422 replies to this topic

[Akala Tanara]

If this were more like the old MechWarrior games, LRMs would have more use I think, but MWO is very different. Like has been said, you can't count on the damage hitting with indirect fire, and even if you have them in your sights, they can usually retreat into cover and then all your missiles end up landing on rocks or buildings rather than the mechs. If every map were Polar Lrmlands, then LRMs would be much more dangerous, but even then, if you're a team of mostly LRMs, the enemy a brawler team, the brawlers all push in together (rarely happens in my games lol) the LRMers would get DECIMATED.

Personally I don't have any problem with LRMboats, so long as they stay towards the front, maybe not in direct line of fire, unless they are an assault, and if you're an assault LRMboat then you should be ashamed sitting in the back, it's not about your firepower as an assault so much as the overwhelmingly wasted armor sitting back out of sight that people hate the most, as well as if you have no backup weapons in case you get harassed in close range or somehow run out of ammo.

If you have NOTHING but LRMs on your mech, you're doing it wrong. If you're sitting in the back alone or with some other LRMboats, you're doing it wrong. If you're at maximum range of your LRMs, and sitting there firing, you're doing it wrong. If you're an assault mech with mostly LRMs sitting in the back, shame on you. Sure you might end up doing some of the best damage, but the rest of the team is spotting, and taking hits for you when you should be up front taking hits for the smaller squishier mechs, especially in MWO where armor means a lot less.

MWO is not Battletech (HBS), most smaller mechs can drop to a single solid Alpha strike from some of the bigger mechs or meta-builds. Stay with your team, stay around 300m-600m range of the enemy, take some hits for your team where it helps. Also being closer, reduces the enemies reaction time, since the missiles are already so close, they hear the warning and might be hit before they can retreat into cover.

Finally, if your computer is low end, I completely understand sticking to LRMs, it makes sense. It's hard to hit targets with direct fire weapons at 20 FPS. I've been there, it sucks. When I got a computer upgrade from my somewhat older rig to a real high end one, I felt like my skill went from **** to moderately decent instantly, and I was already avoiding LRMs for the most part back then. I'll take a rack of LRMs on some mechs, and my Loyalty BJ runs 4 LRM5's 2 MLs, that is my one and only "LRMboat" a medium mech.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Wil McCullough, on 07 June 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

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).

nice strawman you built there... could have beat up on it more if you were going to go to trouble of constructing it in the first place though. Pinpoint Convergence, Sides To Die instead of Engine/Gyro Hits, Firing more than One weapon while Jumping... the list is fairly extensive as any TT player recognizes, all of the abusable aspects of the terrible implementation that PGI did is what determines the "comp" scene. Like even the defense about how it is all cSPL now is a joke when they have a 100% increase in Damage but only a 50% increase in Heat... like they could not even double the Values, it is always a direct consequence of PGI failure to properly implement the Rules correctly that causes it to be a Gross Caricature of the game it is supposed to be.

Comp=Caricature

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 07 June 2017 - 05:24 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 07 June 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

nice strawman you built there... could have beat up on it more if you were going to go to trouble of constructing it in the first place though. Pinpoint Convergence, Sides To Die instead of Engine/Gyro Hits, Firing more than One weapon while Jumping... the list is fairly extensive as any TT player recognizes, all of the abusable aspects of the terrible implementation that PGI did is what determines the "comp" scene. Like even the defense about how it is all cSPL now is a joke when they have a 100% increase in Damage but only a 50% increase in Heat... like they could not even double the Values, it is always a direct consequence of PGI failure to properly implement the Rules correctly that causes it to be a Gross Caricature of the game it is supposed to be.

Comp=Caricature

The real strawman is that you're unhappy with mwo's deviations from the tt game and calling competitive minded players "munchkins" for playing the game (mwo, not tt) as best as they know how.

Not happy with how mwo turned out? Don't play. Or bring the issue up to the devs.

If the devs choose not to give af about your opinion, lashing out at your fellow players isn't going to do jack. We're all here playing the same game. And the game, like you said, comes with pinpoint convergence, bad lurms, etc. You're just salty that when faced with the same challenges, some players are more successful than you.

If you want to play on the same level as these "munchkins", maybe stop trying to make the game what it isn't and work with what you got.

