422 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Deathlike, on 02 June 2017 - 10:13 AM, said:

Someone please find that DivA game where the #1 team in some MRBC season won with LRMs (throughout the season). Good luck with finding that.

Not throughout the season, but thanks to the glorious Polar Highlands you actually see lurms in comp sometimes, since on Polar lurms are perfectly viable. Since I've played for them I know BSMC (div.A EU) won both MRBC and SL drops on Polar using lurm dropdecks.

All other maps tho lurms are back where they belong, in a trash heap.

[PhoenixFire55]

Lorcryst NySell, on 02 June 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

Now, instead of berating me because I'm a bad player, would you mind teaching me how to get better ?

For starters not using lurms would help ...

[PhoenixFire55]

The Trojan Titan, on 03 June 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

When you have the ability to reach out and deal 5 dmg per mech and support at long range with little or no effort, as long as locks can be sustained to land that damage, it adds up fast.

And who exactly sustaines said locks, eh? ... UAVs are shot down in 2 seconds, light mech spotters are shot dead in 5 seconds ... you are going to run out of spotters really quick.

[Vellron2005]

So.. still no actual statistical data huh?

Still just pointless bickering over the nature of LRMs?

No word from PGI?

Sad.. real sad..

[Xiphias]

Vellron2005, on 05 June 2017 - 12:42 AM, said:

So.. still no actual statistical data huh?

Still just pointless bickering over the nature of LRMs?

No word from PGI?

Sad.. real sad..

I gave you the only statistical data we as players have access to. You could go through and watch MRBC videos at figure out how many of them have LRMs in, but what were you really expecting? If you wanted LRM statistics from PGI you should have skipped the forums and tweeted Russ.

[A1Ste4kSauce]

Reading this thread made me lose some faith in this community. The amount of vitriol being directed by many people here is akin to that of high school students. Statistics from PGI would be great and might clear people's minds, but remember, it is a game and should be fun. Granted, people who LRM from the back all the time aren't fun, agreed, but people can play how they please. Ineffective LRM users usually get killed by flankers because they just carried LRMS or if they don't they had a great team to back them up. The people who use them meaningfully stay with the team lobbing LRMS and firing off MLasers. I like that this MechWarrior has so many options for players to use though. Good use of cover, ECM coverage, and AMS are also a great counters against LRMS. The latter two take teamwork, which is hard to find at times in quickplay, but is remedied by mic use and higher tiers.

Also, the elitist stuff needs to stop, that's how communities die and MWO's community isn't exactly the largest. Most people aren't going to play competitive, so to suggest that the game should be tailored and shaped around an elite core of players as it was earlier suggested in this thread is ludicrous. PGI is a company and needs to make money. Ostracizing the majority of your player base to please a few is a great way to drive off new and current customers. Unless of course those elite players spend hundreds of thousands a year to keep PGI afloat. Elite communities exist within the greater community, not vice versa. At the end of the day it is a game. Non-competitive players have fun in earning c-bills and trying out different builds while competitive players have fun running meta-builds and upping their stats.

Teamwork is OP
My two cents
GLHF FSU

Edited by A1Ste4kSauce, 05 June 2017 - 09:35 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 04 June 2017 - 07:46 PM, said:

The last time PGI increased velocity of LRMs and changed the arcs of fire, we had a lrmageddon, and that was a real cancer on the game, because everyone used them, and no one could break cover, period. It was so bad that PGI had to revert it within a week. Thing is, a no-aim lock on long range weapon is very hard to balance. Make it too good, and everyone uses it (including comp players and other good players that currently shun them), and LRMs blot out the sun (and demolish your fps) in the game.

It was not
It was 15 M/s to appease the Potato

They were equally terrible to how they are now (what's the missile velocity amount? Generic vel at 10%? Which means +16%, no? There's your LURMageddon in the live game! Absolutely pathetic!)


What there was was LRM saturation because of the change everyone wanted to not, not LRMs being more powerful

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 04 June 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

W-L is totally relevant though and you're not disputing my point.

Did I deny W/L's relevance? And even then W/L's relevance can be limited depending upon what game mode (Qp, GP, etc) you are playing in and the very makeup of your team. (You are only one person out of 23 other people in the match.) It is more relevant than K/D for certain.

