422 replies to this topic

[Xiphias]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

Not because LRMs are bad, but because that KDK3+Gauss+PPC was simply too good.

The tremendous brokenness of the Kodiak 3 without nerfs made the whole process very boring in my opinion : peek, twitch-click your big PPFLD alpha, hide.

How is that varied ?

How is that strategic or tactical ?

How is that using cover to close the distance ?

How is that different from camping spawn points with a sniper in Counter Strike ?

The competitive community agreed that the Kodiak needed nerfs. That wasn't the reason that LRMs weren't taken. It's that LRMs are near the bottom of a long list of weapon choices. Whenever a new patch comes out you'll see the meta change. Gauss+PCC, Dakka, Laservomit, Brawl, etc. Comp players adapt, LRMs simply aren't that effective.

The point here isn't the interest. The point is the effectiveness. LRMs simply aren't effective in a competitive setting. There are more tactics and nuance than you give the competitive scene credit for, positioning, movement, and coordination are huge factors. If you haven't played in an organized team vs. team environment I'm not going to be able to explain them to you. It's something you need to understand through experience.

Quote

And for the record, while I'm certifiably mad IRL, I'm not delusional ... that particular line was about the "never see LRMs anywhere" bit, since by personnal experience I can tell you that you DO see LRMs everywhere.

I never said this. I said:

Xiphias, on 01 June 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

LRMs used in serious comp play: 0

That's the only proof of the lack of effectiveness you need.

You are the one who misread what I wrote, misconstrued what I meant, and called me delusional for stating objective facts. If you are going pretend I said things I didn't, I think that it's fair to call you delusional. Again, your words, not mine.

By all means, play the game to have fun. Don't play comp if you don't want to, but if you don't put in the same time and as these players don't think that your views or opinions are as valuable. Your understanding of the game will be inferior to those who have played in this way and you can't provide valuable feedback on play that you've never participated in.

Quote

And please don't tell me it takes more "player skill" to point-and-click the kind of PPFLD weapons than what you need to use your brain for when trying to be efficient with anything less than optimal, like LRMs ... I'm doing maths in my head when I use LRMs, plotting trajectories and flight time, finding clear firing lines and much more, while most of the players I've spectated using the meta gauss+ppc build just point and click (most of them wasting shots too), even when I *KNOW* they are better than me after checking their stats.

Player skill is about movement, positioning, and coordination. The ability to aim is only a small part of the skill factor. There are skilled players that play LRMs. Skill is the ability to extract the maximum amount of performance out of a given mech (I'd also argue being able to build mechs properly is a bit of a skill, but one that can be shared). There is more performance that can be extracted from non LRM builds than from LRMs, regardless of how skilled the player is. That is why LRMs are not "effective".

Burke IV, on 01 June 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

Could you imagine if they had and then their team lost? nobody woulda dared and if they did their team would have stopped them. People repeated LRMs are terrible so often it became a self fulfilling prophecy, players were indoctrinated to feel cool and PGI seems to listen to it and eventually the game has become warped around the idea. If thats how it really is i think PGI needs to buff LRMs patch after patch until they account for around 30% of weapons used competativly. Thats balance isnt it?

LRMs are broken at a mechanics level. They are pretty much guaranteed to either be useless or insanely overpowered. The problem being that if you buff them to the point where they are strong against good players they will completely destroy bad players. Unless they change the core mechanic I don't see how they can fix LRMs.

Like many players you make the false assumption that comp players haven't tried LRMs. We have. After the skill tree dropped my unit had members who went out and did their due diligence and tested LRMs. The result was that they still weren't worth taking competitively. It's not a stigma that prevents competitive players from taking LRMs and if you think it is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how these players think.

You don't see them in comp matches because players test these things in private lobbies against other teams or internally. This isn't pugs. You don't try a brand new untested strategy in a world championship match. You test strats in private lobbies, find the meta that works the best, and then execute tried and true methods as best you can.

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:

I also did the "tunnel LRMs" trick, as well as making my missiles take corner turns and more, but I'm obviously a bad player that doesn't know how to meta and ppfld ... no skill here, nope, no situational awareness, no team mentality either, I'm a bad, evil, potato.

And yet despite knowing all these "LRM tricks" you are still in T5 and your stats are abysmal. If LRMs were good and you were good you'd be doing a whole lot more. If you want to play for fun, go ahead. I won't fault you for that. Don't claim that you know what's good or bad though because clearly you don't.

[Lorcryst NySell]

King Kuranes, on 01 June 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'm sorry, I really need to call you on this. The mental gymnastics are giving me a pulled back and sprained ACL.

