Kmieciu, on 21 April 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:
You don't have to shoot LRMs at me to force me back to cover. I willingly enter cover every time my weapons are on cooldown or when I don't have enough heat capacity for another alpha.
When I run a 2xGauss ERPPC Night Gyr, I sit in cover 5 seconds, then pop out to deliver 45 damage. Enemy LRMs can't do nothing to stop me from doing that. Even when I'm NARCed I just sit behind hard cover and fire every 5 seconds. Even if you brought LRM100 mech, 40 damage to a single component is more deadly than that.
Clan laser vomit is even more extreme: you spend 1.5 seconds outside of cover to deliver up to 68 points of damage (2xCLPL+6xERML), and then wait about 12 seconds behind cover while cooling down.
My most extreme example of LRM ineffectiveness was being the last man on my team vs 3 enemy LRM boats. I was piloting a IS Marauder (with XL I might add) armed with 3xLPL 2xMPL. What's even funnier, it was on Terra Therma, the hottest map there is.
I only had 400 meters of effective range but the LPLs on this mech have a 0.6 second burn duration. Before they could even target lock me, my laser burn was already over. And big XL really helps in stepping back into cover.
Okay. I'll play along.
Because you've been sitting behind the same piece of terrain for 5 seconds at a time... I've managed to swing around to the side or even behind you making your terrain useless in my Huntsmen (which moves faster than you do). I utilize my JJs to reduce my exposure time and laser your side and depart with LRMs landing on you.
From there, you panic. You decide it's best to be behind cover, rather than let me continue to do that, so you move. Either you charge me (because I'm a "silly LRM boat") or you decide to find another piece of cover that may be effective against me.
Meanwhile, my team might take advantage of this, or I just reposition again, getting even closer to you. Close enough to pop a UAV above you. Then, I use distance to my advantage here, and back up a little so I can shoot indirectly for a few moments, as I cool down from my lasering episode. You, of course respond by backing up enough so you can shoot down the UAV above you.
Then, I charge in. I see your side torso is weak, so I laser it open some more. You shield it after a devestating barrage, but it may not be enough to kill me. I shoot my LRMs off, and the spread takes your side torso from you, as I myself duck behind cover, counting on my Adv Target Decay to continue to hold the lock just long enough for my missiles to land home.
Now what?
Or, of course, it is also just as likely that you shoot me a few times with accuracy, and just kill me with me only getting a few laser volleys off on you, and most likely (because I'll try to be within 600m before I do), a few pattering of LRMs on you.
Who knows. I've had each drama play out, many times. And often times, even in this second scenario, I still managed to deal 200+ damage to the enemy. I've gone tunnel with my LRM based Mad Dog before, and with four ERMLs dealt 200+ damage. (I was following my team, and they went tunnel. I was not afraid to do so, unlike a typical boat you may encounter.)
We could continue to come up with hundreds, no thousands, of imaginary situations. We could go back and forth on this. Giving each side an advantage and disadvantage as we go.
Of course, we could also go by "typical" LRM user behavior... which would be... Well... Yeah. "Indirect only" combined against "direct fire weapons"... Yeah. LRMs don't stand much of a chance in a 1v1, and even then they can be a situational tool. One match an aid, the next a hindrance.
As I've said before, most people see only one strength with LRMs, and they don't progress any farther from that. Then, they try to play it "always to that strength", and never realize there is so much more. It would be like looking at LPLs and never seeing ERPPC and Guass as possible weapons...
Willard Phule, on 21 April 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:
The whole "wait until you hear a beep, then fire and forget" ...
I just wanted to comment that LRMs are not "fire and forget". You must maintain a lock on your target for the flights duration, or at least almost all of it. Otherwise, they stop tracking.
SSRMs I believe are the only "fire and forget" weapon. I've never seen them lose tracking after a lock was lost. But, it is rare to lose a lock for SSRMs while they are in flight...
MischiefSC, on 21 April 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:
They know and have confirmed that LRM boating teammates statistically reduce your odds of winning.
As much as I like my LRMs, and I seem to do well with them, I'd have to agree that LRM boats tend to be a detriment more often than an aid. A single boat isn't necessarily an issue depending upon how they play it. A team of boats (and no dedicated spotters) often spells disaster.
