422 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

An LRM at anywhere past 500m or so is a shot you don't really expect to hit a competent opponent. I mean, I live in missile boats and I find baiting my opponent's missiles a hilarious exercise.

We see each other. I poke with my laser(s) and duck.

Enemy missiles hit dirt. Repeat until opponent gives up. Most of them figure since I'm a missile boat, clearly they can hit me back.

Heck, I do it without radar dep or ECM at this point, pumping my launchers into other targets the entire time on Polar. It'd be respectably tougher if LRMs had a base 200 (or 240) velocity. I've already learned not to take the poke bait long ago and tend to slap distracted targets instead, or just use my secondaries (and if you don't have decent secondaries as a missile boat, please remove five tubes and mount a few frickin' lasers.)

Quote

DON'T BOAT.

Don't care. This is MWO, and a weapon system's effectiveness is determined by how well it works when boated. Mixed builds are fundamentally trash builds, so if you're mounting that one LRM 15, you're not really part of the equation of how well a weapon works. The salt and source of this discussion is missiles, and lots of them.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 06 June 2017 - 12:14 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 05 June 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

How much more do I need to to show my total scorn for "comp" play because it is the exemplary of everything that PGI has failed to do because they can not read Total Warfare or Tactical Operations before you get that does not constitute an argument with me??? I am agreeing that in a very narrowly defined highly skewed set of abused exploitative conditions... you are correct. Since over 95% of the player population is NEVER going to be in that narrowly defined highly skewed set of abused exploitative conditions... it has no relevance in the macro sense, a few percent of the total population crowing about how good they can abuse flawed exploitative conditions is irrelevant. In summary... you do not matter to the whole of the player population.

I wish that the Group/Comp scene was a good expression of this game, unfortunately it is everything that is wrong with it rolled into one giant ball of PGI failures & basic human nature desires to exploit a system to the maximum capacity. There just happens to be way too much PGI failure for it to be a variant ruleset of the game that I would want to play... I dislike 3025 for being the most basic ruleset, it is like playing checkers in comparison to chess of the others but even 3025 is a more complicated tactical game then hide-poke with PPFLD of pixel perfect convergence on maps that never even change their spawn points.

All you're doing is clarifying that you are absolutely 100% oblivious to what competitive play is and what it looks like. Also the Tactical Operations game book and Total Warfare game book have no more relevance on MWO than the Tetatae from Far Country.

Your inability to understand the game is just a facet to why your advice is 100% worthless in determining what is and is not a viable weapon in MWO and why.

Comp play is exactly 100% like every group queue match save that it's 8 v 8 and more effort is put into making sure both sides are balanced. For variety some matches have even stricter restrictions on tonnage. Also given how prevalent SRM brawling is lately the 'pixel perfect convergence' whine you keep trying to pour out is even more irrelevant.

So, in short, you're completely wrong and 100% unable to back up your assertions with any demonstrative data.

[MischiefSC]

metallio, on 06 June 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

So you're saying that low tier people who can't hit the broad side of a barn will shoot better once they learn to shoot better and you think they'll all do that before they're out of the tier? Right?

And that they won't be happier with their performance using a weapon that doesn't require aiming? Or just won't do better?

...and just for kicks you're showing off your 2k+ damage on people who can't shoot and barely even understand the movement mechanics because it proves the power of direct damage over LRMs as if they were a full 12 man team of LRM boats?

I'm missing your point here unless it's just more of the same showing off.

If lower tier players were all new players I'd be 100% on board with what you've said. As someone who's spent a lot of time with new players and who happily adds new players every time I see them in a match I do my best to always give them a chance and absolutely, without question help them make LRM builds that will work and still teach them good positioning skills while they work out the details of this atypically complex game. MWO has a steep learning curve and taking accuracy, leading targets and 90% of positioning out of the equation is a great way to help a new player figure out things like the map, targetting and locks, gauging hits and misses and what to do when you're getting shot at.

That's not what we're talking about here though. Long time vet players who are perpetually terrible and blame everything else save what they're bringing and how they're playing and having to carry them all the time. People who've been playing MWO for years and truly don't understand that LRMs are less effective than direct fire overall and that they are less effective the more skilled your opponent is.

THAT is the argument. They are good for bad players and against bad players. If that's the context of their use then sure. Absolutely and I don't think anyone would disagree. However there's a constant stream of people saying that they're as good or better than direct fire even with good players and good players 'just don't use them right'. That 'if used correctly LRMs work perfectly against good players'.

