106 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Please Stop blaming the skill tree for your personal problem with LRMs.

If you want to "blame" the skill tree, then you are only allowed to post on the forums if you have the AMS Overload modules unlocked. If you want to blame the skill tree's missile-oriented nodes for more LRMs, then you have to invest nodes in AMS Overload before you have a leg to stand on. You need to mount AMS too before you have a second leg to stand on.

And after that LRM user invests their numerous nodes on Firepower, you can invest an equal amount into the Sensor Tree to get Radar Deprivation to go along with your AMS overload.

So, no AMS Overload? No Radar Derp? Then you didn't invest in the skill tree to protect yourself from LRMs, which means you can't complain about people investing in the skill tree to improve their LRMs.

YOU DO NOT GET A FREE PASS WHEN OTHERS HAVE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 May 2017 - 06:30 PM.

[Davegt27]

I used to have over 60 radar depravation modules
I would never take a Mech into battle unless I had one, in fact I would disable a Mech so they would say invalid so I wouldn't
accidently take a Mech out

but I do things differently then most when I get my butt kicked I go to the Mech lab

[Dee Eight]

A single AMS + 1 ton of ammo with 5 nodes into the survival table will typically account for more than 320 missiles over only three or four minutes of match time, if you're hanging out where a lot of shooting is taking place. That's the equivalent of TEN TONS OF STANDARD ARMOR protection for yourself and your team. For everyone who says they cannot afford the 1.5 tons... you suck at defence math.

[Kiiyor]

Prosperity Park, on 29 May 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

Please Stop blaming the skill tree for your personal problem with LRMs.

If you want to "blame" the skill tree, then you are only allowed to post on the forums if you have the AMS Overload modules unlocked. If you want to blame the skill tree's missile-oriented nodes for more LRMs, then you have to invest nodes in AMS Overload before you have a leg to stand on. You need to mount AMS too before you have a second leg to stand on.

And after that LRM user invests their numerous nodes on Firepower, you can invest an equal amount into the Sensor Tree to get Radar Deprivation to go along with your AMS overload.

So, no AMS Overload? No Radar Derp? Then you didn't invest in the skill tree to protect yourself from LRMs, which means you can't complain about people investing in the skill tree to improve their LRMs.

YOU DO NOT GET A FREE PASS WHEN OTHERS HAVE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS.

I get the point, but I also have many legs to stand on. Most of my mechs with AMS have it mounted, and one of my fave rides is a dual AMS stalker packed to the gills with large lasers and derped out it's eyeballs.

The issue (for me at least) is that this still isn't enough - as the presence of 4+ lurm boats on an enemy team pretty much forces the entirety of yours into cover, unless you can match their lurms with your own. On most maps this is ok, as you can still maneuver around (although it also kind of forces you into nascaring) but on maps like Polar and Plexus, it puts you at a real disadvantage unless you have someone calling the match and brave teammates to back you up.

Truth be told, in semi organized pug fights, I like the way lurms work. You have people looking out for spotters, scouts of your own gathering intel and painting targets, and if all goes well, a swirling melee at the end as teams edge closer together.

The average pug is far from organized though, and (in my experience) a disorganized lurm heavy pug will beat a disorganized everything else pug almost every time.

I think a minor adjustment needs to be made (i'm well aware of how easy it is to make LRM's useless) - either more ammo per tonne for AMS, or bigger damage boosts in the skill tree for AMS. Laser AMZ will be interesting also.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Kiiyor, on 29 May 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

I get the point, but I also have many legs to stand on. Most of my mechs with AMS have it mounted, and one of my fave rides is a dual AMS stalker packed to the gills with large lasers and derped out it's eyeballs.

The issue (for me at least) is that this still isn't enough - as the presence of 4+ lurm boats on an enemy team pretty much forces the entirety of yours into cover, unless you can match their lurms with your own. On most maps this is ok, as you can still maneuver around (although it also kind of forces you into nascaring) but on maps like Polar and Plexus, it puts you at a real disadvantage unless you have someone calling the match and brave teammates to back you up.

Truth be told, in semi organized pug fights, I like the way lurms work. You have people looking out for spotters, scouts of your own gathering intel and painting targets, and if all goes well, a swirling melee at the end as teams edge closer together.

The average pug is far from organized though, and (in my experience) a disorganized lurm heavy pug will beat a disorganized everything else pug almost every time.

I think a minor adjustment needs to be made (i'm well aware of how easy it is to make LRM's useless) - either more ammo per tonne for AMS, or bigger damage boosts in the skill tree for AMS. Laser AMZ will be interesting also.

No, you cannot balance AMS around the concept that a single person should be able to shut down 3-4 LRM Boats. You can;t cave into herd stupidity like that.

A person with AMS and AMS Overload and Radar Deprivation on a team with other intelligent people should shut down the enemy's LRMs; not a single player who happens to be smart enough to mount AMS.

The term heard stupidity is the exact opposite of herd immunity. It describes people who think they are protected by others and so they don't have to do anything about it.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 May 2017 - 07:21 PM.

