put one in a direct fire mech and one in a LRM mech and the direct fire guy is going to have better stats and be more effective.

Dont miss the lrms are a support weapon,
they can give support, but they need support to do that,
part of their potential is based on teamplay.
Beeing not as good as direct fire in a direct comparison is the price for that.

[Naduk]

i think the only weapon i run more often than LRM's is Machine Guns

[Ruar]

Kroete, on 26 April 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Dont miss the lrms are a support weapon,
they can give support, but they need support to do that,
part of their potential is based on teamplay.
Beeing not as good as direct fire in a direct comparison is the price for that.

Sure, LRMs are support, and putting a launcher on a mech as a means of providing support is fine. When your entire mech is designed around the idea of shooting LRMs then you have issues. LRMs "can" be good for teamplay but in the main they are used for individual reasons. People just want to sit back hiding and tossing LRMs thinking they are doing something useful. The truth is they are just hurting their team.

LRMs have a very small window when they can be viewed to be as effective for the team as a direct fire mech. That window doesn't open very often. Which means most of the time LRMs are no where near as useful as having another direct fire mech on the battlefield. In fact the best LRM builds have several direct fire weapons on board so that the LRM mech can be useful in multiple situations and contribute to the team at all ranges.

[dimachaerus]

Was in a game last night where a guy who charged the enemy team and died early was spectating and absolutely lost his mind at the fact that one of the mechs on our team had LRM's in the "group queue" . What followed was a profanity laced stream of idiocy directed at the player (whose mech had multiple other weapons along with his LRM's, in a mech with bonuses for them) all because he killed a member of the ENEMY team, with his LRM's.

Needless to say he was roundly made fun of for being a moron, but his style of "opinion" is not uncommon when you're playing in the group matchmaker.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 26 April 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

You dont like lrms ...
Our stats are nearly the same,
but taking mostly my dogs (different numbers of launchers and tubes)
give me 0.55 more w/l then yours but only 0,07 less k/d.

Dont know why is that, if lrms are that bad?
Maybe iam a little to brave (or stupid),
i seldom have more then half of my mech left?
Should i say, that i more then i should die by overheating?

Sure in groupplay it may be different, but that do not matter for me.
Comp play? Nothing for me, iam to old for that. And is that not the same as group or group-fw? Or would you call pug-queue comp?
FW? Pug-FW, no problem, if i play (not so often) iam mostly in the upper 1/3 of the team.


But if you want to talk about group-, fw-, or comp-play go to that sections of the forum,
this is more about pug play.

My stats this month are comprised of me running lights and trying to get the event rewards plus leveling my Roughnecks. However you've got a solid w/l. Some of that will depend on current tier but anything over 1.2 is a solid number consistently.

Puffing in FW, score means nothing compared to W/L. How much do you help win the match. High damage scores don't matter if you're using your team as a pug shield. However pugging in FW is also a brutal meat grinder.

Weapon balance is weapon balance. Solo, group, comp, FW, doesn't matter. It's an objective measure of relative value in helping drive wins. Because of the big skill disparity in pug queue it's not a reliable environment to test weapon value. Team V Team environments and especially comp play have a more consistent skill level between all players, as such the difference in weapon performance is more visible.

Again though. It's great that you can use LRMs to grind bads in pug queue. It's a place to use them and have fun. They are less effective relative to the skill of your opponents to the point of near useless against great players. What queue you're in only determines how good your opponents consistently are. The whole point of the conversation is that LRMs are viable vs bads, direct fire is good against anyone.

[Novakaine]

Depending on the map I run a full LRM deck in FW nightly.
But the keyword is map dependency.
And I'd pay hard cash to drive this monster in the game.

[Roughneck45]

WE DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO LURM FOLK ROUND HERE

...how is this thread still going...

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 26 April 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Dont miss the lrms are a support weapon,
they can give support, but they need support to do that,
part of their potential is based on teamplay.
Beeing not as good as direct fire in a direct comparison is the price for that.

Support would only be useful if it wasn't 12 v 12. In 12 v 12 "support" means one side has 12 mechs sharing damage and delivering focused damage vs 11 people doing the same and 1 guy shooting scattered, inconsistent damage.

LRMs are bad for the same reasons an LB10X that travels at 1/5th the speed with a wide spread is inferior to a straight AC10. The only advantage to LRMs is the ability to shoot at enemies while leaving your teammates to soak damage for you. Otherwise they are in all ways inferior.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

My stats this month are comprised of me running lights and trying to get the event rewards plus leveling my Roughnecks. However you've got a solid w/l. Some of that will depend on current tier but anything over 1.2 is a solid number consistently.