[Gristle Missile]

The counters to LRMs are pretty strong

ECM - only way to get around this is to hit them with tag, get in the sweet spot of min/max distance to target them, or have a spotter. Even removes NARC from radar.

AMS - 1 AMS alone is okay, it doesn't do all that much...but SO MANY mechs have slots for AMS and when combined they can just chew through LRMs with ease - two or three is enough to neuter even the strongest boats.

Radar Dep - people have been forgoing this with the new skill system, and thats really where the problem for people started to arise - if you have problems with LRMs, don't skimp on these points.

Any one of these is sufficient and when they all work together, it can completely remove the threat for LRMs....problem is that people would rather use the tonnage/skills for other things...usually more damage.

Now, I am not completely against changes to LRMs, but they have always teetered on the balance scale...so if LRMs change, ECM, AMS, and/or RD will need changes to keep LRMs relevant

Edited by Gristle Missile, 07 June 2017 - 06:21 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

LOL

I don't know "comp play" ... but I do know that at my lowly Tier 5 I've dropped in Quick Play with people I've recognized from this forum that were Tier 1 (yay matchmaking), and I've seen LRMs being used everywhere in Solo Queue, Group Queue and Faction Play for the 14 months I've been playing.

Every single one of my 1500+ matches had at least two LRM users on each side.

Not used, not good, under performing ?

Please. Stop being delusional.

That might be true for you. It's not for me.

Secondly, in PGI's only major, in-house competitive events (First Engagement Tournament and the WC of 2016) LRM's were not used effectively by anyone except in troll matches against more inexperienced teams, or inexperienced teams learning the hard way in the tournaments.

Look at who won (not only won, but dominated both events) and look what they ran in any "serious" match...it wasn't LRM's.

[Tesunie]

Lukoi Banacek, on 07 June 2017 - 06:23 PM, said:

That might be true for you. It's not for me.

Secondly, in PGI's only major, in-house competitive events (First Engagement Tournament and the WC of 2016) LRM's were not used effectively by anyone except in troll matches against more inexperienced teams, or inexperienced teams learning the hard way in the tournaments.

Look at who won (not only won, but dominated both events) and look what they ran in any "serious" match...it wasn't LRM's.

That doesn't mean no one should bring LRMs either... Just means if you are in a high comp game, probably best to leave LRMs home then...

Different levels of play operate differently. I'm sure you don't see nearly as many Gauss rifles in T5 as you probably do as a T1. This doesn't invalidate the Gauss rifle any more than LRMs being the opposite typically.

My theory goes that I'll continue to use LRMs for as long as they continue to give be substantially better results over pure direct fire builds. This also doesn't mean I stop playing direct fire (as I don't boat LRMs anyway and always maintain direct fire because it is that important to have). I'm still waiting to "hit the cap" on LRMs and waiting for my direct fire builds to start out performing them. (For the record, I'm not talking damage, but W/L and other statistics that I can observe.)

As stated before, it should be simple here. If you like LRMs, than use LRMs. If you don't, than don't. It's a game, and we each enjoy it in different ways. That's ultimately where things should be going.

Now, if we were talking about weapon balance, than we can bring up comp play and what they use. If anything, a lacking of LRM use in higher comp play probably suggests that LRMs could use to be adjusted, to make them at least a viable option but not the king of weapons either. This doesn't mean that anyone who currently uses LRMs should be essentially harassed for using them. (Some people do this.) I mean, if you see someone using LRMs poorly, give advice on how they can improve their play with them, not rip them apart and insult them... (and there are a lot of LRM users who really could use to up their effectiveness with them...)

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Wil McCullough, on 07 June 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

The real strawman is that you're unhappy with mwo's deviations from the tt game and calling competitive minded players "munchkins" for playing the game (mwo, not tt) as best as they know how.

Not happy with how mwo turned out? Don't play. Or bring the issue up to the devs.

If the devs choose not to give af about your opinion, lashing out at your fellow players isn't going to do jack. We're all here playing the same game. And the game, like you said, comes with pinpoint convergence, bad lurms, etc. You're just salty that when faced with the same challenges, some players are more successful than you.

If you want to play on the same level as these "munchkins", maybe stop trying to make the game what it isn't and work with what you got.