Did it occur to you that the good players spend hours testing different weapon systems and combos. Maybe spent hours with the new skill tree to maximize. And through all that work never tested LRM's?

What's more likely, that every single good and above level player in the game has determined that LRMS are not a decent weapon system or you are the keeper of some arcane knowledge that none have yet grasped?

That was sarcasm, irony, and a bit of trolling on my part ... forgot that it doesn't translate well in another language and written.

Also, I was hungry.

I've eaten now, much better.

[Daggett]

I don't think raw data will settle the dispute. In case the data shows that LRM's are indeed effective because in most matches there are plenty of victims who fail to protect themselves then the haters will use that as an argument that LRM users are skilless easy-button noobs.

But if data tells us that LRMs are inferior then you will see haters use this argument to further bully everyone who dares to bring suboptimal weapons.

You know: Hater's gonna hate...


My guess is the main problem with LRMs is that they are simply very vulnerable to hate by design.

• They require no aim and LOS, which make their users skilless.
  
• They have many counters which make them unreliable and therefore weak.
  
• They encourage less-experienced pilots to sit back way too far which make those pilots armor-denying cowards.
  
• They can easily annihilate a careless enemy when boated which makes them OP.
  
• They spread their damage which devalues their damage-potential

Given those multiple 'attack vectors' LRMs will always be hated by someone unless they are changed dramatically.
The funny thing is that most of those perceived vulnerabilities are shared by many other weapons too, it's just not as obvious.

Example:
For each noob LRM-Assault hanging back and not sharing armor, i see a sniping potato-Assault with PPC/Gauss, Hexa AC/2 or similar making the exact same mistake and do what the label on their weapon suggests instead of using their long-range stuff and armor on the frontline when needed. And we all know those special assaults which are capping remote points on conquest instead of rallying up with their heavies and mediums. Maybe those missiles travelling for ages are simply more prominent than all the other badly-played assaults...

Another example:
A team hesitating to push against an enemy team with better long-range capabilities on polar highlands or similar map is as much a hard counter to my brawler than a team full of ecm and/or ams is against my LRM-boat. The same is true for any high-alpha laser-vomit mech when the enemy team pushes hard and don't let them cooldown between shots. I can imagine that i have as much such bad games in my other specialized mechs than in my lrm-mechs.


So to get back to my point: Maybe the problem with LRMs is simply that they have more potential to make others salty than other weapons who only possess one or two argumentative vulnerabilities. But does that make them a bad choice in pug games when the pilot knows how to use them correctly and compensates for their weaknesses? I don't think so.

Edited by Daggett, 01 June 2017 - 09:01 AM.

[Dead Tom Kerensky]

There are weapons that perform well based on you being good and weapons that perform well when your enemy makes a mistake. Since you cannot control your enemy it is a bad decision to field weapons that require your enemy to be bad. LRMs are that kind of weapon. They are effective in situations where you would have likely won using other weapon types and ineffective at taking a losing situation and turning it into a win.

The people who play in competitive and the top FP units don't use them. These folks have played hundreds of hours, have evaluated the effectiveness of the various weapons, and have decided LRMs are not the weapon to use.

One of the big reasons for this is about armor sharing. Not because everyone wants to trundle across open field and brawl. When playing the hill and side poke game if there is only 1 or 2 people poking and 3 people behind them lrming then the 2 who poke are going to get shot to bits by 5 mechs on the enemy team doing the same. If you have 5 mechs poking from different points its much more difficult to single one out and light him up.

Ask yourself how often you LRM from behind a friendly mech rather than fanning out in a firing line. Because LRM mechs tend to be slower and strip armor that answer is probably often. You can imagine that if I'm poking and getting shot because I'm the only one the enemy sees and I have a couple teammates behind using my locks to safely fire over a hill. Well I'm going to get annoyed at those folks.

Also worth mentioning is the the way LRM damages enemies, it doesn't really help with the goal of reducing enemy forces quickly. The damage on a single mech spreads and LRM boats tend to just target whatever they can get locks on. This means a bunch of orange armor enemy mechs still being effective rather than mechs dieing quickly one by one to reduce incoming fire.

Edited by Dead Tom Kerensky, 01 June 2017 - 09:08 AM.

[Lorcryst NySell]

FuhNuGi, on 01 June 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

I am sure, at your Tier, that you have plenty of experience to pass along to the player base... keep talking.

I know plenty of good players using LRMs... at your Tier, I am quite sure you see all weapon systems being used poorly.

Xiphias, on 01 June 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

And yet despite knowing all these "LRM tricks" you are still in T5 and your stats are abysmal. If LRMs were good and you were good you'd be doing a whole lot more. If you want to play for fun, go ahead. I won't fault you for that. Don't claim that you know what's good or bad though because clearly you don't.

