213 replies to this topic

[Unnatural Growth]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 September 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

As many have given their ideas for mechs I will give some play style tips for newer players who like lrms:

1. Before each match, use voip or just use all-chat to type ..."lrm boat here, please hold locks." You have seen other players do this by now....they do it because it works.
2. Stay safely behind the main body of your team. You don't want to get to far forward as you won't have many (or any) direct fire weapons to engage with and you need to stay alive as longer than your direct-fire teammates as you are probably the best hope to pull out a close match for your team.
3. Stay reasonably close to your team though. An enemy light will come up to engage you at some point...this is when you will need your teammates help or you will die. You can let them know to keep an eye on you for this purpose in before the game starts and yell for help if they let you down and you get engaged. They will come running if they are smart. If not, you wouldn't be the first lrm pilot to let there team know how to improve their game.
4. No need to bring tag in 12 v 12 matches. Your teammates can get locks and if you have a tag, you will have to expose yourself to enemy fire to use it. Plus this frees up for tonnage for ammo.
5. The longer you can stay a 90%+ health the better. So, again stay as safe as you can and don't try to save teammates if it might endanger yourself. It will pay off in the end and your teammates will then understand what you were doing.

Hope this helps the lrm lovers here

This is sarcasm, right?

[Marquis De Lafayette]

OldOrgandonor, on 01 October 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

This is sarcasm, right?

It's more satire....or perhaps even a parody.. of all the bad play I have seen and all the terrible ideas I have heard a few lrm pilots I have run across espouse...just wrapped up into one post

[Brain Cancer]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

LRMs are a terrible suppression weapon against anything but bads.

Suppression, LOL.

Quote

Your 50 pts of slow moving and scattered LRMs may get them to lean back I to cover after an alpha or 2. My 84 pts of direct fire will blow their ST off, sending them scampering to cover with half their mech gone. That's better suppression.

There's a reason I don't have 60-80 LRMs on my Supernova. It's 30 to chase people with, but it's the two big ATM launchers that do the real work.

Quote

Shooting over the mechs in front of you means you're positioning wrong.

Or are used to having numbskulls in QP constantly shoving themselves ahead of you. I frequently have the team damage to prove it, because you can't unshoot a missile or make it fly another direction once it's inbound.

Quote

There is nothing useful that LRMs do other than shoot from hiding - which is a bad thing to do because it means the enemy can focus on fewer targets. Everything else they do is done better by direct fire.

If all you're doing is firing from hiding with LRMs, you're really doing it wrong. Indirect fire = no Artemis bonus = even more spread.

Quote

If that was not the case you would see consistent effective use of LRMs at the top tiers of gameplay. You don't, not because all the top players in the game are also coincidentally bad at it but because bad weapons are not as good as good weapons.

Use what you want in QP. I'm having fun with a non meta MRM build latwly. It's QP, do wut you want.

The reason you don't see LRMs in high skill games is because they're low accuracy, low damage, spread damage weapons. ATMs definitely made the grade this tournament season. Better velocity, the ability to deliver a decent punch and compensate somewhat for a (lesser) spread pattern to boot.

Quote

However honesty is important. LRMs are bad compared to direct fire. You want to disprove that you need to actually prove it. Nobody has done so in a test before.

There's nothing to prove. LRMs are not a pure direct fire weapon. The only times LRMs are better in terms of damage capacity is when the LRM can be used against targets that can't be hit from your position with direct fire, ideally while you're on the way to a position you can. You're trading softening a target right now that's being engaged (thus the indirect lock you got) vs. a weaker damage type, with the expectation that your additional if weaker damage will swing the balance. If your lesser damage + your team-mates firepower means the bad guy goes down sooner, being able to IDF when otherwise your DPS is zero matters.

Bad lurmers think all you're supposed to do is hide behind a hill and fire off everyone's locks. Indirect is what you do while lining up a better shot, not your only shot. You, as a lurmer should be getting damage to opponents sooner, even if it's showering them with spread damage and sanding down armor- but you should also be hustling your giant robot up to where you can contribute with direct fire. However, since it's spread damage, it'll never, ever compete. What's hilarious is that LRMs are third-rate weapons, yet they get threads monthly asking to nerf em, or turn them into another direct fire clone (that would still be inferior).