That first line was in response to this:

Deathlike, on 03 June 2017 - 10:00 PM, said:

Oh well. I'm not saying cherry picked stats help, but I don't think I've ever really seen Lurmboats with anything resembling 2 k/d ratios, let alone 2 w/l ratios (even when matchscore is through the roof).

I was only responding to the relevance of K/D overall when talking about "effectiveness" in that first paragraph. So I don't know why that sparked your W/L remark. (Which maybe I just misread the tone within it?)

Deathlike, on 04 June 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Any time an LRM boat is challenged, they cannot respond. The difference between that so many other direct fire mechs... you still can at least repay in damage before you die. LRM boats simply cannot respond effectively due to LRM mechanics.

When you're calling targets and weak spots, you can expect some level of confidence that people that can aim will hit the spot more often than not... whereas LRMs... what and where you want something hit is totally on a prayer.

I guess this doesn't apply to me then directly, as I've already mentioned I'm not an LRM boat.

I find LRMs tend to spread just enough to often times damage a side torso even if it's turned away from me. In compliment and combination with my direct fire weapons (which is part of the reason I never boat LRMs), I find I can create holes and then also take advantage of them as well. Often, players will try to shield that side from my direct fire weapons (and some do it very well), only to find that section still being removed from my LRMs and their spread.

That spread is also why I never boat LRMs as well. Sandpaper is nice, but sandpaper alone often doesn't get the job done when you need to cut something in half. That's when you get a saw... This is why I feel LRMs are best served as a compliment to other direct fire weapons, at least for what I use them for and for how I play.

It's a matter of what you are looking for and what you want to get out of it. I've never disputed the effectiveness of direct fire. I actually agree with much of what is said about them. There is a reason I don't like boating LRMs either, but I do feel LRMs still have their uses within a more mixed build. Although I wont be upset if I do have a teammate who boated the LRMs, as long as they are working within the team and is up with the team, and working within effective ranges. 800+m indirect fire only is not something I consider to be "effective ranges", but that's what I happen to see all to often...

PhoenixFire55, on 05 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

And yet convergence is the thing that causes more than half of MWO balancing and gameplay issues. We keep talking about if for five years and keep getting ignored for five years ...

Which would you like?
HSR where we typically (excluding unstable ping) hit where we are shooting?
or
Delayed convergence, but where you may have to lead several mech lengths with lasers just to be able to hit your target?

I do agree that delayed convergence was a lot of fun and it would help to solve a lot of the current problems between many different weapon systems. However, it was tried before hand already, and their HSR program does not get along with the delayed convergence system.

It's not a matter of being ignored about it, it actually did get a response back when PGI implemented HSR. (Or, that is where I recall reading about it... It has been a while.)

Vellron2005, on 05 June 2017 - 12:42 AM, said:

So.. still no actual statistical data huh?

Still just pointless bickering over the nature of LRMs?

No word from PGI?

Sad.. real sad..

If you really want, I will happily screen and post my current mech stats as well as builds on them. Just ask me and I'll do it.

However, I'm starting to believe that some of the recent stats in the mech stats section of this site seems to be... off. I'm not cure how accurate those stats would be suddenly...
But, I leave my offer open for my personal stats, as that is all I can offer.

As far as PGI goes, don't expect a response from them. They have a lot of things to do themselves, and that would be a lot of data to arrange and place on display. PGI can't afford to respond to every person who asks them a question, so please don't expect them to respond to you and be disappointed when they don't...

Xiphias, on 05 June 2017 - 04:54 AM, said:

I gave you the only statistical data we as players have access to. You could go through and watch MRBC videos at figure out how many of them have LRMs in, but what were you really expecting? If you wanted LRM statistics from PGI you should have skipped the forums and tweeted Russ.

If I'm correct, you gave us statistical data of high end comp play. I do believe we, as players, have access to far more data than that when we come together. The top comp play data is good, but only relevant for that level of play. We players come from all different skill levels, levels of play, play styles, etc. If enough of us individual players came together and shared our information (honestly*) together, we could maybe see a small part of the picture. *Lets face it, anyone could post whatever as their stats, so honesty is needed.

