52 replies to this topic

[Nean]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Case in point... MRMs suck.

Not really. These missiles, while not being the best of weapons, can do a lot of damage if you use it correctly. Also, they're like RACs, you need to use more than one to do anything significant.

[Ruar]

I think people are looking at MRMs like they do LRMs where the only real tactic is to boat a bunch and use massed firepower. I see MRMs as the support weapon LRMs have failed to be. I tend to play mechs with one or two missile hardpoints. Right now the only option I have for those points is SRMs because LRMs suck when you are flanking, skirmishing, harassing, and brawling. The problem with SRMs is they force me close range or sit back doing no damage while the distance between teams close. I typically run MPL so I can hit with them but my SRMs are sitting silent until the fight progresses. MRMs let me lay down more firepower earlier though. With the weight savings of LFE I can swap out my SRMs for MRMs and instantly increase my damage output because I prefer to fight at 300-500m.

Sure, MRM spread is a bit big, but if it wasn't then it would be equal to SRMs up close and then why would I bother with SRMs?

Yeah, MRMs have a slight streaming effect, but it's no worse than pulse lasers so saying there is all of this face time is just wrong. Especially since MRMs are meant to be used at longer ranges where weapons are less accurate anyway. I can aim, fire, and twist just as easily with MRMs as I do with lasers.

I do think MRMs need more range though, and I wouldn't pass up a bit more velocity. However I think the spread and stream fire work and have a reason for being what they are. The biggest problem I see with MRMs is people expect them to be this totally awesome new weapon when they are just a perfectly adequate weapon.

[Navid A1]

Nean, on 05 July 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

Not really. These missiles, while not being the best of weapons, can do a lot of damage if you use it correctly. Also, they're like RACs, you need to use more than one to do anything significant.

First, define "use it correctly"
Your enemy being stupid does not mean you are using something "correctly". A misconception many potatoes have.


Second, if you have to mount more than one of a ten ton equipment (that requires constant face tanking) for it to be useful... then there is something wrong with that weapon

[Ruar]

Navid A1, on 05 July 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

First, define "use it correctly"
Your enemy being stupid does not mean you are using something "correctly". A misconception many potatoes have.


Second, if you have to mount more than one of a ten ton equipment (that requires constant face tanking) for it to be useful... then there is something wrong with that weapon

Please stop with the "constant face tanking" line. MRMs require no more face time than pulse lasers and they have a long enough cooldown to allow peeking and poking. There's no need to fabricate information in order to steer people away from the weapon. You may not like MRMs, but that doesn't mean they are bad.

[Gas Guzzler]

Nean, on 05 July 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

Not really. These missiles, while not being the best of weapons, can do a lot of damage if you use it correctly. Also, they're like RACs, you need to use more than one to do anything significant.

Even with perfect accuracy, the spread is atrocious. And no, stationary Atlases are not what I am talking about. These weapons do not kill things efficiently, and are cumbersome to use in their intended range bracket. Ipso facto, they are bad. You can mop up stationary targets all you want, that isn't going to convince me to use MRMs more often.

[Ruar]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

Even with perfect accuracy, the spread is atrocious. And no, stationary Atlases are not what I am talking about. These weapons do not kill things efficiently, and are cumbersome to use in their intended range bracket. Ipso facto, they are bad. You can mop up stationary targets all you want, that isn't going to convince me to use MRMs more often.

The spread also concentrates to the middle. I was consistently able to strip out CTs before STs and didn't have arms or legs drop into structure. Yes, some of the rounds hit arms and legs, but the focal point of the spread is to the center and I can live with that. I was able to get kills in battles against moving targets in the same way I used SRMs pre-test.

I'm not trying to convince you to use MRMs, but they are no where near as bad as people in this thread are indicating. I think people who don't like MRMs just weren't building with them properly. They are support weapons, not primary, and need to be paired with other weapons to truly be effective.

[Navid A1]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

I think people are looking at MRMs like they do LRMs where the only real tactic is to boat a bunch and use massed firepower. I see MRMs as the support weapon LRMs have failed to be. I tend to play mechs with one or two missile hardpoints. Right now the only option I have for those points is SRMs because LRMs suck when you are flanking, skirmishing, harassing, and brawling. The problem with SRMs is they force me close range or sit back doing no damage while the distance between teams close. I typically run MPL so I can hit with them but my SRMs are sitting silent until the fight progresses. MRMs let me lay down more firepower earlier though. With the weight savings of LFE I can swap out my SRMs for MRMs and instantly increase my damage output because I prefer to fight at 300-500m.