That's a lie. That's the crux of the issue. It's watching people lie to new player or inexperienced players about does and doesn't work and why. The crabs in a pot mentality of people who have never taken the time to understand how the game works, what works and why and tell other, newer players incorrect information.

That's the source of the vitrol. Earlier this year I had an awesome weekend with 3 new players, I played my alt, helped them with some LRM boats (there were two LRM boats in the freebie mechs) and suited up a NARC Raven and ran them around in group queue and we did alright. It was awesome and fun. One of them still plays and has ventured into FW, where I see him sometimes. He's working on his skills but still runs a lot of LRMs and that's just fine. He's learning and wants to improve.

Then you play FW and a veteran player is running terrible builds, trying to tell the pugs to do truly stupid things and then complaining that it's PGIs fault he lost and the other team is mostly cheaters. That guy is ****ing poison to the game and dead weight at best. Look at the prior comments from Zuul about how comp is all 'munchkins' and making irrational, patently false comments. Most the comp players I know played TT BT for years. They just don't try to pretend this is TT. That's the other brand of stupid we have to deal with.

The vitrol exists for a reason. It's not about new people or learning people. We all <3 those guys because we all WERE those guys. It's the patently bad bads who constantly spew patently false things to new players that get the burn.

[SmokedJag]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

You presumed that we said that meta builds were not effective at lower tiers. I don't recall such a statement being said. I believe it was only stated that LRMs are more effective in lower tiers, as well as other builds and mechs that &quot;don't work in comp&quot; can work in other play levels of the game.



I tend to shoot my LRMs as more midrange weapons, not long range. So, I consider the &quot;effective&quot; range of LRMs to be within 600m, and closer to minimum range the better.

If you are trying to shoot LRMs are their max range, that would probably be issue #1. Despite LRMs being termed as &quot;Long Range Missiles&quot;, they are actually more like &quot;MRMs&quot;, or &quot;Mid Ranged Missiles&quot;. This leads me to question how the MRMs are going to be added into the game in a manner that wont invalidate LRMs completely... I look forward to seeing how this may be done. I suspect it will be by higher velocity and lack of a lock on system for MRMs, which will possible make them more desirable for more situations...

On top of that, I find using LRMs within a mixed build is helpful, as I tend to leave &quot;parting gifts&quot; after I jump snipe at mid ranges. This leads to my missiles normally hitting my target. Though I do still retain the ability to shoot at longer ranges and indirectly, if need be. However, most times, if I'm shooting you with my lasers, my missiles are soon to follow and typically within a 300m range. often, my opponents get little to no warning of the incoming missiles, at least not till they have already hit their target that is.

It's a matter of how you use it. If you are considering them as a 800+ range weapon, than those specific stats are going to look bad, because they aren't good at those ranges.

MRMs are unguided with no minimum range. They're a completely different threat, like big LBX; if you're moving fast at mid-range you can just dodge a MRM80 or something. Contra moving fast in the open at mid-range versus a LRM80...

[Ted Wayz]

MischiefSC, on 06 June 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

THAT is the argument. They are good for bad players and against bad players. If that's the context of their use then sure. Absolutely and I don't think anyone would disagree. However there's a constant stream of people saying that they're as good or better than direct fire even with good players and good players 'just don't use them right'. That 'if used correctly LRMs work perfectly against good players'.

So we go against the same competition and with LRMs my matchscore is 60 points higher and my k/d is higher too. So I guess we can inference that since LRMs are bad the you must be...terrible?

Stop it already. People tend to be prejudice against those things they cannot comprehend. You have repeatedly shown you do not know how to LRM but instead of blaming yourself you seem to be on a crusade against them.

And you keep proving my point. LRMs are difficult to be good with due to all the hard and soft counters. More so than point and click. I am sorry that you cannot be successful with them, but that doesn't mean others cannot. You just have to really understand how and when to use missiles. Direct fire? See target press button...

And please let go of this comp scene nonsense. There is no comp scene. This isn't WoT or LoL or CoD or any real e-Sport. When 99% of the players of a game cannot name a team or player that is so called competitive without looking it up...it just doesn't qualify.

[Tesunie]

SmokedJag, on 06 June 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

MRMs are unguided with no minimum range. They're a completely different threat, like big LBX; if you're moving fast at mid-range you can just dodge a MRM80 or something. Contra moving fast in the open at mid-range versus a LRM80...