[cazidin]

I'll just leave this here.

https://mwomercs.com...0-lrm-counters/

[Ghogiel]

My personal problem with lurms is just because my back gets sore humping these potato sacks every match.

[Novakaine]

[Felicitatem Parco]

cazidin, on 29 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

I'll just leave this here.

https://mwomercs.com...0-lrm-counters/

I so want to paste a meme image of a large boat on a piece of oven-roasted, nicely browned bread. Only because it would be funny to counter someone who crosslinks and runs; but I know your thread, it amused me, and I feel sad that it was actually a necessary read for many folks here.

[sycocys]

What if your problem is that LRMs aren't powerful enough? Surely the skill tree has at least a finger or two in that.

[Imperius]

LRMS still suck... use cover watch your positioning.

[Ultimax]

Prosperity Park, on 29 May 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

Please Stop blaming the skill tree for your personal problem with LRMs.

If you want to "blame" the skill tree, then you are only allowed to post on the forums if you have the AMS Overload modules unlocked. If you want to blame the skill tree's missile-oriented nodes for more LRMs, then you have to invest nodes in AMS Overload before you have a leg to stand on. You need to mount AMS too before you have a second leg to stand on.

And after that LRM user invests their numerous nodes on Firepower, you can invest an equal amount into the Sensor Tree to get Radar Deprivation to go along with your AMS overload.

So, no AMS Overload? No Radar Derp? Then you didn't invest in the skill tree to protect yourself from LRMs, which means you can't complain about people investing in the skill tree to improve their LRMs.

YOU DO NOT GET A FREE PASS WHEN OTHERS HAVE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS.

So what you are saying is that the general playerbase all has to pay an SP tax &/or tonnage tax on their builds to put up with the mechanics of only one single weapon system and if those mechanics didn't exist - they could build their mechs normally?


If one weapon system, alone among all others, requires a bunch of extra spend on every build - then there might actually be a problem with the mechanics behind that weapon system.

Not coincidentally, those mechanics* once removed would allow LRMs to get real buffs so they could move beyond the mediocre-tier potato farm weapon of choice and maybe actually be less toxic and more competitive.


*Aim-assist, Shared locks, Indirect Fire

[Kiiyor]

Prosperity Park, on 29 May 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

No, you cannot balance AMS around the concept that a single person should be able to shut down 3-4 LRM Boats. You can;t cave into herd stupidity like that.

A person with AMS and AMS Overload and Radar Deprivation on a team with other intelligent people should shut down the enemy's LRMs; not a single player who happens to be smart enough to mount AMS.

The term heard stupidity is the exact opposite of herd immunity. It describes people who think they are protected by others and so they don't have to do anything about it.

Not what I was saying. You were stating that people shouldn't make comments about LRM balance if they don't equip the right tools to counter them; which I do, so I did.

I was making a statement about their use and prevalence in general, based on my own experience. I'm seeing group huddling and clumping on the scale it was back in the lurmageddon, and fights degenerating into a 4 minute missile exchange with the odd PPC/Laser shot before one team mops up. Sometimes, you'll get a team that will correctly identify that a decent push is required to counter a lurm heavy team, but unless you have someone calling targets and damage locations, you're probably screwed.

The thing is, all the AMS and radar derp in the world doesn't stop a pilot from clenching their butt in terror and seeking cover when betty informs them of incoming missiles, which is almost guaranteed to happen if you reveal more than 11 pixels of your silhouette to the enemy.

It all depends on the map of course, but what i'm seeing is that if you take LRM's into battle, at the moment it's far easier to make a decent impact in a fight, especially when compared to any other mech with a range under 500m.

[Ruar]

What I find interesting is the different requirements needed to defend against LRMs compared to other weapons.

Regular weapons- Use terrain

LRMs- Use terrain, AMS, and radar dep


I think the idea that an AMS is required indicates just how strong LRMs can be. Personally I think radar dep is required and the AMS is only for slow mechs, but there is still a need for a counter to LRMs. We all know if you go into a match without some way to defend against LRMs then you are most likely in for a not fun match.

It would be nice if LRMs required a NARC or TAG lock in order to home. Then we wouldn't need as many counters and LRMs wouldn't be so prevalent.

[Pjwned]

Ultimax, on 29 May 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that the general playerbase all has to pay an SP tax &/or tonnage tax on their builds to put up with the mechanics of only one single weapon system and if those mechanics didn't exist - they could build their mechs normally?

LRMs are a part of the game too, and making them more prevalent is good for the game actually because (in addition to other reasons) it puts less focus on the recurring & rotating PPFLD/laser vomit meta so...yes, you're absolutely right.

You could also just git gud if you don't want to take any measures whatsoever to mitigate LRMs.

Quote

If one weapon system, alone among all others, requires a bunch of extra spend on every build - then there might actually be a problem with the mechanics behind that weapon system.

Not coincidentally, those mechanics* once removed would allow LRMs to get real buffs so they could move beyond the mediocre-tier potato farm weapon of choice and maybe actually be less toxic and more competitive.