Of course it is fundamentally PGI fault... you can not have munchkins without a weak/bad GM, but the scene as a whole still has chosen to be munchkins. But we all know EXACTLY what the MWOWC are going to be composed of, replace the WHR with the NTG and the KDK with MAD-IIC or MK m.II depending on when the server freeze is put into effect. Uggghhh... if that is the game you want to play, I am confused cause there are way better games designed for those kinds of game mechanics as opposed to it being an end result failure state by PGI incompetence.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 07 June 2017 - 09:20 PM.

[Tesunie]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 07 June 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

as opposed to it being an end result failure state by PGI incompetence.

I'm actually getting a little tire of everyone blaming PGI.

Sure, they didn't have the greatest of starts (back when IGP was their backer/boss), but I actually feel they have been doing good things around here for the most part. Sure, everything isn't perfect, but I never expect it to be.

Every time I turn around, I'm seeing PGI at least trying to improve the game. They could have easily have just left everything alone and "tweaked" things, instead of trying to engineer a new skill system, or at least contemplate a possible system to replace Ghost Heat (was Energy Draw for the record). They really have been taking serious feedback from the players, and trying to incorporate it.

On that note, they can't please everyone.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

Gristle Missile, on 07 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

Any one of these is sufficient and when they all work together, it can completely remove the threat for LRMs....problem is that people would rather use the tonnage/skills for other things...usually more damage.

And this is a big part of why LRM's are viable in solo QM and not so much in group/comp play. It's not as easy (or pejorative) as "because there are bads you can exploit in the solo queue" It's because you can't know what your teammates are bringing in solo. You can't assume your teammates are all building with those LRM counters in mind, and if no one else spent tonnage on AMS, your lone AMS is kind of a waste.

Sometimes you will be on a team with 6+ ECM mechs and everyone brought AMS and enemy LRMs are worthless.

Sometimes no one has ECM or AMS, and you see those missiles start streaming in on polar from multiple mechs behind hills every time you poke your head up. Then someone starts yelling "There's a Raven behind us, somewhere. He's NARCing people!" and you have to hope there's someone faster than your assault to go back there and take care of that Raven soon, otherwise its going to be a long game.

[Wil McCullough]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 07 June 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

Of course it is fundamentally PGI fault... you can not have munchkins without a weak/bad GM, but the scene as a whole still has chosen to be munchkins. But we all know EXACTLY what the MWOWC are going to be composed of, replace the WHR with the NTG and the KDK with MAD-IIC or MK m.II depending on when the server freeze is put into effect. Uggghhh... if that is the game you want to play, I am confused cause there are way better games designed for those kinds of game mechanics as opposed to it being an end result failure state by PGI incompetence.

it isn't really pgi's fault if you want to put a finger on it actually.

min-maxers (or munchkins as the tt crowd likes to affectionally call them) are in every game. even tt had min-maxers. which is why the term came about in the first place.

min-maxers exist in every game where there is meaningful choice to be made in terms of equipment. even in single player games like skyrim. zero mana cost wizards anybody? mount and blade warband has the whole "lolpikes/awlpikes" thing, dota has its echo saber monkey kings, diablo 3 had its zdps+ep monks/ trap dh combos.

if min-maxers are a problem, it's not going to go away. cos pgi doesn't have a "solution" and no game developer does. metas emerge, metas change, but min-maxers will always be the meta and outperform actual role-players or lore warriors in a fight. if a developer like blizzard can't prevent metas in games like starcraft, warcraft and overwatch, what makes you think pgi can?

[Vellron2005]

Gristle Missile, on 07 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

AMS - 1 AMS alone is okay, it doesn't do all that much...but SO MANY mechs have slots for AMS and when combined they can just chew through LRMs with ease - two or three is enough to neuter even the strongest boats.

Not true at all.. I run a 3 AMS Kitfox. And a 3 AMS kitfox LRM80 survives not.. With the increase in AMS activity, the LRM loadouts have just gotten bigger.. And still very very effective.. As a fresh LRM70 Supernova pilot, I know.. (Also have a LRM60 Mad Dog in mind, watch out )

Gristle Missile, on 07 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

ECM - only way to get around this is to hit them with tag, get in the sweet spot of min/max distance to target them, or have a spotter. Even removes NARC from radar.

