279 replies to this topic

[Dr Mlem]

Wil McCullough, on 10 August 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

i look forward to the video of you doing well playing with your foot and hit scan/ppfld weapons.

when can we expect it?

I wouldn't expect much.

Its easier for him to say he can do stuff, without actually showing it.

Edited by Lazer Doggo, 11 August 2017 - 02:48 AM.

[Ruar]

justcallme A S H, on 10 August 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

11 pages in 2 days and all this LRM thread turned into is just what all the LRM threads turn into... Bad players defending LRMs and trumpeting the apparent "level of skill" that is required to use them.

lol. Please. Just stop.

Pity I couldn't reply sooner and end up on JuJu's latest video, about his first video and this thread...

Lol, the video got pulled. Which is probably good because JuJu showed his own ignorance by mocking responses he didn't bother to read or even attempt to understand what was being said.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 10 August 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

I've always said that a weapon should never be balanced based on it's effectiveness against people who cannot into basic gameplay, but yet we do that with LRMs constantly. LRMs kill potatoes, sure. But other weapons do so far faster, far more efficiently, and generally with far more accuracy. Should we nerf lasers because that sealclubbing 2 HLL/4 ERML Hellbringer killed two spudbots in under a minute because lol, pinpoint damage alpha? No. Honestly, no. What killed them was being an unskilled vegetable product being hit by the normal, efficient process of the potato peelers battlefield.

But heaven help us if the weapon system with multiple hard and soft counters kills that same spud, because he failed to use any of them or learn how. That weapon is clearly OP and cannot possibly be improved, lest it become Lurmzilla and destroy the Innersphere like some kind of Galactic Kaiju.

Biggest difference in your example is the laser boat has to stick his mech out into the open to do damage while the LRM boat can sit behind cover the entire time. I could point out risk vs. reward but I doubt it will make you think differently.

Notice how there aren't multiple threads talking about how OP ATMs are? It's because they require the user to poke out of cover to shoot. Make LRMs a direct fire weapon which require the user to expose their armor and most of the complaints would go away.

Usually as soon as such a change is mentioned though the LRM people break out the torches and pitchforks.

[L1f3H4ck]

LRMs are indeed a skill based weapon system, as they are harder to use properly. Direct fire is straight forward. You see, you aim, you fire. LRMs can be fired on any lock, but launching them on a bad lock is pretty much like firing an autocannon into a building. It's not fair to compare them to direct fire weapons, which are more tactical than strategic. They can be good, but it's a lot easier to play them badly.

[Ruar]

Ravenous Starling, on 11 August 2017 - 03:50 AM, said:

LRMs are indeed a skill based weapon system, as they are harder to use properly. Direct fire is straight forward. You see, you aim, you fire. LRMs can be fired on any lock, but launching them on a bad lock is pretty much like firing an autocannon into a building. It's not fair to compare them to direct fire weapons, which are more tactical than strategic. They can be good, but it's a lot easier to play them badly.

Except... direct fire takes more skill to be effective with than LRMs.

To be effective with LRMs you have to account for range, target movement, terrain, heat, and how long the target will be exposed.

To be effective with direct fire weapons you have all of those things, plus minimizing your exposure to incoming fire, plus having to hold a much tighter aimpoint.

There is no situation where LRMs require more skill to use than any other weapon in the game. Any version of "effective fire" requires the direct fire user to consider more things than the LRM user.

[oldradagast]

Ruar, on 11 August 2017 - 03:34 AM, said:

Biggest difference in your example is the laser boat has to stick his mech out into the open to do damage while the LRM boat can sit behind cover the entire time.

Except everyone flat-out says that "good LRM players don't hide behind cover all game and are instead close to the battle and sharing armor with the team."

LRM-haters can't have it both ways. You can't claim that LRM's are amazing weapons that allow you to hide from damage nearly the whole game and wreck people while at the same time claiming that most LRM's players are useless, don't understand the weapons, and should be closer to the battle and sharing armor with their team.

The reality is that LRM's require more skill than lasers because they: can be countered by ECM and Radar Derp, are not pinpoint, fly slowly, and can be shot down. When PGI introduces a weapon that shoots down laser beams, Gauss Rounds and PPC's, and makes them fly as slow as LRM's and gives you a warning when they are coming, we can talk about how "high skill" pinpoint, frontloaded, hitscan damage is - but not until then.