*Aim-assist, Shared locks, Indirect Fire

LRMs would just go back to being extremely situational and largely garbage if you remove those features. Why even bother taking LRMs if you could instead take better direct fire weapons if indirect fire was such a hassle? The answer is you wouldn't.

What actually should be done is nerfing the **** out of ECM to do what it's supposed to do instead of this stealth armor null signature bubble BS garbage that it is right now, because if anything we need to see more LRMs so that LRMs actually show up in mixed builds rather than exclusively being boated. I am aware that ECM was "nerfed" with the skill tree release, and no that's not good enough because the functionality is still extremely unbalanced.

Edited by Pjwned, 29 May 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[TravelingMaster]

Pjwned, on 29 May 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

LRMs are a part of the game too, and making them more prevalent is good for the game actually because (in addition to other reasons) it puts less focus on the recurring & rotating PPFLD/laser vomit meta so...yes, you're absolutely right.

You could also just git gud if you don't want to take any measures whatsoever to mitigate LRMs.



LRMs would just go back to being extremely situational and largely garbage if you remove those features. Why even bother taking LRMs if you could instead take better direct fire weapons if indirect fire was such a hassle? The answer is you wouldn't.

What actually should be done is nerfing the **** out of ECM to do what it's supposed to do instead of this stealth armor null signature bubble BS garbage that it is right now, because if anything we need to see more LRMs so that LRMs actually show up in mixed builds rather than exclusively being boated. I am aware that ECM was "nerfed" with the skill tree release, and no that's not good enough because the functionality is still extremely unbalanced.

I run one of those hybrid builds, two LRM10's and 5 ermls on a Timber Wolf. It performs reasonably well, if the LRMs aren't hitting targets I can still close the distance and skirmish with the lasers while doing some armor sharing. I don't just sit still and spam LRMs, I'm constantly moving about the battlefield (if possible, depends on how many snipers the opposing team has making such movement risky) and trying to find intelligent ways to close the distance to maximize my firepower.

[Scout Derek]

Going to agree with Park here, you, I, We, know that we can take counters to LRMs. we can take Radar Deprivation, We can take AMS with quite a few of the Mechs, and more. But do we when we want to be full on combatant? Nope.

So listen here, those who blame the tree for LRMs. YOU are given the chance to bring counters, YOU can decide to bring counters, YOU, no one else. If you don't, that's solely your fault, not anyone or anything else.

[Ultimax]

Pjwned, on 29 May 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

LRMs are a part of the game too, and making them more prevalent is good for the game actually because (in addition to other reasons) it puts less focus on the recurring & rotating PPFLD/laser vomit meta so...yes, you're absolutely right.

You could also just git gud if you don't want to take any measures whatsoever to mitigate LRMs.



LRMs would just go back to being extremely situational and largely garbage if you remove those features. Why even bother taking LRMs if you could instead take better direct fire weapons if indirect fire was such a hassle? The answer is you wouldn't.

What actually should be done is nerfing the **** out of ECM to do what it's supposed to do instead of this stealth armor null signature bubble BS garbage that it is right now, because if anything we need to see more LRMs so that LRMs actually show up in mixed builds rather than exclusively being boated. I am aware that ECM was "nerfed" with the skill tree release, and no that's not good enough because the functionality is still extremely unbalanced.

1) The skill tree doesn't encourage mixed builds, and realistically it is not smart to build that way with missiles.

2) You missed the part where I said buffs. LRMs would need significant buffs to compete with direct fire weapons, but as long as the mid-tier potatoes cling to their indirect fire through shared locks & aim-assist - those buffs will never come.

[Dee Eight]

Ultimax, on 29 May 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that the general playerbase all has to pay an SP tax &/or tonnage tax on their builds to put up with the mechanics of only one single weapon system and if those mechanics didn't exist - they could build their mechs normally?

AMS works against SRMs, Streaks and NARCs also. It just works best against LRMs because of the flight path and the low velocity. It will also work against MRMs and ATMs and probably RLs also when the tech advance happens.

[Revis Volek]

I shot down 335 missiles last night to inflate my MS to a solid 300 without even trying...

My unit mate laughed he got 700 something one match.


I have just been finding enemy KTO's and Stalkers and parking my triple AMS nova right on the front porch (say 300-400m) and start knocking on the front door with 6 er meds. It was fun and effective, no cover or situational awareness even needed!

Ultimax, on 29 May 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that the general playerbase all has to pay an SP tax &/or tonnage tax on their builds to put up with the mechanics of only one single weapon system and if those mechanics didn't exist - they could build their mechs normally?

Maybe, if you are bad against said weapons system and countering it on your own. That would be a wise investment id say.


I have two mechs with triple AMS and I dont bother with Sensors at all on 75% of the 200. Most mechs just relay on a savvy pilot to keep them out of the sight of LRMtatoes.

Edited by Revis Volek, 29 May 2017 - 08:35 PM.