Sure, MRM spread is a bit big, but if it wasn't then it would be equal to SRMs up close and then why would I bother with SRMs?

Yeah, MRMs have a slight streaming effect, but it's no worse than pulse lasers so saying there is all of this face time is just wrong. Especially since MRMs are meant to be used at longer ranges where weapons are less accurate anyway. I can aim, fire, and twist just as easily with MRMs as I do with lasers.

I do think MRMs need more range though, and I wouldn't pass up a bit more velocity. However I think the spread and stream fire work and have a reason for being what they are. The biggest problem I see with MRMs is people expect them to be this totally awesome new weapon when they are just a perfectly adequate weapon.

Woah man... please, there are so many wrong ideas and statements in a single post for me to handle.


- SRMs will always be the superior brawl weapon as long as MRMs fire in a stream. Even if MRMs get the same spread as SRMs, they would still be inferior because SRMs fire in a blob

- MRMs should be viable for mechs with 1 or 2 missile hardpoints (remember MRMs are heavy af). Currently they are the single worst weapon in MWO (even light machine guns are more useful than this hot pile of garbage)

- your comparison of LRMs and MRMs don't make sense... different mechanics, different roles... different everything

- You compared MRMs with pulse lasers? the weapon with slowest projectile speed and the largest spread with one of the most pinpoint hit scan weapons out there?. I'll just do you a favor and won't post a screenshot of your post anywhere, otherwise that single comment would become the avatar of how little forum people know about the gameplay

- MRMs need more range? what?
dude... with 400 m/s missiles, its already useless and un-reliable past 300m

- people do not want new shiny OP weapons. They want them to at least not suck a$$ compared to what they already have, when they know there is potential

Edited by Navid A1, 05 July 2017 - 07:43 PM.

[Navid A1]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Please stop with the "constant face tanking" line. MRMs require no more face time than pulse lasers and they have a long enough cooldown to allow peeking and poking. There's no need to fabricate information in order to steer people away from the weapon. You may not like MRMs, but that doesn't mean they are bad.

please stop comparing a hit scan weapon with 0 spread to a weapon with 400 m/s velocity and spread the size of a planet

and if you don't know how important face-tanking and trading is, then I'm beginning to understand why the the more capable MWO community are laughing at forum users all the time

[Ruar]

Navid A1, on 05 July 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

Woah man... please, there are so many wrong ideas and statements in a single post for me to handle.


- SRMs will always be the superior brawl weapon as long as MRMs fire in a spread. Even if MRMs get the same spread as SRMs, they would still be inferior because SRMs fire in a blob

- MRMs should be viable for mechs with 1 or 2 missile hardpoints (remember MRMs are heavy af). Currently they are the single worst weapon in MWO (even light machine guns are more useful than this hot pile of garbage)

- your comparison of LRMs and MRMs don't make sense... different mechanics, different roles... different everything

- You compared MRMs with pulse lasers? the weapon with the largest spread with one of the mot pinpoint weapons out there?. I'll just do you a favor and won't post a screenshot of your post anywhere, otherwise that single comment would become the avatar of how little forum people know about the gameplay

- MRMs need more range? what?
dude... with 400 m/s missiles, its already useless and un-reliable past 300m

- people do not want new shiny OP weapons. They want them to at least not suck a$$ compared to what they already have, when they know there is potential

Really with the insults? And then you can't even engage the arguments I'm making. Sheesh.

If SRMs and MRMs have the same spread, and MRMs are kicking out 50%+ more missiles then how exactly will SRMs be superior? Especially if I can fire those MRMs at greater ranges. Is it because you don't like the one second of stream fire and can't hold your target at close range long enough for a one second burst of fire?

Please don't try to sell your opinion as fact. The single worse weapon in the game is probably the ERLL, but that's my opinion. Rocket launchers are pretty bad as well.

I talk about LRMs because they are a support weapon that is supposed to provide long range missile fire. However the locking mechanic means you have to stare at a target and hold the lock preventing maneuvering through cover. Trying to fire LRMs without a lock is even worse because of the speed and high arc. So MRMs end up being the support missile weapon we just don't have in the game.

Yes, I compared MRMs and pulse lasers because they both require about the same amount of time staring at the target. People aren't complaining that pulse lasers require "constant face tanking" yet MRMs fire in the same amount of time, if not faster. Please pay attention to the comparison that is being made.

I had no problem hitting moving mediums on test with the bulk of my MRM 10 and 20 shots. Your mileage, and skill, will vary.