Ruar, on 11 August 2017 - 03:58 AM, said:

There is no situation where LRMs require more skill to use than any other weapon in the game. Any version of "effective fire" requires the direct fire user to consider more things than the LRM user.

That is completely and utterly incorrect. Anyone can peek out from behind cover, press one button to pinpoint hitscan alpha, and then move behind cover. The LRM player has to get and hold locks - while not dying to the "high skill" hitscan damage he's receiving - and then wait for his missiles to slowly hit the target while not hitting walls, being shot down by AMS, etc.

Again, you can't have it both ways: LRM's can't be magical, super-easy to use weapons that require no skill and allow free kills by hiding behind cover all game while at the same time being horrible weapons that nobody should use and which require a long list of proper tactics to use effectively.

Funny how nobody posts long threads about how to effectively use lasers - maybe because "point and click" doesn't require a thread and isn't high skill.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 August 2017 - 05:14 AM.

[L0stA1m]

oldradagast, on 11 August 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

Except everyone flat-out says that "good LRM players don't hide behind cover all game and are instead close to the battle and sharing armor with the team."

LRM-haters can't have it both ways. You can't claim that LRM's are amazing weapons that allow you to hide from damage nearly the whole game and wreck people while at the same time claiming that most LRM's players are useless, don't understand the weapons, and should be closer to the battle and sharing armor with their team.

The reality is that LRM's require more skill than lasers because they: can be countered by ECM and Radar Derp, are not pinpoint, fly slowly, and can be shot down. When PGI introduces a weapon that shoots down laser beams, Gauss Rounds and PPC's, and makes them fly as slow as LRM's and gives you a warning when they are coming, we can talk about how "high skill" pinpoint, frontloaded, hitscan damage is - but not until then.



That is completely and utterly incorrect. Anyone can peek out from behind cover, press one button to pinpoint hitscan alpha, and then move behind cover. The LRM player has to get and hold locks - while not dying to the "high skill" hitscan damage he's receiving - and then wait for his missiles to slowly hit the target while not hitting walls, being shot down by AMS, etc.

Again, you can't have it both ways: LRM's can't be magical, super-easy to use weapons that require no skill and allow free kills by hiding behind cover all game while at the same time being horrible weapons that nobody should use and which require a long list of proper tactics to use effectively.

Funny how nobody posts long threads about how to effectively use lasers - maybe because "point and click" doesn't require a thread and isn't high skill.

oldradagast 63 87 0.72 93 111 0.84 150 216

[Galenit]

L0stA1m, on 11 August 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

oldradagast 63 87 0.72 93 111 0.84 150 216

Glad that ther are stats, no need to discuss with arguments anymore.

That happens when an orange clowns win elections ...

Edited by Galenit, 11 August 2017 - 06:31 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

Galenit, on 11 August 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

Glad that there stats, no need to discuss with arguments anymore.

to be fair, stats only show half the picture.

[Galenit]

Wil McCullough, on 11 August 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

to be fair, stats only show half the picture.

You have leveled only new lights in the last season, so your arguments are not worthwhile?
You are wrong because you only played sick and drunk the last season?
You cant be right because you only play stockbuilds?

They show nothing in their isolated state and if someone invalidates an opinion based on some isolated stats, he must be realy simple.

[Burke IV]

lol so thats what it is, i thought he was being invited to a teamspeak server

[meteorol]

Galenit, on 11 August 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

You have leveled only new lights in the last season, so your arguments are not worthwhile?
You are wrong because you only played sick and drunk the last season?
You cant be right because you only play stockbuilds?

They show nothing in their isolated state and if someone invalidates an opinion based on some isolated stats, he must be realy simple.

His stats have been mostly the same for the last 13 months.

People who claim lrms require a considerable amount of skill are very likely to be bad at this game. Stats confirm frst impression.

[Zergling]

meteorol, on 11 August 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

His stats have been mostly the same for the last 13 months.

People who claim lrms require a considerable amount of skill are very likely to be bad at this game. Stats confirm frst impression.

And this is a very hard rule; I have yet to see a single exception.