Not all of this game play is top tier comp level of play. Actually, most of this game isn't at that level. We have players operating with all different computer strengths (which will have an impact on success with different types of weapons), mouse settings, mouse types, screen sizes, internet access types/strengths... That's just the physical player side of things. Forget about PSR levels, average game types (QP, GP, FP, etc), etc.

Though it really is great to get advice, watch how they play, etc from comp players, I don't always heed everything they say either. Sometimes, one needs to just experiment and try things out for themselves and come to their own conclusions. One of the reasons for this (besides to enhance your own knowledge of things) is that, for your personal level of play their advice may not be "as relevant". For example, I am Tier 2, and I use LRMs. But I don't use them in the "typical" consideration and conventional tactics most other people use them in. I'm on the front lines, often times one of the front most mechs on my team. But I also don't boat them. For me, this works. It may not work if I was in a top tier comp match (maybe it would, no idea as I don't play that level), but for where I tend to play (QP, GP and FP), it works well enough that I feel I'm contributing to my team.

For my personal level of play in this game, I find LRMs are completely acceptable, depending upon how they are used. They are as acceptable as any other weapon I tend to bring, at least for the manner in which I play. Actually, my stats dare to say that I am as if not more effective (looking at W/L averages) with LRM based mechs than I am currently with other direct fire mechs.


Comp players make great points, but not everyone is a comp player working in the uppermost sections of this game, against the best players in the game, with computer rigs to deal with it and internet connections that are as fast as can be had. On average, their points are effective at all levels of play, but not all. I encourage players to test what is said. If a comp player said "MGs and Flamers are bad, never take them" (was once a true thing they said a long while ago), I don't want players to just take their word as law and never use those weapons. By all means, take them anyway, test them for a bit. If what they said falls true, than great. Even if they are bad, you now know how they currently operate, which will better help you combat them when and if you ever do encounter them. (Ex: "Why am I shutting down so quickly!" "Um... That be the flamers dude...")

I come from the "school" of "test it and experiment so you know how it works". LRMs become easier if you have used them yourselves, as then you know how their lock on mechanics and flight paths work better. Even if you think it's a "horrible weapon", it still is nice to at least know how they work, so you can better play against them when they do come against you. Personal experience I find is better than just blindly following what someone else says or does. My opinion of course here.

(Hum. I think I rambled a bit. Sorry. I'm kinda a "wordsworth" when I type. Never seem to be able to get short responses out...)

[Tesunie]

Mcgral18, on 05 June 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

What there was was LRM saturation because of the change everyone wanted to not, not LRMs being more powerful

I believe you meant to say "LRM saturation because of the change and everyone wanted to check it out"?


That is the problem when balancing LRMs. Any time there is a change to almost any weapon system, you suddenly see a surge in that weapon system. This isn't a specific aspect of LRMs, it happens to all mechs/weapons honestly speaking. However, unlike other weapons, LRMs tend to be more visible on the field, so when a change happens to them it's usually far more noticeable when people pick them back up.

Last change that happened, it was LRMs all over the place. Once again, we've seen another change (reduced range) when skill tree game out, as well as a dropping in the amount of Radar Dep and the effectiveness of ECM. People want to check these changes out, so once again LRMs are "popular", but a little less so than last time there was a change as LRMs were not the only weapon to receive changes this time around. So, people are checking out the changes across all their mechs...

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Xiphias, on 05 June 2017 - 04:54 AM, said:

I gave you the only statistical data we as players have access to. You could go through and watch MRBC videos at figure out how many of them have LRMs in, but what were you really expecting? If you wanted LRM statistics from PGI you should have skipped the forums and tweeted Russ.

That is NOT "statistical data"... that is a gross caricature of the game intended only for the most broken exploitable features is what is the most skewed data set imaginable. That is totally irrelevant to how +95% of the player base is ever going to play, therefore it not really relevant since only the smallest minority can have any value from it.

[PhoenixFire55]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

Which would you like?
HSR where we typically (excluding unstable ping) hit where we are shooting?
or
Delayed convergence, but where you may have to lead several mech lengths with lasers just to be able to hit your target?

Neither. Manual convergence for arm mounted weapons and fixed convergence distance for torso mounted weapons. Having to lead has nothing to do with it.