"Top tier" players are either in a tightly co-ordinated group, or in QP simply being smart enough to use their potato shields while doing the traditional mega-alphas to a pixel of armor, thereby rendering most of their opponent's armor moot.



This is the meta, after all. What amazes me is that given how obliterating this can be, people actually ever consider LRMs a threat by comparison to the guy hitscan slagging your engine.

[Ted Wayz]

Jay Leon Hart, on 29 September 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

IS Medium
Hunchback HBK-4J
Trebuchet TBT-7M
Griffin GRF-2N

Wha...

No Kintaro? The best medium missile boat...evah.

Shame.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 01 October 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

stuff

So the same tonnage in direct fire is better than the same tonnage in LRMs. So spending tonnage on LRMs instead of direct fire is less effective.

Which is fine - play QP how you want, take what you want. However I don't take my MRM MAD into a duel against a good player with meta and not expect to get my *** handed to me. I don't tell people 'Yeah, my MRM/LBX/Whatever Giggle Build is totes better than lasers/gauss (whatever direct fire meta setup).' I say 'Hey, I managed to do well in spite of having an inferior setup! I do this to avoid stabbing myself in the face for having to drop my 500th consecutive match in gaussvomit!'

Clan XL is better than IS XL. Not 'in the right situation'. It's just better. Same thing with LRMs and direct fire. The only time LRMs are better than direct fire is when you can't aim well at all and you need something to help direct stuff to targets for you. There's legit reasons for that, I get it, that's cool. There's also the 'I just wanna' factor. Again, all cool.

However it's not unreasonable to just be honest about that. Saying that LRMs are as good or better than direct fire is false, either individually or in teams unless both teams are terribads. If people want to say otherwise then lets test it with teams and see what happens.

Still trying to get 8 people willing to play on the LRM team for that challenge.

[Brain Cancer]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

So the same tonnage in direct fire is better than the same tonnage in LRMs. So spending tonnage on LRMs instead of direct fire is less effective.

Yep, as long as you can keep people in your line of sight constantly, direct fire is better.

LRMs deal damage when you don't, however. That's the difference. They're capable of dealing damage whenever anyone has a lock, as long as you can draw a clear arc from you to the target.

If you're using direct fire weaponry, your effective DPS is zero when LOS is blocked. If you're using LRMs, your maximum effective DPS is lower, but you'll be putting damage out over more of the engagement.

Take target A. Your team members X and Y are able to hit it directly. Z is also able to hit it immediately, but only with indirect fire.

Will A die faster, and deal less damage if Z has LRMs, or a nice HML/HLL build?

Quote

Which is fine - play QP how you want, take what you want. However I don't take my MRM MAD into a duel against a good player with meta and not expect to get my *** handed to me. I don't tell people 'Yeah, my MRM/LBX/Whatever Giggle Build is totes better than lasers/gauss (whatever direct fire meta setup).' I say 'Hey, I managed to do well in spite of having an inferior setup! I do this to avoid stabbing myself in the face for having to drop my 500th consecutive match in gaussvomit!'

Now, most sane people would look at this and go "That means MRMs" (and other systems that don't compete) are underpowered and need buffs."

Yet, we see "NERF LRM" threads every month. You'll notice I didn't even say "LRMs are better than direct fire."

Nothing is better than direct fire, except direct fire that has zero spread. Y'know, why MRMs and LB-X outside of short range are second-rate, and why LRMs are third-rate.

Quote

Clan XL is better than IS XL. Not 'in the right situation'. It's just better. Same thing with LRMs and direct fire. The only time LRMs are better than direct fire is when you can't aim well at all and you need something to help direct stuff to targets for you. There's legit reasons for that, I get it, that's cool. There's also the 'I just wanna' factor. Again, all cool.

Or more appropriately, LRMs are only good when the ability to use direct fire is zero. Although I'll admit, a 20ish FPS rate on my computer makes them appealing as well.