Aaaaah sweet double standards.

In a thread where some people state that Tier is useless and stats subjective, I'm attacked about my Tier and stats.

Guess what ?

I don't care about Tier and Stats, I want to have fun.

I have bad eyesight, bad reflexes, pain and shakes in my hand, lousy aim and an old computer.

Those are facts, not excuses.

My first 200 games were so bad that I'm now laden with horrible stats that I cannot erase ... I'm not pretending to be good, I'm well aware of my limitations and "potato skill", but I do watch, learn, and try to be better.

But I'll never put hundreds of hours in a game, making it a job, when I already have a full time job ...

About opinions : every one can have some, and none are more or less valid than others. It's called freedom of thinking and speaking.

[Ultimax]

People really need to stop referring to balance or game mechanics complaints as "racism".

You might try going outside, reading books and having some perspective on reality that is grounded in reason & logic.

[Burke IV]

Xiphias, on 01 June 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

LRMs are broken at a mechanics level. They are pretty much guaranteed to either be useless or insanely overpowered. The problem being that if you buff them to the point where they are strong against good players they will completely destroy bad players. Unless they change the core mechanic I don't see how they can fix LRMs.

Like many players you make the false assumption that comp players haven't tried LRMs. We have. After the skill tree dropped my unit had members who went out and did their due diligence and tested LRMs. The result was that they still weren't worth taking competitively. It's not a stigma that prevents competitive players from taking LRMs and if you think it is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how these players think.

You don't see them in comp matches because players test these things in private lobbies against other teams or internally. This isn't pugs. You don't try a brand new untested strategy in a world championship match. You test strats in private lobbies, find the meta that works the best, and then execute tried and true methods as best you can

Ok ok its a good answer, you are wrong about my assumption tho I like shooting LRMs, the attitude towards them has kept me out of groups or fw or anything else and when the challenge in qp vanished i stopped playing. As i sit here typing i think to myself that LRMs are to this game what DM was to counterstrike, they let you play a single player game in qp. All i have done sinse the start is shoot LRMs if i coulnt shoot them this game would be boring.

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

I don't care about Tier and Stats, I want to have fun.

I have bad eyesight, bad reflexes, pain and shakes in my hand, lousy aim and an old computer.

Those are facts, not excuses.

My first 200 games were so bad that I'm now laden with horrible stats that I cannot erase ... I'm not pretending to be good, I'm well aware of my limitations and "potato skill", but I do watch, learn, and try to be better.

But I'll never put hundreds of hours in a game, making it a job, when I already have a full time job ...

This so much. All of you elitist ****** who think you're God's gift to multiplayer gaming take notice.

[Vxheous]

GabrielSun, on 01 June 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

You missed the point of of his observation about LRM 20s. His conclusion in the stream was that the 20s did a massive amount of damage, but spread the damage out far too much to be useful. Everyone who knows what they are doing would prefer pinpoint damage, but if someone can strip the 100+ armour off an atlas for me so I can crit his internals, I'm good with that.

The tide raises all boats.

I didn't miss that point, as I said overall effectiveness is sub-par (every good player knows this)

[Xiphias]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Aaaaah sweet double standards.

In a thread where some people state that Tier is useless and stats subjective, I'm attacked about my Tier and stats.

Tier as an upper limit is pretty useless. Tier at the bottom actually works pretty well. If after 1500 games you are still in T5 it means that's where you should be. The problem is at the top where plays that shouldn't be in T1 get there by playing lots of matches with average stats.

Not everyone can be good. I understand that. Playing for fun is perfectly valid. If you want to do that it's fine. I hold nothing against you for that.

Quote

About opinions : every one can have some, and none are more or less valid than others. It's called freedom of thinking and speaking.

I disagree, everyone can have opinions, but some opinions are more valid than others. I can have my opinion on what causes solar flares. Maybe it's magic or the sun god. That doesn't make my opinion as valid as a scientist who specializes in solar flares and has scientific evidence to support his opinion. Opinions that are backed up with facts, evidence, and relevant experience are more valid that those that are not.

In this game the top competitive players are effectively the "experts". By your own admission you play for fun and are not willing to put serious effort into the game. There are plenty of competitive players who put in far more time and work than you do. While you are entitled to your opinion, it is arrogant to think that your opinion is as informed or valid as that of those players. Opinions can be wrong, that makes them less valid.

Playing for fun is a subjective opinion that I won't fault you for. It's no more or less wrong than playing competitively. The effectiveness of LRMs is a more or less objective question and if you don't have the relevant skill and experience, then I'm sorry, but no, your opinion is worthless and invalid.