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

It's not a matter of being ignored about it, it actually did get a response back when PGI implemented HSR. (Or, that is where I recall reading about it... It has been a while.)

Lame excuse is lame. Even if its true Its their problem that their backwater servers can barely handle HSR and can't handle it with convergence. But most likely they are incapable of doing it since they fail to understand their own code once again and simply don't want to admit that. No surprise there.

[Ted Wayz]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 03 June 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

I'm sorry, your stats from last month (which includes memorial event) don't line up with your story of AMS 370 and >2.0 K/D.


Play what you want, but please don't make up your stats to prove a point.

I used an assault lurm boat and you show overall stats. You are a genius.

Step 1: Go look at my season 11 assault stats.
Step 2: Post them here.
Step 3: Apologize.

[Xiphias]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 05 June 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

That is NOT "statistical data"... that is a gross caricature of the game intended only for the most broken exploitable features is what is the most skewed data set imaginable. That is totally irrelevant to how +95% of the player base is ever going to play, therefore it not really relevant since only the smallest minority can have any value from it.

It is "statistical data". You can take a sample from all the recorded comp matches in MRBC, World Championship, etc. and look at how many mechs from that sample are taking LRMs and draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of LRMs in that setting.

Whether it's relevant to solo queue is questionable, but it's absolutely relevant statistical information on the status of LRMs as a whole. Just because it doesn't fit your point of view doesn't mean it isn't valid data.

The point is that in a highly organized and skilled environment LRMs under perform. If PGI wants them to be a balanced weapon they need to address this. If they are fine with it being a pug queue weapon they can leave it as is.

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 03 June 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

"Comp" play is a gross caricature of everything wrong that PGI has ever done in this game (which is a fair amount) because of their total inability to read ONLY TWO books, Total Warfare & Tactical Operations. So using that exploit scene as the basis for judgment on anything else is false, especially when 90% of the player base is NEVER going to ever do it. Since LRMs can not be exploited by pixel perfect convergence or firing more than one weapon with Jumping or the laundry list of ways that PGI has utterly failed to properly implement the Ruleset correctly... then NO, LRMs will never have a place there because they are not useable in broken munchkin fashion under "House Rules".

You dodge reality like Neo dodging bullets.

Comp play is just like pug play. That's it. Same mechs, same maps, everything works the same. The only difference is that they take far more pains to balance player skill and mechs, so you can't bring a potato and play like a potato and do okay because there's probably some potatoes on the other side.

Literally the only difference in comp play is that everyone involved on both teams is (hopefully) good at the game. They hit what they're shooting at, they know where to go and what to do. They understand the game and everyone on both teams wants to win and play together.

That's it. That's all. Given your impression you've likely never even seen a comp match. Pushing is a thing, brawling is a big thing, mid range play very common. MRBC for example has 5 drops; each with different requirements on weight classes which obviously changes how the match plays.



So, to clarify and be clear here, there's no 'exploiting' going on in any way. Just good players making good choices on mechs.

That's why LRMs don't work there, there's no potatoes to farm and the other team doesn't have any idiots on it to focus on. Everyone knows how to use cover and they hit what they aim at.

So I'll repeat it again. If LRMs are as good as direct fire then put a team using LRMs together and I'll get a group of good people using direct fire and we'll see who wins. Which is exactly what comp play is; competitive play, teams made of people who are all good at the game.

Which, again, is why LRMs fail. They are not as good as direct fire and have always been shown as such. You want to argue other wise you'll need to prove it.

Edited by MischiefSC, 05 June 2017 - 11:34 AM.

[VanillaG]

MischiefSC, on 05 June 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

Comp play is just like pug play.

Comp play is just like group play, not PUG play. In the PUG play you have 23 other people with random loadouts that might listen to VOIP if someone decides to try to herd the cats. In group play you have a small number of people on comms and with somewhat synergized loadouts that will actually listen to what the leader says. Comp play is group play taken to the next level just as group play is PUG play taken to the next level.

The one thing that comp play lets you do is totally min/max the team and loadouts for a very specific situation. The comp scene would be different if the team had to supply a roster with a list of specific mech and loadouts and have to use those mechs for the entire season regardless of the map or mode. The would drastically change the loadouts because they would have to become more generalized and not as hyper-specialized like they are now.