But they should be better. If the "standard" is being able to dump 70 damage into a single location per salvo, weapon systems that deliver 70 damage spread should be getting something else to compensate, and weapons that take lock-on and get multiple counters to deal 70 damage spread should be considerably better in some aspects to make up for the slow, scattered, inaccurate damage they're stuck with vs. the guy putting 70 damage downrange in about 1.5 seconds to a single spot.

And a weapon system that is so badly imbalanced that experienced players tell others to never mount it on anything is a literal design failure in the game.

Quote

However it's not unreasonable to just be honest about that. Saying that LRMs are as good or better than direct fire is false, either individually or in teams unless both teams are terribads. If people want to say otherwise then lets test it with teams and see what happens.

Still trying to get 8 people willing to play on the LRM team for that challenge.

Again, not disagreeing with you. The best thing to do with LRMs right now is never use them if you want something even remotely efficient compared to laservomit or ballistic options.

That being said, I won't stop tossing missiles, because they ARE third-rate weapons and barring getting an expensive computer specifically for a game I spend zero money on, the pleasure is in killing people who know it and get wrecked anyway.

[Methanoid]

Huntsman

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

LRMs are a terrible suppression weapon against anything but bads.

Your 50 pts of slow moving and scattered LRMs may get them to lean back I to cover after an alpha or 2. My 84 pts of direct fire will blow their ST off, sending them scampering to cover with half their mech gone. That's better suppression.

Shooting over the mechs in front of you means you're positioning wrong.

There is nothing useful that LRMs do other than shoot from hiding - which is a bad thing to do because it means the enemy can focus on fewer targets. Everything else they do is done better by direct fire.

If that was not the case you would see consistent effective use of LRMs at the top tiers of gameplay. You don't, not because all the top players in the game are also coincidentally bad at it but because bad weapons are not as good as good weapons.

Use what you want in QP. I'm having fun with a non meta MRM build latwly. It's QP, do wut you want.

However honesty is important. LRMs are bad compared to direct fire. You want to disprove that you need to actually prove it. Nobody has done so in a test before.

You are pretty much exactally what I was talking about. I understand that you don't get it. My techniques are very nuanced and rely heavily on applying psycological pressure on the human ellement present in the game. There is no DPS chart for how much damage was not shot off because of effective psycological pressure or even a score card that gives you credit for successful fake outs and scare tactics.

But, there is a direct effect on the match exerted and benifits to be leveraged.

LRMs can get them to fall back and never even hit or even have a chance to hit the missile launch warning is what does the work. You can have a 84 pnt alpha or a 1 million point alpha it's not making anyone do anything if it doesn't hit or can not hit.

We do not have a WARNING! 84 point alpha incoming! So if you can not actually hit them then your 84 pnts of alpha don't do squat. You should not be aiming that much firepower to suppress you should be aiming at free and clear targets and killing them.

Let the LRMs do the supression so your 84 point alpha can get work done and not get whacked yourself with an 84 point alpha because it's being distracted with missile warnings.

Shooting over mechs is frequently mandatory and tactically wise. If you can not see advantage to presenting a narrow point of exposure while maximizing return fire then I guess that's fine. You don't need to. Just don't miss with those 84 point alphas.

Someone may very well have "possitioned wrong" the brawler may have wheeled tight and now blocks everyone else from firing (can't say you never see this) so, we do have a weapon system that can contribute or we could shoot 84 point alphas into backs of the miss possitioned mechs on our team? Honestly the second line direct fire does nothing until they can get a clear lane of fire and frequently it's not them that possitioned poorly it may be the front that screwed the pooch on possitioning.

Now with top tier play in particular coordinated team play LRMs can be problematic to get the most out of. Much of the impact you can exert with LRMs is psycological. In organized play you know your team mates will back you up,you know that when the time to push comes you will not be doing it alone. Psycological tricks are less effective with a confident target. This is why I strongly recommend that the more organized the play is the lower the tonnage you should devote to an LRM platform (if one is chosen at all)

I rarely use an LRM platform I'm more of a brawler type but, when I do use an LRM platform it's a clan light chassis or a heavily mixed build with significant direct fire weapons and the LRMs are secondary and supplimental.

[LordNothing]

catapult-k2











its like having a lerm boat without the trouble of having to carry a crappy weapons system.

Edited by LordNothing, 01 October 2017 - 08:37 PM.