In addition to proving that LRMs are a low-skill requirement weapon, Juju also proved that these forums really do live up to their nickname of 'the brown sea'.

Edited by Zergling, 11 August 2017 - 07:34 AM.

[Appogee]

I think there's scope here for a whole new genre of gameplay videos.

Tonight I am going to record a match where I aim with my nose.

Edited by Appogee, 11 August 2017 - 07:41 AM.

[Ruar]

oldradagast, on 11 August 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

Except everyone flat-out says that "good LRM players don't hide behind cover all game and are instead close to the battle and sharing armor with the team."

LRM-haters can't have it both ways. You can't claim that LRM's are amazing weapons that allow you to hide from damage nearly the whole game and wreck people while at the same time claiming that most LRM's players are useless, don't understand the weapons, and should be closer to the battle and sharing armor with their team.

The reality is that LRM's require more skill than lasers because they: can be countered by ECM and Radar Derp, are not pinpoint, fly slowly, and can be shot down. When PGI introduces a weapon that shoots down laser beams, Gauss Rounds and PPC's, and makes them fly as slow as LRM's and gives you a warning when they are coming, we can talk about how "high skill" pinpoint, frontloaded, hitscan damage is - but not until then.



That is completely and utterly incorrect. Anyone can peek out from behind cover, press one button to pinpoint hitscan alpha, and then move behind cover. The LRM player has to get and hold locks - while not dying to the "high skill" hitscan damage he's receiving - and then wait for his missiles to slowly hit the target while not hitting walls, being shot down by AMS, etc.

Again, you can't have it both ways: LRM's can't be magical, super-easy to use weapons that require no skill and allow free kills by hiding behind cover all game while at the same time being horrible weapons that nobody should use and which require a long list of proper tactics to use effectively.

Funny how nobody posts long threads about how to effectively use lasers - maybe because "point and click" doesn't require a thread and isn't high skill.

You are confusing good players with a low skill weapon. A good player can take a low skill weapon and do well. They would do even better with a different weapon that is more effective however.

All of the countermeasures you talked about are there because homing indirect weapons have the potential to be stupid powerful. That in no way means those homing indirect weapons require a lot of skill. I could easily argue radar dep and ECM affect direct fire weapons by reducing the ability to see the ragdoll and thus avoiding shots on weak areas.

As for locks... the LRM player simply has to wait for someone to get them locks. There is no requirement to expose themselves unless they are the last person on the team. A good player can be more effective with LRMs by getting locks, using TAG/NARC, playing closer to the front line, an sharing armor... but none of those items change the fact that LRMs require the least amount of skill to use.

The LRM lovers constantly talk about LRMs needing more skill to be effective when the truth is every weapon requires a higher level of skill to be effective compared to just doing damage. At the end of the day LRMs require the least amount of skill to be effective because of the way they are designed. In fact, even the term effective is relative with LRMs because at their best they are less useful in the vast majority of situations than any other weapon. The exception is when the LRM user can stay out of LOS and pummel a target that refuses to seek cover. In that one instance LRMs are more effective because they can do damage without exposing themselves. Someone else is out there taking the risk, but not the LRM user so maybe even that example doesn't qualify.

[MischiefSC]

justcallme A S H, on 10 August 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

11 pages in 2 days and all this LRM thread turned into is just what all the LRM threads turn into... Bad players defending LRMs and trumpeting the apparent "level of skill" that is required to use them.

lol. Please. Just stop.

Pity I couldn't reply sooner and end up on JuJu's latest video, about his first video and this thread...

When someone is bad at something and wants to pretend they're good at it you're talking about someones self-image. They can get really defensive. It's why even though a lot of comp players (in any game) may be only marginally socialized and act like complete *** hats much of the time they are, almost universally, ego-less and flexible when looking at their own skills and what they do and use to perform well. Someone who's a top performer in their field almost always distances their self-perception of 'I am good at this' from 'I am good at this while using X'. They may have preferences and they may have identified what they've practiced with the most if the meta changes tomorrow they'll adapt very quickly without having an ego driven self defensive response like people do around LRMs.

Why?