Edited by VanillaG, 05 June 2017 - 11:49 AM.

[Tesunie]

PhoenixFire55, on 05 June 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

Neither. Manual convergence for arm mounted weapons and fixed convergence distance for torso mounted weapons. Having to lead has nothing to do with it.



Lame excuse is lame. Even if its true Its their problem that their backwater servers can barely handle HSR and can't handle it with convergence. But most likely they are incapable of doing it since they fail to understand their own code once again and simply don't want to admit that. No surprise there.

Your convergence concept was actually discussed (not by PGI that I know of though). Many players were not overly thrilled by it, myself among them. It would give more value to arm mounted weapons and less to torso mounted, but how much so? Now what happens to mechs with hard points close together on the torso? Or mounts that get spread around? Now it would increase the amount of "mechs with bad hardpoint locations". This probably would not be wise.


The issue with HSR and delayed convergence was the amount of calculations that would need to be performed. Each one is a bit more data needing to be streamed over the internet. The more data, the more harsh lag and packet loss can become. So now, instead of mostly calculations based on "were is your reticule pointed" and calculating back estimated ping to determine where you most likely hit (hence it's called "Host State Rewind"), you now would have more calculations as to each individual weapon, where it was converged to be at a given point on top of ping lag calculations for each said weapon that fired...

It isn't a "Lame excuse". It was rather clearly spelled out on the technical reasons why the old delayed convergence didn't work with HSR when HSR was released into the game. It's as much a technical hardware issue, as it could possibly be software coding. Could they optimize their coding? Maybe. But you also need to consider the hardware problems as well. Keep in mind too that this game needs to be able to adequately run on many different platforms and internet connection types. So do keep that in consideration with your expectations.

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

I guess this doesn't apply to me then directly, as I've already mentioned I'm not an LRM boat.

I find LRMs tend to spread just enough to often times damage a side torso even if it's turned away from me. In compliment and combination with my direct fire weapons (which is part of the reason I never boat LRMs), I find I can create holes and then also take advantage of them as well. Often, players will try to shield that side from my direct fire weapons (and some do it very well), only to find that section still being removed from my LRMs and their spread.

That spread is also why I never boat LRMs as well. Sandpaper is nice, but sandpaper alone often doesn't get the job done when you need to cut something in half. That's when you get a saw... This is why I feel LRMs are best served as a compliment to other direct fire weapons, at least for what I use them for and for how I play.

It's a matter of what you are looking for and what you want to get out of it. I've never disputed the effectiveness of direct fire. I actually agree with much of what is said about them. There is a reason I don't like boating LRMs either, but I do feel LRMs still have their uses within a more mixed build. Although I wont be upset if I do have a teammate who boated the LRMs, as long as they are working within the team and is up with the team, and working within effective ranges. 800+m indirect fire only is not something I consider to be "effective ranges", but that's what I happen to see all to often...

Just me just clarify my position on LRMs.

I don't care too much if there are LRM boats on the team, but if the team is constructed with too many of them, then eventually it becomes a problem.

The more LRM boats that are on a team, the more likely a more competent squad like EmP/SJR will drop the hammer on everyone, particularly the LRM boats and they become cannon fodder instead of being support or even a good teammate.

Every single effing time that LRMs are on the team, myself and other players that strictly use direct fire ARE FORCED to carry their load... either through armor sharing or just damage dishing.. because even if we had the most competent of LRM boat users, their skill ceiling caps out much quickly while I'm in the front lines or trying to trade... while I may be succeeding or trading well, but my LRM comrades are not as effective and there's nothing I can outside of literally hugging/covering their arses instead of LRM boats contributing any meaningful effort. This is in addition to them getting picked off by Lights, either by attrition or distraction or whatever reason they aren't able to fight back properly (because LRMs and min range usually come hand in hand).