I show my tier just for you and only a few days.

But my stats also comprised, i dont use boring meta, playing allways stoned and i still have problems after a stroke and having a tennisarm for the last 3 weeks (thats why i stoped playing last week (only few matches at the weekend), hope it becomes better).
And my mechs are bad: foxes, vipers, dogs, seldom a jaguar or crow.

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

Support would only be useful if it wasn't 12 v 12. In 12 v 12 "support" means one side has 12 mechs sharing damage and delivering focused damage vs 11 people doing the same and 1 guy shooting scattered, inconsistent damage.

Can your team allways fire together at the enemy?
There are no chokepoints where only a few mechs have space?
If there is enough space, you cant also share damage with lrms and do more damage with lrms and lasers?

CLRM10 with artemis are not that bad for centertorsos, 4 of then do it fast and dont have much heat (and you can do a asymetric dog with ams and some lrm-quirks).


But its seems you have been seen too much bad pilots,
you are repeating that lrm-user stay back and dont share armor.
Maybe this comes from playing in the lower tiers? *

*Cant resist after your snarky tier comment.

Edited by Kroete, 26 April 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Acehilator, on 26 April 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

So far I have not been able to replicate the results of my Awesome-8R with any other mech, and even though I am a big fan of LRMs I still play way more games in regular mechs than LRM boats.

Also stop calling your King Crab an MG King Crab, the MGs are not the main weapon... and if you do a similar setup with 4x MGs, 3x LPL and 3x ASRM4 on the 000B, you get a really nice mech. But I guess that is not meta enough for you, and this is me getting off-topic.

I don't think we have ever seen each other in QP, but that is not really surprising, the community is small, but not that small.

I have seen him... had to fight with him over comms to stop the team from doing the terrible plan he was trying to get people to do. He can NOT understand the fundamental differences between PUG and Group drops, that his advocating for a maneuver which while totally acceptable in a Group who have High Trust Relationships & Discipline was the fastest way possible to get our team to fragment and dissolve. Thankfully I was able to yell loudly enough over him and no one really wanted to push out the D5 door anyways, that I was able to keep the team together and we won 12-3. It is still a Team Game but it is an entirely different kind of team, and many do not seem to understand that.

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 26 April 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

I have seen him... had to fight with him over comms to stop the team from doing the terrible plan he was trying to get people to do. He can NOT understand the fundamental differences between PUG and Group drops, that his advocating for a maneuver which while totally acceptable in a Group who have High Trust Relationships & Discipline was the fastest way possible to get our team to fragment and dissolve. Thankfully I was able to yell loudly enough over him and no one really wanted to push out the D5 door anyways, that I was able to keep the team together and we won 12-3. It is still a Team Game but it is an entirely different kind of team, and many do not seem to understand that.

Dude, at the time the push started the enemy wasn't at D5. By the time the team got there 3 of us were almost to then end of the channel and got almost all the way back. It's a good thing however that the team pushed out the other side to flank; fortunately the other team stuck around D5.

D5 is ideal because when you get to the end the enemy has no cover and you do. Because deflecting down blocks your arms and low torso mounts but deflecting up lets you use both arm and torso weapons it's better to be in the low position than the high in narrow confines. A great example in FW is the 'pocket' on the channel on Boreal; you get into it and you can shoot people trying to poke over the hill at you before they can effectively shoot at you. Same concept in D5.

If you take the 'left' exit, yes it's shorter but you have no cover at the end and the enemy has cover on both sides.

The argument was about which channel was best to go out of. Yes, the best exit is always the one with nobody waiting. However D5 is the best exit if you're under and trying to get out. That or a split exit, which is essentially what we did. An enfilade isn't the same advantage in MWO that it is in real life because mechs are not infantry.

You didn't keep the team together; they pushed out the path with no resistance. Not a bad choice. If we'd all gone out D5 we'd have been fine if you stick to the wall and hustle to the exit; then you're coming up the ramp with cover (on both sides actually) while the guys up top can only make a run for it.

I didn't call the D5 push, someone else did and at the time the enemy was not at D5. The team was slow to get out and so adapted. That's pug queue. The 'short' exit though? Worst exit unless there's nobody up top waiting. You exit into open space to cross while the enemy has several points of cover.