[Bombast]

LordNothing, on 01 October 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

catapult-k2

Methanoid, on 01 October 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

Huntsman

The Huntsman is a pretty good platform for just about everything, except for lasers above a certain size and the non-Ultra 20s.

[MischiefSC]

Lykaon, on 01 October 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

You are pretty much exactally what I was talking about. I understand that you don't get it. My techniques are very nuanced and rely heavily on applying psycological pressure on the human ellement present in the game. There is no DPS chart for how much damage was not shot off because of effective psycological pressure or even a score card that gives you credit for successful fake outs and scare tactics.

But, there is a direct effect on the match exerted and benifits to be leveraged.

LRMs can get them to fall back and never even hit or even have a chance to hit the missile launch warning is what does the work. You can have a 84 pnt alpha or a 1 million point alpha it's not making anyone do anything if it doesn't hit or can not hit.

We do not have a WARNING! 84 point alpha incoming! So if you can not actually hit them then your 84 pnts of alpha don't do squat. You should not be aiming that much firepower to suppress you should be aiming at free and clear targets and killing them.

Let the LRMs do the supression so your 84 point alpha can get work done and not get whacked yourself with an 84 point alpha because it's being distracted with missile warnings.

Shooting over mechs is frequently mandatory and tactically wise. If you can not see advantage to presenting a narrow point of exposure while maximizing return fire then I guess that's fine. You don't need to. Just don't miss with those 84 point alphas.

Someone may very well have "possitioned wrong" the brawler may have wheeled tight and now blocks everyone else from firing (can't say you never see this) so, we do have a weapon system that can contribute or we could shoot 84 point alphas into backs of the miss possitioned mechs on our team? Honestly the second line direct fire does nothing until they can get a clear lane of fire and frequently it's not them that possitioned poorly it may be the front that screwed the pooch on possitioning.

Now with top tier play in particular coordinated team play LRMs can be problematic to get the most out of. Much of the impact you can exert with LRMs is psycological. In organized play you know your team mates will back you up,you know that when the time to push comes you will not be doing it alone. Psycological tricks are less effective with a confident target. This is why I strongly recommend that the more organized the play is the lower the tonnage you should devote to an LRM platform (if one is chosen at all)

I rarely use an LRM platform I'm more of a brawler type but, when I do use an LRM platform it's a clan light chassis or a heavily mixed build with significant direct fire weapons and the LRMs are secondary and supplimental.

Lol.

Okay. So you believe that LRMs are great 'when you use them right'.

So why don't you participate in a test. You do your special thing with LRMs that you do that makes them work so well that I (and clearly so many others) don't get and we'll do two teams, one will have at least 2 mechs using LRMs, the other only direct fire.

In all the years of tests and constant testing my everyone from mediocre teams to the constant and regular tests that top tier and comp teams do on different strats, LRMs even being comparable to direct fire has never been shown.

So why don't you show us all what we're not understanding?

[Trissila]

Brain Cancer, on 01 October 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

What's hilarious is that LRMs are third-rate weapons, yet they get threads monthly asking to nerf em, or turn them into another direct fire clone (that would still be inferior).

People hate being hit by enemies they cannot shoot back at. They all remember, vividly, that one time that they got NARC'd standing in the open and got shrekt by a few thousand tubes crapping all over them. They don't remember all the times missiles got fired at them and never connected, or all the times they just plain didn't get shot at with launchers because any number of countermeasures would have trashed the missiles anyway.

The folks that call for LRM nerfs are largely just frustrated by what they see as an "unfair" weapon. All that constant spam of clanging sounds and rocking cockpits and damage indicators flashing everywhere makes them feel awful, despite the fact that they're actually taking very little damage unless they're getting rained on by half the enemy team for an extended period of time.

[Y E O N N E]

Trissila, on 01 October 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

People hate being hit by enemies they cannot shoot back at.

People also don't like getting killed by weapons that do the aiming for you in a genre that revolves entirely around one's ability to aim.

[Trissila]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 October 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

People also don't like getting killed by weapons that do the aiming for you in a genre that revolves entirely around one's ability to aim.

You are gravely mistaken about the genre of video game to which Mechwarrior belongs.