[Leeroy Lazer Vomit Kerensky]

Ultimax, on 01 June 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

People really need to stop referring to balance or game mechanics complaints as "racism".

You might try going outside, reading books and having some perspective on reality that is grounded in reason & logic.

I've chosen my side in the impending weapons race war [redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 19 June 2017 - 01:35 PM.
extreme/inappropriate content

[FuhNuGi]

Spread damage?

Got a problem with it?
No pinpoint, distributed over all components is an issue with LRMs and LBX, and yet I do not hear the Team Salt cheerleading squad going on about LBX not being pinpoint.

I really feel what it comes down to, for quick play and PUG runs, is the FACT that someone's dirty little missiles can touch you when you miscalculated on your positioning, while the shooter is not exposed.

In fact, I love this part of the system. I have good IRL experience with indirect fire systems, and you gotta love being able to inflict damage without being exposed to enemy fire. I back up my flight of missiles quite often to inflict a ballistic or laser to hit at the same time... a cheap "time on target" effect... my missiles soften up all areas of the target so I can get into the internals... just like an LBX, except I don't have to use "facetime"... or so you can come in and get the kill with your 2000m gauss shot.

Weapon synergy... how the Team works with combined armament... this topic will become more important when the new tech comes into play.
Heavy lasers, ATM, MRMs... everyone will be working on new builds. Expect new preferred ranges and possibly new techniques being needed to optimize their use.
I think many LRM users may switch to a different system, so, as I said previously... save some salt.

Edited by FuhNuGi, 01 June 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Antares102]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

I don't care about Tier and Stats, I want to have fun.

If you just want to have fun please stop engaging on discussions about comp play, top tier play, how to balance a game and defending LRMs viability in any shape or form.
Thanks

It's you entitled "play for fun" potatos who steer this game into the wrong direction not players who play to win.
And if you dont care about Tiers good for you! For me you are long term Tier 5 (1500+ games) that is ruining any newcomer motivation to continue playing this game if he constantly is paired up with for-the-lulz players like you.

Puppy Monkey Baby, on 01 June 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

This so much. All of you elitist ****** who think you're God's gift to multiplayer gaming take notice.

Then go play single player games where you arent encountering other humans that want to win and improve themselves.
Potatoes destroy the game experience of new players not top tier players.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Antares102, on 01 June 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

If you just want to have fun please stop engaging on discussions about comp play, top tier play, how to balance a game and defending LRMs viability in any shape or form.
Thanks

It's you entitled "play for fun" potatos who steer this game into the wrong direction not players who play to win.
And if you dont care about Tiers good for you! For me you are long term Tier 5 (1500+ games) that is ruining any newcomer motivation to continue playing this game if he constantly is paired up with for-the-lulz players like you.

When you point one finger at someone there are four more pointing back at you. Comp play is not in the majority and in fact is the minority. As such, any comments they make regarding balance are to be disregarded since they do not make up the majority of the players. This is why they have their own wittle playpen here on the forums. Last I checked, this forum was about general discussion of the game for non-competitive players.

[FuhNuGi]

Kind of funny.

T5 worrying about T1 comp play.

Carry on... still laughing... made me snort coffee out my nose.

[Antares102]

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

When you point one finger at someone there are four more pointing back at you. Comp play is not in the majority and in fact is the minority. As such, any comments they make regarding balance are to be disregarded since they do not make up the majority of the players. This is why they have their own wittle playpen here on the forums. Last I checked, this forum was about general discussion of the game for non-competitive players.

The top players are the ones that are shaping the balance of every competitive game that wants to be eSports like MWO.
Just like in every real sports where the top players or teams define what is talked about.
Their opinions therefore weighs much heavier than tons of potatoes.
As long as you have not mastered the basics of game and in MWO terms this means you are still tier 5 I still kindly ask you to stop commenting on stuff which you have zero knowledge about.

[Vxheous]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Aaaaah sweet double standards.

In a thread where some people state that Tier is useless and stats subjective, I'm attacked about my Tier and stats.

Guess what ?

I don't care about Tier and Stats, I want to have fun.

I have bad eyesight, bad reflexes, pain and shakes in my hand, lousy aim and an old computer.

Those are facts, not excuses.

My first 200 games were so bad that I'm now laden with horrible stats that I cannot erase ... I'm not pretending to be good, I'm well aware of my limitations and "potato skill", but I do watch, learn, and try to be better.

But I'll never put hundreds of hours in a game, making it a job, when I already have a full time job ...

About opinions : every one can have some, and none are more or less valid than others. It's called freedom of thinking and speaking.