Oh, I know they will be different, but I'm worried about how they will be compared and interacting with LRMs. Right now, LRMs are probably going to be just as effective at the same ranges as most MRMs probably will be. Then, what is also going to stop MRMs from being better than SRMs at close range?

I'm interested to see how these weapons will react, and a little worried that MRMs are going to become king missile. All I can do for that though is wait for July and see how they are then.

[Ted Wayz]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

I tend to shoot my LRMs as more midrange weapons, not long range. So, I consider the "effective" range of LRMs to be within 600m, and closer to minimum range the better.

You should really try to use them at 300-400M. This almost always ensure maximum effectiveness. You also no longer have to rely on locks from others, or in some cases locks at all. Travel time improves and the chances of misses go down substantially. It also allows you to cycle in your secondaries if your heat is manageable.

Also arc becomes less of an issue. This is handy on maps such as Crimson. Lobbing over team members also is easy at this range and you can see which targets to help focus fire.

But the best is when you catch a direct fire alone and in the open. Start your rotation maintaining range and continuously rain down on the target. Stutter your movement. Between that and the near constant missile shakes at that range your target will have issues hitting you, especially with ballistics. The best is when they try to disengage. My Kintaro-18 was able to solo heavies and assaults that way. Need to re-equip it because of the recent nerfs but it still should be fairly effective.

Good luck!

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 06 June 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

THAT is the argument.

And all this time I thought the arguments were about people getting killed by LRMs and then running to the forums to cry and make excuses, excuses like "LRMS are bad no-skill weapons!".

Edited by Mystere, 06 June 2017 - 02:01 PM.

[Lightfoot]

With all the buffs from the new Skill Tree LRMs kill mechs about 10% faster than zero buffs on Testing Grounds. These are head-on shots.

Artemis does not do 35% more damage, more like 10-12% more. I stopped using it on Clan mechs because it is even worse than 10% more damage.

TAG laser is the best LRM buff.

LRMs don't compete with direct-fire and are only useful on 5 or 6 maps.

Artemis's weakness is the most glaring imbalance since you need one for each launcher and they weigh 1 ton. In most all builds you are better off taking something else with the saved tons, like another launcher.

All in all LRMs are just a tiny bit better with the Skill Tree buffs. LRMs are also part of MechWarrior so it doesn't matter if you like them or hate them, Mechs will fire them. I can't wait to use ATM medium range and listen to the rants. They better not be nerfed. They better work like advanced A-LRMs because they are.

Edited by Lightfoot, 06 June 2017 - 02:07 PM.

[SmokedJag]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

Oh, I know they will be different, but I'm worried about how they will be compared and interacting with LRMs. Right now, LRMs are probably going to be just as effective at the same ranges as most MRMs probably will be. Then, what is also going to stop MRMs from being better than SRMs at close range?
.

Limiting them from supplanting SRMs should be their size and (so long as PGI doesn't let you choke the spread down to a ball of death) 1 damage per missile. They're broadly comparable in damage potential per ton to aSRMs but (a) it has to hit and (b ) the bulky launcher getting crit kills all of your "launchers."

It could be broken ofc but it is easy to see in the base stats how it shouldn't be.

Edited by SmokedJag, 06 June 2017 - 02:17 PM.

[Foxwalker]

Interesting arguments. I guess my question about Comp players vs non-Comp is who should PGI be catering toward? What percentage of the base is Comp?

We can only guess. My guess is they are in the minority in terms of numbers and most likely in terms of who spends money.

Since the game is based on Mechwarrior and or Battletech, the arguments for and against traditional weapon systems is moot.

LRMs are prevalent in non comp play, for many reasons. What is also interesting is scoring is more based on how much damage is doled out, not on how good a shot you are. I think you will get a better score with 600-700 damage and no kills than if you did 200 damage and 5 kills.

The other issue I have is the negative attitude toward non comp players. We as a community need to be more welcoming than this. Ultimately the game will fail without new players.

[Lightfoot]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

Oh, I know they will be different, but I'm worried about how they will be compared and interacting with LRMs. Right now, LRMs are probably going to be just as effective at the same ranges as most MRMs probably will be. Then, what is also going to stop MRMs from being better than SRMs at close range?

I'm interested to see how these weapons will react, and a little worried that MRMs are going to become king missile. All I can do for that though is wait for July and see how they are then.