Because there's nobody who's good at the game because they use LRMs. There's people who are terrible at it who crawl into the bottom edge of mediocre by leaning heavily on the crutches that LRMs provide to people with low skill. There's people who are mediocre who use LRMs to throw away win/loss to pad damage stats and want to pretend they're just really good but only ever get bad teams.

So you've got people who are very defensive about LRMs because LRMs give them the illusion of good performance. Someone with actual good skills will do good with whatever. Also anyone and everyone who is actually good at the game agrees LRMs are bad. There's nobody in this game who's considered a good player who doesn't acknowledge that LRMs are bad.

So the topic is interesting to me. You see the segment of the population who lacks the self-awareness or analytical skills to recognize that LRMs are bad. LRMs still have a place - some people have issues where they can't aim, either health or computer framerate. Sometimes LRMs are just good for a giggle. I've got several builds with ATMs at the moment for QP and the odd FW match.

However they're never going to show up in top tier comp play because anyone good enough to get into top tier comp play is competitive enough that they wouldn't take a bad loadout, which LRMs are. So bads take them sometimes and in mid-tier comp play once in a blue moon someone will take some for surprise value to Polar or the like but they don't end up in Div A.

Because regardless of egos or opinions, in the ultimate test of actual performance among the highest tiers of player skill they fail. Because they're bad compared to other options.

[Johnny Z]

[MischiefSC]

Galenit, on 11 August 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

You have leveled only new lights in the last season, so your arguments are not worthwhile?
You are wrong because you only played sick and drunk the last season?
You cant be right because you only play stockbuilds?

They show nothing in their isolated state and if someone invalidates an opinion based on some isolated stats, he must be realy simple.

not a fan of stat-shaming. However several months of stats do give a passing image of how someone performs.

In any argument about how well something performs, be that a mech or a weapon system or a strategy it's not unreasonable to say 'show me' and compare how well someone performs overall. Someone who says 'I do great and I play X' but their stats are terrible does not have the weight of success to support their argument.

If someone isn't consistently winning matches, way more than they lose in fact, than how can they say they're a good judge of what wins matches? If, conversely, someone wins all the time and says 'this is what wins vs that', how can you say their argument doesn't hold water?

Here's an example I know really well - pushing and playing aggressively in FW. I play in KCom. We usually run a 95-98% win rate. While nobody on our team is a top tier comp player we can even consistently give the actual comp teams (when they're slumming in FW) a bit of a challenge. So when Pat Kell tells someone that pushing and playing aggressively works and wins matches, it's stupid to not take that advice seriously. Yet people with a win loss of often less than 1.0, people winning less than 50% of the time tell him 'no, pushing is stupid. You have to camp near your dropzone so it takes less time to reinforce' it's reasonable to look at which of them actually wins matches and help gauge from that who is correct.

LRMs are bad and take less skill. The mechanics of this has been discussed a million times. More to the point nobody who's really good at the game argues that point - what does and doesn't work and what does and doesn't take skill is settled and proven in the arena of gameplay performance and that's been settled.

There's no moral component to identifying who is and is not a good judge of what does and does not work. It's not saying that 'Your status suck so you suck'. It's saying 'based on what proven experience are you saying that your opinion is right and another is wrong'.

[STEF_]

This thread is pretty much amazing, rolling on...forever, 12 pages and going on!!!

LOL

The trumpetists yelling LRM are good are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G, never lolled so hard.

In the hope some scrubs will read this, I'll leave here why LRM SUCKS HARD.

- lrm requires lock, other weapon systems don't
- lrm missiles reach the target in ages, while smart players have pleanty of time to cover.
- lrm spreads dmg all over the place, lasers, gauss, (is) ppcs don't, while clan ballistics, erppc far less than lrm
- lrm SUCKS as suppressive weapons, if you look for that, go with ac2

NOW, with that said, ppl saying lrm requires skills.....after watching this video, should AT LEAST admit lrm requires NO AIMING SKILL WHATSOEVER; WTF!
And about the other skills.....what? LOL

This game is about KILLING not to do some random dmg.

Scrubs showing "look at here, I did 1k dmg with lrm (and no kills) ..SUCK HARD!!!.

Period.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 11 August 2017 - 09:30 AM.

[z3a1ot]

I came to this topic expecting some hilarious MEMES but you people failed. What happened?