With the Skill Tree ECM Nerf, I kinda find ECM less of a challenge then before.. it still makes it difficult to target, but you eventually get the lock, and rain on the ECM carrier.. it only takes longer and is less effective. A good LRM user will know to avoid ECM targets in favor of non-ecm easy kills like Direwolves and legged mechs. Once ECM targets are all that's available, you work around it, or just use your backup lasers..

Edited by Vellron2005, 08 June 2017 - 01:27 AM.

[Luminis]

Wil McCullough, on 07 June 2017 - 10:04 PM, said:

if min-maxers are a problem, it's not going to go away. cos pgi doesn't have a "solution" and no game developer does. metas emerge, metas change, but min-maxers will always be the meta and outperform actual role-players or lore warriors in a fight. if a developer like blizzard can't prevent metas in games like starcraft, warcraft and overwatch, what makes you think pgi can?

Absolutely true!

And here's the thing: MWO's meta is never going to be the same as the table top because a turn based, RNG-heavy strategy game and a first person shooters play fundamentally different. Even if PGI went with a stock only mode and went with exact TT values for everything, you'd still see a few 'Mechs and weapon systems dominate.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Tesunie, on 07 June 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

I'm actually getting a little tire of everyone blaming PGI.

Sure, they didn't have the greatest of starts (back when IGP was their backer/boss), but I actually feel they have been doing good things around here for the most part. Sure, everything isn't perfect, but I never expect it to be.

Every time I turn around, I'm seeing PGI at least trying to improve the game. They could have easily have just left everything alone and "tweaked" things, instead of trying to engineer a new skill system, or at least contemplate a possible system to replace Ghost Heat (was Energy Draw for the record). They really have been taking serious feedback from the players, and trying to incorporate it.

On that note, they can't please everyone.

It is their failure point, they had a responsibility & did not do it.

Wil McCullough, on 07 June 2017 - 10:04 PM, said:

it isn't really pgi's fault if you want to put a finger on it actually.

min-maxers (or munchkins as the tt crowd likes to affectionally call them) are in every game. even tt had min-maxers. which is why the term came about in the first place.

min-maxers exist in every game where there is meaningful choice to be made in terms of equipment. even in single player games like skyrim. zero mana cost wizards anybody? mount and blade warband has the whole "lolpikes/awlpikes" thing, dota has its echo saber monkey kings, diablo 3 had its zdps+ep monks/ trap dh combos.

if min-maxers are a problem, it's not going to go away. cos pgi doesn't have a "solution" and no game developer does. metas emerge, metas change, but min-maxers will always be the meta and outperform actual role-players or lore warriors in a fight. if a developer like blizzard can't prevent metas in games like starcraft, warcraft and overwatch, what makes you think pgi can?

"Min-Maxing" is fine... I am a Min-Maxer or a Power Gamer as another name, Munchkins is a whole other level of absurd that results from the Rules not being followed RAW or RAI. You can Min-Max within any game system since that is by definition what it is within any system, Munchkins require the game mechanics to be broken intentionally (Bad GM) or unintentionally (Weak GM). So when ALL the "metas" have been solely based around specific Rules that have been failed to be implemented correctly & PGI has not only failed to address WHY the meta that arose but their fixes address the real issue only Once, LRMs going CT /HD primarily. So if they had failed as spectacularly in Poptarting (which only ONE weapon can be fired while jumping) or Engine Destruction (Crits not "Sides to Die") as they did during LRMaggedon then LRMs would still be a broken system that has an absuable exploit... meaning it would be Comp usable.

I am the most Min-Max player you will ever find... but Comp is NOT min-maxing, it is munchkins which is gross cause that is a broken game system. When I play a game, I want to play THE GAME not a broken set of mechanics.

[Luminis]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

I am the most Min-Max player you will ever find... but Comp is NOT min-maxing, it is munchkins which is gross cause that is a broken game system. When I play a game, I want to play THE GAME not a broken set of mechanics.

So, your point is, if it's not like the TT, it's broken?

[An Innocent Urbie]

lurmers lol they never lurnm

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Luminis, on 08 June 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:

So, your point is, if it's not like the TT, it's broken?