MRMs are much heavier than SRMs and run out of ammo quickly leaving SRMs with a great short range advantage.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 06 June 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

All you're doing is clarifying that you are absolutely 100% oblivious to what competitive play is and what it looks like. Also the Tactical Operations game book and Total Warfare game book have no more relevance on MWO than the Tetatae from Far Country.

Your inability to understand the game is just a facet to why your advice is 100% worthless in determining what is and is not a viable weapon in MWO and why.

Comp play is exactly 100% like every group queue match save that it's 8 v 8 and more effort is put into making sure both sides are balanced. For variety some matches have even stricter restrictions on tonnage. Also given how prevalent SRM brawling is lately the 'pixel perfect convergence' whine you keep trying to pour out is even more irrelevant.

So, in short, you're completely wrong and 100% unable to back up your assertions with any demonstrative data.

I am clarifying that the abusable exploits that PGI has done when coupled human nature desire to abuse exploits to win.... makes it a Ruleset that is a gross caricature of what it supposed to be, it is "House Rules" with a weak GM style of broken system. I never said that anything that "comp" players say within the scope of their narrowly defined set of parameters are incorrect... just that since +95% of the player base is never going to be within that narrowly defined set of parameters of how to abuse the broken aspects of the system the best.

So... you are not wrong nor have I ever said you were in context, just that what you are correct about is gross to me personally and irrelevant to the community at large. Because this is not a hard game to understand or least is not to me when I have been playing extensively for over 2 decades... this is just a different Ruleset, since 3025 plays differently than 3039 which plays differently than 3050 which plays differently than 3063 which plays differently than Dark Age. So MWO plays as 3050 with broken House Rules cause the GM (PGI) can not read the books correctly and/or the players (comp/Clan crowd) whine too much about how they want to be munchkins.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 06 June 2017 - 06:52 PM.

[Deathlike]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 05 June 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

Come watch me play... I will teach you that nowhere is safe from me. LRMs do not have broken pixel perfect convergence or the myriad of other ways PGI has failed at the most fundamental level possible to properly implement the Ruleset correctly. So when saying that something can not be exploited therefore it is worthless... that is why I find the "comp" scene a gross caricature of the game I want to be playing which is Battletech and would settle for a properly implemented Mechwarrior. Solo queue as least is not 24 people are agreeing to only use the most abusable exploited mechanics that PGI failure has created... there are much better game systems if that was the kind of game I wanted to play.

I routinely kill lots of good players which disproves you point they only work on "bad players"... If I recognize your name it either makes you a priority target for me cause you are good or a total ignore cause you are epic level terribad.

This comment is deserving of a "lol what" response.

I didn't even play that much last month (Season 11), but I can't take those words seriously at all.

[MischiefSC]

Ted Wayz, on 06 June 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

So we go against the same competition and with LRMs my matchscore is 60 points higher and my k/d is higher too. So I guess we can inference that since LRMs are bad the you must be...terrible?

Stop it already. People tend to be prejudice against those things they cannot comprehend. You have repeatedly shown you do not know how to LRM but instead of blaming yourself you seem to be on a crusade against them.

And you keep proving my point. LRMs are difficult to be good with due to all the hard and soft counters. More so than point and click. I am sorry that you cannot be successful with them, but that doesn't mean others cannot. You just have to really understand how and when to use missiles. Direct fire? See target press button...

And please let go of this comp scene nonsense. There is no comp scene. This isn't WoT or LoL or CoD or any real e-Sport. When 99% of the players of a game cannot name a team or player that is so called competitive without looking it up...it just doesn't qualify.

I get that you have to try and dodge the facts because you're arguing a point that has no facts behind it.

However, for the other people reading I'm going to clear up some of your misinformation -

Competitive play is relevant to weapon balance because it does the best at solving for relative player skill - the further up the arc you go the lower the relative distance between individual players. So competitive play is relevant to weapon/mech balance not because of some implied moral component (you guys are the only ones trying to do that) but from a strict statistical sense. Better balancing for relative performance between mechs and weapons.

As to being good at different weapons, I'm not a fan of 'stat-shaming' but it is important to see how well someone plays relative to their view of what does and doesn't work. Playing with you on my team would significantly increase the odds of my losing a match. Heavy mechs, playing my Roughnecks in solo QP, is the only 'playing a good mech' I did in QP last season. My win/loss was 1.81 over 90 matches.