It's one of the reasons I constantly speak out against boating LRMs. They have their advantages and I'm willing to see their strengths, but I am not blind to their weaknesses either, and many those are...
Jaybles, on 21 April 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's put a Catapult A1 with 6 lrm5s 500m away from a Catapult K2 with dual Gauss. Both have clear lines of sight, but each is stuck in quicksand and can not move, they can however torso twist. Which mech would you pick to kill the other first?
The Cat A1 with 6 LRM5s I always thought was a silly build... Takes a long time for it to deal it's damage, must stare at an opponent even more than normal for LRMs because they tend to chain fire (kinda must with Ghost Heat on LRMs), etc.
However, your test would be kinda unfair... LRMs have strength in their utility. This utility is the ability to also be fired indirectly, to suppress the enemy as well as deal spread damage. This test is nothing more than a staring contest between two turrets.
Although, there is cockpit shake to consider on the LRM side, however once your reticule has been placed the shake means nothing as your shots will still hit where you need them to.
I have found from my Stock Mech Monday days that there typically is a minimum team size before LRMs become "ineffective". They need allies to get locks, even if you are getting locks yourself. You'd be surprised at what a few LRMs tossed here or there can do to alter a fight into your favor. If you don't have enough of those allies, you are a lot harder pressed to do your job. Of course, this is even with me being on the front. (That minimum range, and we were playing with nothing but IS mechs stock, so there is also that. I used the 4J, it was perfect for the job.)
Xannatharr, on 21 April 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:
I think we all know the 'mech with Gauss would core out the CT of the LRM 'mech, while the LRM 'mech would scatter it's damage all over the legs arms and torsos of the Gauss 'mech.
Xann
On this note, though I'm not exactly disagreeing with you... at which state are we taking these builds from? Before LRM5 spread was changed? Or after? When LRMs flew at their fastest (which didn't last long), or current?
Currently, that build (the LRM5 spam) is no longer considered as "viable" as it once did, due to the spread increase. Before hand people claimed (I can't say as I've never used the build myself) that it would just drill the CT of any target they shot at. Now, they say take LRM10s instead... Some people have even tried to update those designed with Artemis on the LRM5 spam...
MischiefSC, on 21 April 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:
Did this test at 700m with the best LRM boat in the game, the Awesome, vs a ERLL BLR. We both moved, enabling the Awesome to spread damage however no breaking LOS - essentially gave the Awesome every possible advatage and played stupidly with a sub-optimal direct fire build. Still won with the BLR. A 5 LPL BLR just rushing it would have been easier. Spread the LRMs more and done more focused damage as well as easily closing to inside 180m.
If there was a way to make LRMs truly be and useful against good opponents (they're fine against bads) it would have been worked out and deployed. We'd all be running it, you'd see it in MRBC and MWOWC and top teams in FW. If LRMs worked I'd run the **** out of them. I'm always a fan of more stuff being viable and more variety.
However as they're not as good them running them gimps my team significantly and I play with people who really enjoy winning and I enjoy winning so for me, "fun" is doing what wins in a lot of ways.
Although I understand the meaning of your test, I don't believe that would be a fair match up, especially considering the rules placed on the engagement (no breaking line of sight, same weight, etc). Then again, I'll comment that I don't believe in LRM boats, for much of the reasons you've mentioned.
I find LRMs are best on more nimble mechs, ones that can poke and slid away. If Radar Dep and Adv. Target Decay (and ECM as well probably) are each being excluded form this test... I'd be using my LRMs in a hit and run fashion. No need to stare an opponent down when I don't have to. Get within 600m or closer, and approach carefully.
Though, I wish to say I'm not denying the power of direct fire weapons. It probably would win most matches against LRM specific builds. LRM builds (particularly of my style of play) normally seem to require even more skill to use than direct fire weapons, especially against higher skilled opponents. Thus, making direct fire weapons not just simpler, but also easier and more reliable to use.
I don't know if I'm just being confusing here now... Just recently woke up. Sorry if I rambled again.
4