My point is that the "metas" are always a DIRECT result of a Rule not being followed. Min-Maxers also tend to be Rule Lawyers in that we need to know the Rules very well to get the most out of the game system. I quote page number which would prevent the munchkins from being muchkins... 3050 is by far the worst Ruleset ever done but I still always found it enjoyable because we used a strict adherence to the Honor system in Battletechnology magazine (which is considered Canon). So MWO is in the worst state that BT was ever in, does not use an external balancing mechanics or even BV, and on top of that does not even follow the Basic/Advanced correctly. There was a time when LRMs were as broken & exploitable... it is called LRMaggedon. So when "comp" players call something Trash what they really mean is that it is not an exploit they can abuse to their munchkin hearts desire.

[Mystere]

Tesunie, on 07 June 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

As stated before, it should be simple here. If you like LRMs, than use LRMs. If you don't, than don't. It's a game, and we each enjoy it in different ways. That's ultimately where things should be going.

Nah! MWO is serious high-stakes eSports competition with fat cat corporate endoresements!







In some people's fantasies, anyway.

[Roughneck45]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 08 June 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

So when "comp" players call something Trash what they really mean is that it is not an exploit they can abuse to their munchkin hearts desire.

Nope.

LRMs are just inferior, by design. Their trade off is the ability to lock on and fire indirectly, which is inferior to the strengths of direct fire weapons if you can aim and position well. You know as well as I do that Lurmageddon wasn't a "meta", it was PGI breaking their game.

You can do fine in most scenarios with LRMs, but the smarter your opponent gets the more dead weight you'll become. So from a pure numbers min/max perspective, LRMs are inferior.

Still trying to figure out what the munchkins are exploiting, considering nearly all the other weapons are "viable" right now. Convergence isn't an exploit.

MWO=/= tabletop

Its okay to admit LRMs are worse, you can still hate the comp scene and understand and admit that fact. I wish LRMs were designed differently, I wish this game had more lore and BT feel to it as well. In my ideal world we would have had better uses for our LRMs, MGs, and flamers, like killing infantry and base defenses.

Edited by Roughneck45, 08 June 2017 - 06:07 AM.

[Mystere]

Luminis, on 08 June 2017 - 04:51 AM, said:

Absolutely true!

And here's the thing: MWO's meta is never going to be the same as the table top because a turn based, RNG-heavy strategy game and a first person shooters play fundamentally different. Even if PGI went with a stock only mode and went with exact TT values for everything, you'd still see a few 'Mechs and weapon systems dominate.

It can be done. But the first step is to remove the automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence system.

An Innocent Urbie, on 08 June 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

lurmers lol they never lurnm

I give you a 2 out of 10 for humor.

[LowSubmarino]

Lrms are countered so pathetically easily, that it only demolishes players and teams that simply ignore fundamental game mechanics.

Mwo is more than 'move close enough to the target and aim your reticule at the target'.

If you do not constantly check for uavs - and uavs will be deployed against you basically every game multiple times - or if you refuse to constantly check for spotters on the flanks or in your backs or if you choose to wander ever open grounds then by all means you deserve to be brutally terminated by the by far easiest to counter weapon in the entire game.

If a player is bad enough to get owned by such a weapon system then by all means they do deserve to be owned hard all the time by lrms.

They just deserve it.

Even in tier 1 I see ppl completly oblivious of what hovers above their heads.

All the time.

Ppl never check their flanks or keep an eye on spotters, locusts, cheetahs commandos and so on in their backs.

Usually its just a nascaring noob train staring straight ahead desperately trying to find the end of the opposing nascar for easy in the back kills.

They get massacred by thousands of lrms and they deserve it all haha.

They just deserve it.

Mwo needs a healthy amount of easy to kill cannonfodder.

Its good to have a lot of easy targets cause you wanne demolish and destroy stuff in the game.

Where would the fun be if you cant just run around and own.

On the other hand....a team that does not blindly nascar, has an organized light lance that aggressively provides intel and cover vs spotters and uavs and a team that smartly uses their ecm mechs will annihilate a lrm heavy team so hard and mercilessly that its not even funny anymore.

Lrms are noob weapons.

Learn to play.

And why do you even bother one nanosecond if somebody complains about what kind of loadout you have.

Who would ever do anything but smile at even 10000000000000 salty tears?

If somebody complains that I use two cerppcs id just blow them a kiss and smilly broadly.

Cause its funny.