So, to be very clear on this point, I absolutely understand how to win matches better than you. Demonstratively. In quick play, group queue or FW. As such trying to say that 'I just don't understand' the relative value of LRMs vs direct fire has no basis.

Trying to argue that LRMs require more skill than direct fire is so stupid it's hard to even understand where to start. I realize that you're trying to look at the world to cast yourself in a better light and argue a demonstratively false point as though it's true anyway so you've got to try and ignore a lot of facts but it's hard to even figure out where you're even trying to start.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 06 June 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

I am clarifying that the abusable exploits that PGI has done when coupled human nature desire to abuse exploits to win.... makes it a Ruleset that is a gross caricature of what it supposed to be, it is "House Rules" with a weak GM style of broken system. I never said that anything that "comp" players say within the scope of their narrowly defined set of parameters are incorrect... just that since +95% of the player base is never going to be within that narrowly defined set of parameters of how to abuse the broken aspects of the system the best.

So... you are not wrong nor have I ever said you were in context, just that what you are correct about is gross to me personally and irrelevant to the community at large. Because this is not a hard game to understand or least is not to me when I have been playing extensively for over 2 decades... this is just a different Ruleset, since 3025 plays differently than 3039 which plays differently than 3050 which plays differently than 3063 which plays differently than Dark Age. So MWO plays as 3050 with broken House Rules cause the GM (PGI) can not read the books correctly and/or the players (comp/Clan crowd) whine too much about how they want to be munchkins.

Except this isn't tabletop. I still play tabletop regularly with friends. While we've got the Dark Ages/Jihad books we never seem to play there, usually it's 4th Succession War stuff. However this is a team v team FPS based on BT, in the same way all the Mechwarrior PC games have been based (some more loosely than others) on BT. All of them have ignored slews of rules from BT because a turn based strategy game doesn't work like a FPS.

There's no exploits or munchkins in competitive play any more than there is anywhere else in this game. Literally all that competitive play means is private leagues that try to better balance for player skill, tonnage and mechs and provide a steady challenge. Same mechs, same gameplay. Just that nobody on either side is (ideally) a potato. Everyone has a pretty good command of the game, what works and what doesn't and how. If you do something stupid or bring something bad you tend to lose more. Since player skill is more evenly balanced between both sides then variance between mech and weapon performance is more pronounced.

That's it. Just better balanced teams. If group queue was 8 v 8 and had better balancing it would play like comp matches. That's why comp is a good lens for looking at game balance.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 06 June 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

Competitive play is relevant to weapon balance because it does the best at solving for relative player skill - the further up the arc you go the lower the relative distance between individual players. So competitive play is relevant to weapon/mech balance not because of some implied moral component (you guys are the only ones trying to do that) but from a strict statistical sense. Better balancing for relative performance between mechs and weapons.

As a point of overall weapon balance, you probably have a good point. But, as related to "its bad, never use it", I'd still stand by the fact that not every match is high tier comp play.

Different things do work at different levels of play. Something that can work in lower levels, may rarely work well in the higher tiers of play. On top of the fact that some of us do rather well with some things, such as LRMs, even when we are in "higher tiers of play". I mean, I'm not top tier competitive play, but I am T2 and I seem to do "alright".

If anything, it sounds like your argument needs to be less "don't use them" and more "PGI should adjust something here". Not to mention, as you've stated yourself, it's not necessarily "bad" to use LRMs, especially for newer players. And there are also ways we, as fellow players, can help teach now to use LRMs more effectively and/or how to build a mech around them well. I have no problems with the cautionary "I wouldn't recommend it, but if you are going to use them..."


Basically, I'm mostly saying that this whole game isn't top tier comp level of play, and that there are other levels of play. LRMs (in this case) may not be great at higher tiers of play, but at lower ones they can work perfectly fine. Some people can even use LRMs effectively in the higher levels of play, even if it isn't top tier comp level.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 06 June 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

Except this isn't tabletop. I still play tabletop regularly with friends. While we've got the Dark Ages/Jihad books we never seem to play there, usually it's 4th Succession War stuff. However this is a team v team FPS based on BT, in the same way all the Mechwarrior PC games have been based (some more loosely than others) on BT. All of them have ignored slews of rules from BT because a turn based strategy game doesn't work like a FPS.