You talk about your early games dragging down your stats, but you realize that everyone can see your stats on a month to month basis, and your stats don't improve over time. In a way, tier is useless, but not completely. For instance, there is probably very little different between a Tier 1 player that has a 1.0 W/L, 1.0 K/D and a 200 match score vs a Tier 3 player that has a 1.0 W/L, 1.0 K/D and a 200 match score other than games played. However, there is a huge difference between a Tier 5 player that has a 0.5 W/L, a 0.3 K/D and a 150 match score vs a Tier 1 player that has a 3.0 W/L, 3.0 K/D and a 350 match score.

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 01 June 2017 - 09:44 AM.

[Ced Riggs]

I, for one, wish that LRMs were better.

Nerfing LRMs is dumb. LRMs aren't dangerous and have 500 counters. Sometimes, I deliberately get exposed/spotted and rake in the "INCOMING MISSILE" warnings and hug a wall, or farm cBills/Match Score with AMS, that's how pathetic LRMs are. I know that an LRM boat can't pressure me, and I can pressure an LRM boat anytime I want to initiate that.

And that's bad.

I would prefer if LRMs flew faster and had a beam-riding option - TAG to guide the missiles - so LRM pilots could help with XL checking IS mechs, finish legs on squirrels, or rob Marauders of their guns. And I wish they could add to a team's firing power from behind the second line in a meaningful way, rather than hobble behind and get popped as stragglers.

My gripe with LRMs isn't that they kill me. The gripe is that LRMs on my team get me killed. An assault hanging back and lurming pushes the burden to tank and push on the Mediums and Heavies, and that means, my team is softer and can't pus has well. LRMs lose games. I am by no means a comp player, or good, or amazing, but I try. And if I compare my W/L ratio of ~1.75 to the W/L ratios of some of the more adamant LRM supporters on the forums, I see numbers that are a whole point less. I tend to win 2 out of 3 matches, whereas the LRM spokespeople lean towards 1 out of 2, some even 1 out of 3 matches won. So, every match I play with LRM boats... my chances of losing are higher.

And that is what annoys me. It is a team game, and having an LRM boat on my team makes my tea mmore likely to lose. Which is why I want LRMs to be buffed.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Antares102, on 01 June 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

The top players are the ones that are shaping the balance of every competitive game that wants to be eSports like MWO.
Just like in every real sports where the top players or teams define what is talked about.
Their opinions therefore weighs much heavier than tons of potatoes.
As long as you have not mastered the basics of game and in MWO terms this means you are still tier 5 I still kindly ask you to stop commenting on stuff which you have zero knowledge about.

No, they aren't shaping anything.

I am tier 5 because my stats are archived after not playing the game for three years due to real life. I have more experience in this game then you do and I started with Closed Beta. I would kindly suggest you accord people respect because they deserve it. I don't care if you're tier 1 and got carried there because KDR and other metrics doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is Win/Loss. My Win/Loss as drop commander is 90%. Can you beat that? I doubt it.

[Xiphias]

Puppy Monkey Baby, on 01 June 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

This so much. All of you elitist ****** who think you're God's gift to multiplayer gaming take notice.

It's fine to play and have fun, but if you do don't think that your opinions hold as much weight on balance issues. If I didn't know how to lock tagets (extreme example) I would think that LRMs were terrible dumbfire weapons and that streaks were completely broken and useless. Should PGI balance the game around this opinion? Should LRMS autohome without having to lock targets at all? Clearly not. It makes no sense to balance from this point. This is why balance needs to start from the top down. Balance based on the optimal performance of weapon systems and then tune this so that it isn't broken in the lower tiers.

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

When you point one finger at someone there are four more pointing back at you. Comp play is not in the majority and in fact is the minority. As such, any comments they make regarding balance are to be disregarded since they do not make up the majority of the players. This is why they have their own wittle playpen here on the forums. Last I checked, this forum was about general discussion of the game for non-competitive players.

This forum is general discussion, for all players, competitive or not. That said, competitive players have a more holistic understanding of how that game works. Comp players also play in solo and group queue. Pure puggers don't play in competitive settings. Why would you balance around players who only have half the picture? Comp players want the game as a whole to be balanced. For this to happen the game needs to be balanced from the top down.

Pug players miss the big picture because they don't see how mechanics can be exploited in an organized environment. PGI has stated that competitive play is important to them and are introducing a competitive queue. If they are going to do this they have to balance the game at a competitive level and for that level of balancing you need to listen to competitive players. If a player hasn't played competitively they can't have an informed opinion on competitive balance and therefore they opinion is basically worthless because the competitive setting is so different.