In essence (TL;DR), the more LRM boats that are on my team, the onus is on me and other direct fire players become more responsible for their welfare and often times missile boats are not worth carrying/protecting. If everyone was direct fire, people could at least attempt to cover their own arses when poop hits the fan - LRM boats just poop when worse comes to worse.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 June 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Your convergence concept was actually discussed (not by PGI that I know of though). Many players were not overly thrilled by it, myself among them. It would give more value to arm mounted weapons and less to torso mounted, but how much so? Now what happens to mechs with hard points close together on the torso? Or mounts that get spread around? Now it would increase the amount of "mechs with bad hardpoint locations". This probably would not be wise.

None of this is in any way an intent of such convergence system. If it happens to be a positive effect of it then so the better. However the general idea is such because it makes sense, and only because of that, not because of buffing arm hardpoints or whatever.

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

The issue with HSR and delayed convergence was the amount of calculations that would need to be performed. Each one is a bit more data needing to be streamed over the internet. The more data, the more harsh lag and packet loss can become. So now, instead of mostly calculations based on "were is your reticule pointed" and calculating back estimated ping to determine where you most likely hit (hence it's called "Host State Rewind"), you now would have more calculations as to each individual weapon, where it was converged to be at a given point on top of ping lag calculations for each said weapon that fired...

This is plain and simple BS, adding one value (i.e. current arm weaponry convergence distance) into transferred data hardly changes anything. The calculations required to be performed by a server are indeed more complicated, but then again .. rent an actual fkn server, not a casio calculator.

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

It isn't a "Lame excuse". It was rather clearly spelled out on the technical reasons why the old delayed convergence didn't work with HSR when HSR was released into the game. It's as much a technical hardware issue, as it could possibly be software coding. Could they optimize their coding? Maybe. But you also need to consider the hardware problems as well. Keep in mind too that this game needs to be able to adequately run on many different platforms and internet connection types. So do keep that in consideration with your expectations.

Again, BS. Nothing was specified. The only reason given was that server couldn't keep up with calculations. That's it. Minimally Viable^TM at its finest.

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 05 June 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Just me just clarify my position on LRMs.

I don't care too much if there are LRM boats on the team, but if the team is constructed with too many of them, then eventually it becomes a problem.

It is very easy for a mech to become bloated/boated with LRMs. The temptation is strong with it. Just as a team can also easily become bloated as well.

A few can be used as a tool. Too many, and you don't have enough of the right tools, like having nothing but Allen Wrenches and no wrenches or screwdrivers in your toolbox.

There is a reason I do believe that LRMs can be useful within a more diverse build set, not as a boat and not as a bloated team of them. Use them on the front lines, be there to share armor, have the direct fire weapons to also join in selected component shooting. These are all good things to have and do. LRMs can, when in limited numbers, provide a way to support when you may be out of position, counter a bit of side shielding even, or just as an extra bit of relatively low heat/tonnage damage or as an alternative longer ranged punch to an otherwise very short range build (which can come in handy in QP matches).

I feel that much of the problem with LRMs and teams is how often and easily they become boated. They aren't often thought of as a compliment to something else, or as other tactical roles besides "long range" and "indirect". True, those are some strengths of the weapon, but they can do more things.


Personally, I let boat players hold for themselves. I'll help them if I can, but I'm not going to do everything possible to ensure their survival or match score. I'm going to play as I have to, and if an LRM boat/group get ambushed, I'm probably not going to go back and help them when they should have been with the team instead of out on their own out back...

AKA: I feel it is often a matter of how LRMs are being used, more than LRMs on their own as the fault. There are ways to use them effectively, and less effectively. Then again, isn't that true for all weapons?

PS: I keep seeing the words TD;LR. I know roughly what it means (the important notes/general concept/short version). However, I've often wondered what the letters actually literally stood for... Mind enlightening me please?

[Ted Wayz]

Deathlike, on 05 June 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

In essence (TL;DR), the more LRM boats that are on my team, the onus is on me and other direct fire players become more responsible for their welfare and often times missile boats are not worth carrying/protecting. If everyone was direct fire, people could at least attempt to cover their own arses when poop hits the fan - LRM boats just poop when worse comes to worse.

Bad ones maybe.

Good ones do not need protecting. Good ones need to be a priority for the other team to remove.

BTW, usually the poop hits the fan when the direct fire cower behind buildings and slowly get surrounded. But don't worry, you can always blame lrm boats for being bad.

Sounds like once again someone is remembering a bad experience and covering all lurm boats with that blanket.