There's no exploits or munchkins in competitive play any more than there is anywhere else in this game. Literally all that competitive play means is private leagues that try to better balance for player skill, tonnage and mechs and provide a steady challenge. Same mechs, same gameplay. Just that nobody on either side is (ideally) a potato. Everyone has a pretty good command of the game, what works and what doesn't and how. If you do something stupid or bring something bad you tend to lose more. Since player skill is more evenly balanced between both sides then variance between mech and weapon performance is more pronounced.

That's it. Just better balanced teams. If group queue was 8 v 8 and had better balancing it would play like comp matches. That's why comp is a good lens for looking at game balance.

Except it is "Munchkin" using House Rules when all the "meta" is designed around the most broken aspects of PGIs poorly translated implementation because they are a weak/poor GM. 3039 is fun Ruleset to play under and MWO was much better off when it started there, 3050 is already the worst Ruleset by a large margin even before PGI utter inability to implement the Rules properly. We will see if moving to 3063 changes anything but I highly doubt it since one of the biggest advantages that IS got then was the RAC5 but one of its best & strongest features has already been given to UACs which resulted in even more Clan overbalance since they benefited by having more UAC options available. Anything that is direct violation of the Rules of BT qualifies as an exploit since it is a result of PGIs failure, I will grant you that is a sizable portion of the game mechanics because PGI is so bad at it... does not change the fact that all PPFLD/Poptart mechs are a direct consequence of the Rules not being followed. Otherwise they would be a few fringe mechs just like TT because they are wholly unable to replicate their results on TT like they do here... on top of that, you are talking about what than 5% of the total player population of this game does.

So it is broken mechanics filled with munchkin cheese... and it is irrelevant to the overall community who are not participating in it. That is my whole point about the "comp" players posts... your opinion does not matter much (less than 5%) because it is not applicable or relevant to the 95% players experience.

[MischiefSC]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

As a point of overall weapon balance, you probably have a good point. But, as related to "its bad, never use it", I'd still stand by the fact that not every match is high tier comp play.

Different things do work at different levels of play. Something that can work in lower levels, may rarely work well in the higher tiers of play. On top of the fact that some of us do rather well with some things, such as LRMs, even when we are in "higher tiers of play". I mean, I'm not top tier competitive play, but I am T2 and I seem to do "alright".

If anything, it sounds like your argument needs to be less "don't use them" and more "PGI should adjust something here". Not to mention, as you've stated yourself, it's not necessarily "bad" to use LRMs, especially for newer players. And there are also ways we, as fellow players, can help teach now to use LRMs more effectively and/or how to build a mech around them well. I have no problems with the cautionary "I wouldn't recommend it, but if you are going to use them..."


Basically, I'm mostly saying that this whole game isn't top tier comp level of play, and that there are other levels of play. LRMs (in this case) may not be great at higher tiers of play, but at lower ones they can work perfectly fine. Some people can even use LRMs effectively in the higher levels of play, even if it isn't top tier comp level.

As I said a few times in other posts (easy to miss though I'm sure in the wall of text I usually put up) I'm all for LRMs being used in QP for new players and people who can't aim well. Plenty of good examples of when, in QP, new players can use LRMs just fine. In that context if you've got a new player in FW and they're learning the game (a masochistic approach but to each their own) then sure, LURM it up. If you've got health issues that preclude you being able to accurately use direct fire, or you're playing the game on a potato with a CGA monitor then yeah. Of course.

However taken independently LRMs are an inferior weapon to direct fire and the skill learned in using LRMs are of questionable value in getting really good at the game. A lot of people learn very bad habits playing LRM boats and learn to be perma-bads. That's a concern but overall the point is to just keep genuinely dishonest or patently incorrect information (like the above mentioned 'LRMs take real skillz, direct fire is EZ mode' nuttiness) from being taken seriously.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 06 June 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

Except it is "Munchkin" using House Rules when all the "meta" is designed around the most broken aspects of PGIs poorly translated implementation because they are a weak/poor GM. 3039 is fun Ruleset to play under and MWO was much better off when it started there, 3050 is already the worst Ruleset by a large margin even before PGI utter inability to implement the Rules properly. We will see if moving to 3063 changes anything but I highly doubt it since one of the biggest advantages that IS got then was the RAC5 but one of its best & strongest features has already been given to UACs which resulted in even more Clan overbalance since they benefited by having more UAC options available. Anything that is direct violation of the Rules of BT qualifies as an exploit since it is a result of PGIs failure, I will grant you that is a sizable portion of the game mechanics because PGI is so bad at it... does not change the fact that all PPFLD/Poptart mechs are a direct consequence of the Rules not being followed. Otherwise they would be a few fringe mechs just like TT because they are wholly unable to replicate their results on TT like they do here... on top of that, you are talking about what than 5% of the total player population of this game does.