[Ruar]

Navid A1, on 05 July 2017 - 07:40 PM, said:

please stop comparing a hit scan weapon with 0 spread to a weapon with 400 m/s velocity and spread the size of a planet

and if you don't know how important face-tanking and trading is, then I'm beginning to understand why the the more capable MWO community are laughing at forum users all the time

You keep missing the comparison between MRMs and pulse lasers.

You do realize you are a forum user too with 4000 posts....

[Navid A1]

Based on your logic... you are far far away from understanding game play besides testing grounds... the place where your skill is the only factor.

I'm too tired to explain why you are wrong on every case. I made my point. People can read and decide for themselves.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

You do realize you are a forum user too with 4000 posts....

Why don't you come over reddit and post one of these gems over there?
and see what top teams and players have to say about it?

[Ruar]

Navid A1, on 05 July 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

Based on your logic... you are far far away from understanding game play besides testing grounds... the place where your skill is the only factor.

I'm too tired to explain why you are wrong on every case. I made my point. People can read and decide for themselves.


Why don't you come over reddit and post one of these gems over there?
and see what top teams and players have to say about it?

I don't use reddit, I use official game forums.

[Monkey Lover]

If they make them fly by wire and follow the reticle you could do really cool stuff at 400-500m.

[Navid A1]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

I don't use reddit, I use official game forums.

the official game forums is twitter and reddit and occasional streams.

Being a founder, YOU should know

[1st to Die]

I see this weapon system as being way too OP. Several builds out there with 130+ alphas. Quick recycle time + 130 dmg alphas = near instagib. Even with the spread, these things are way too OP. These need a minimum range like with the ATMs for clans. That way each weapon system functions for its intended range: SRMs for up close, MRMs for mid-range, LRMs for long range.

Edited by 1st to Die, 05 July 2017 - 08:30 PM.

[Navid A1]

1st to Die, on 05 July 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

I see this weapon system as being way too OP. Several builds out there with 130+ alphas. Quick recycle time + 130 dmg alphas = near instagib. Even with the spread, these things are way too OP. These need a minimum range like with the ATMs for clans. That way each weapon system functions for its intended range: SRMs for up close, MRMs for mid-range, LRMs for long range.

not sure if trolling or if its actually serious.

I'm not laughing either way!

[Monkey Lover]

1st to Die, on 05 July 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

I see this weapon system as being way too OP. Several builds out there with 130+ alphas. Quick recycle time + 130 dmg alphas = near instagib. Even with the spread, these things are way too OP. These need a minimum range like with the ATMs for clans. That way each weapon system functions for its intended range: SRMs for up close, MRMs for mid-range, LRMs for long range.

[Ruar]

1st to Die, on 05 July 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

I see this weapon system as being way too OP. Several builds out there with 130+ alphas. Quick recycle time + 130 dmg alphas = near instagib. Even with the spread, these things are way too OP. These need a minimum range like with the ATMs for clans. That way each weapon system functions for its intended range: SRMs for up close, MRMs for mid-range, LRMs for long range.

You are probably the only person who has called them OP. MRMs are pretty massive when talking about 30 and 40 launchers so it's not easy to pack a bunch of them together. The heat is really bad as well at that point so the recycle time is kind of moot when you are shutdown.

I just can't see them replacing the dedicated LRM builds because people who like LRMs aren't going to be happy with LOS weapons you have to aim and lead your target. MRMs are going to be taking up slots used for SRMs though with a few splat designs shifting. Catapult, maybe some Archers, probably a Trebuchet or two. However those mechs will have 60-80pt alphas, not 130. Even then most of that damage is going to be spread and people are going to see a need for some laser backup weapons.

Edited by Ruar, 05 July 2017 - 09:07 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Monkey Lover, on 05 July 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

Noooo, wrong use of meme!!!

It's supposed to be "I aint even mad. That's amazing."

http://knowyourmeme....i-aint-even-mad

To be fair, you are right though.

[Reno Blade]

Awww lol. can't decide if i want to cry, lough or head-desk...

Ever used the cUAC10 and 20s?
Will you use the isUAC20?
ever used any laser?

now tell me they are all useles because of the same reason.
MRM stream is short enough as the mentioned weapons.
AND having the ability to aim the stream following the reticule will actually net you at least 2x more hits than before the bug fix.

how i come to that number?
nobody is walking streight towards you and any fixed line stream (bug) will only hit the target for a small portion of the stream if you are above 10 meter range and the target is not an Atlas.

If you are not able to aim with Laser, cUAC20 or MRM because of the "long" duration stick with your PPC/Gauss/SRM builds.
thanks.