So it is broken mechanics filled with munchkin cheese... and it is irrelevant to the overall community who are not participating in it. That is my whole point about the "comp" players posts... your opinion does not matter much (less than 5%) because it is not applicable or relevant to the 95% players experience.

Again, no. We will ignore that TT is full of 'meta' stuff as well and just point out that comp play is the same mechs as regular play. Same builds, same mechs as a given rule. Same maps.

That you think poptart gauss/ppc is 'the meta' just proves, again, that you don't really know what you're talking about. Currently it's often (though map dependent) pushes with SRMs and SPLs and in some instances even LBX. Poptarts haven't been a universal thing in a long time.

So in short, you are absolutely wrong and clearly oblivious about what 'comp play' is. It's just gameplay, like every match you regularly play. Just that everyone on both teams doesn't suck and brought good mechs. It is *better* balanced for player skill and mech value.

As such it is absolutely relevant to pug queue and group queue and whatever other queue because it's showing, in the clearest balance environment possible, what does and doesn't work relative to other things and why. LRMs are only a good choice if you're bad and playing bads. That's it. That's what everyone keeps saying. That so many players are bad and that QP is full of bads is not being disputed - that LRMs are not as good as direct fire as a weapon system is, and has been proven.

That you can farm damage and bads in QP even if you're bad but are using LRMs is a statement on how bad most people are at the game and how bad balance is in QP, not the value of LRMs as a weapon system.

So your point is the exact opposite of correct - the issue isn't that there's some sort of 'munchkin' facet to competitive play - competitive play includes a good 4-8 mechs in every weight class and builds from brawling to sniping. About the only thing it DOESN'T include is LRMs - specifically because LRMs are only useful relative to the skill of your opponent and as such has very little value against a team of skilled players. The issue is that balance in QP is so poor that LRMs can be used reasonably well there.

Edited by MischiefSC, 06 June 2017 - 10:27 PM.

[Guffrus]

I stopped playing after the skill tree patch and consider the game to be broken currently however pre patch all of the weapon systems were viable.

I agree that there is a problem with hate against LRM but you wont fix it with data, you are right to say its like racism, its born out of ignorance and fear.

People look at weapons on paper and make calculations and decide what is theoretically optimal in a limited and idealised situation.

I'm not sure what the history is, when this hate started, but unlike the vast majority of the community I have actually watched the 2016 championship on youtube and it is clear from those recordings that the dogmatic anti lrm view point was deeply entrenched at that time. There are even sneering mocking comments made at the slightest suspicion that someone might have dared to bring an lrm to a competition match. It is very interesting to note that when one team decides to bring 100% ac2 to the field the caller reserves his judgement until the result is clear because although it should be obvious and he does realise the weakness he remains cautious and somewhat open minded to the viability of such a build because he is afraid of being publically wrong and because there is no culture of hatred built against ac2 builds.

What you will also see if you are paying attention is that there is plenty of room for lrm even in supposed top level competition play because the simple fact of the matter is that people arent that good, this isnt a sport with unlimited resources behind it where only peak performance uber twitching headclickers can take part; and if there is room for radical 100% ac2 builds and generous helpings of suboptimal play at competition levels then you just do whatever you want in pug because it doesnt matter, afk, dc's, potato builds; none of it matters, it doesnt decide games, it never has, we have all of us been top of the charts and washed out completely and if you arent trying different things then you wont find out what is good or bad and why or what you like to play. So stop listening to ignorant hate filled and frankly religious nutcases who havent got the first idea what they are talking about.

Guffrus

[Wil McCullough]

Essentially, what zuul is saying is that competitive players are bad for trying more than he does to win. That automatically makes them tryhards and "munchkins".

"Real" battletech fans play suboptimal builds and use subpar weapons because it adds flavor. Basically, piloting the best flavored mech makes you superior to everyone else. Because skill is not a true representation of whether you're good at something. Optimizing your build to win more isn't reflective of being good. Good is choosing bad robots on purpose so you have an excuse when you lose and have the luxury of calling anyone who wins you "munchkins".

That's the epitome of good. You win even when you lose (with a little mental gymnastics).