This is not Quake or Unreal. This is a vehicle simulation game (arguments about how dumbed-down it is from a "true" sim can wait for some other thread). Locking, indirect-fire weaponry are a part of modern and future vehicular combat.

And as it is, MWO is the least effective that LRMs have ever been in Mechwarrior games.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Lol.

Okay. So you believe that LRMs are great 'when you use them right'.

So why don't you participate in a test. You do your special thing with LRMs that you do that makes them work so well that I (and clearly so many others) don't get and we'll do two teams, one will have at least 2 mechs using LRMs, the other only direct fire.

In all the years of tests and constant testing my everyone from mediocre teams to the constant and regular tests that top tier and comp teams do on different strats, LRMs even being comparable to direct fire has never been shown.

So why don't you show us all what we're not understanding?

Sure group with me and watch it happen. Also...did I even ever say great? let me skim through my posts......

Nope didn't say great. Never said they are superior or better than anything I only pointed out unique options available.

Actually Monday nights I group drop with some friends I should be online tomorrow night 7pm eastern until around midnight (I live near Boston MA) send me a message. The best way to observe is to be on my team.

Also pre arranged matches with teams that are fully aware of what to expect will not be caught off guard easily but, I'm not saying I won't give it a go and see how it performs. It will not be an unbiased test but it may still be fun.

I have at no point disputed direct fire weapons are superior at dealing damage. Never once.

I agree direct fire weapons when they can hit a target will be more effective than LRMs.

What you missed the boat on is what direct fire weapons CAN NOT DO the LRMS CAN DO.

This alone makes LRMs at least relevant in the current game. (but I agree not a good choice for dealing damage in general)

Do you get my point now? You and I have different adjendas. You want to prove your point that LRMs are terrible always everywhere every time and I want to point out that LRMs can actually do something that direct fire can't.

Also what I have not said here that I have said before is any improvements to LRMs should keep these unique properties intact because even buffed LRMs will likely fall short of most direct fire options.

[MischiefSC]

Lykaon, on 01 October 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

Sure group with me and watch it happen. Also...did I even ever say great? let me skim through my posts......

Nope didn't say great. Never said they are superior or better than anything I only pointed out unique options available.

Actually Monday nights I group drop with some friends I should be online tomorrow night 7pm eastern until around midnight (I live near Boston MA) send me a message. The best way to observe is to be on my team.

Also pre arranged matches with teams that are fully aware of what to expect will not be caught off guard easily but, I'm not saying I won't give it a go and see how it performs. It will not be an unbiased test but it may still be fun.

I have at no point disputed direct fire weapons are superior at dealing damage. Never once.

I agree direct fire weapons when they can hit a target will be more effective than LRMs.

What you missed the boat on is what direct fire weapons CAN NOT DO the LRMS CAN DO.

This alone makes LRMs at least relevant in the current game. (but I agree not a good choice for dealing damage in general)

Do you get my point now? You and I have different adjendas. You want to prove your point that LRMs are terrible always everywhere every time and I want to point out that LRMs can actually do something that direct fire can't.

Also what I have not said here that I have said before is any improvements to LRMs should keep these unique properties intact because even buffed LRMs will likely fall short of most direct fire options.

My only point is that LRMs are not as good as direct fire at winning matches with good players/good teams. That's it. They're good in QP at farming where there's always some less skilled people to shoot them at.

I'm absolutely in favor of giving LRMs some buffs but carefully and keeping in mind how they could get out of hand with auto-aim and indirect fire.

The issue is with people saying that LRMs are as good or better than direct fire at winning matches regardless of player skill 'if you use them right'. That argument comes up a lot.

[InvictusLee]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

Absolutely, I'll friend you when I'm off work. I'm off the next 3 days. You can pick the tonnage, I'll go the same or up to 10 tons less. That sound fair? You can even pick the map.

I've been pretty busy but having a sparing partner would be lovely!

Bombast, on 01 October 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

He asked for people, including you, to do just that. Everyone got mysteriously quiet.

I've been busy having an awful week. I am not in a place in life where I can just troll the forums 24/7 like some people.
In fact, I'm usually only here for tech issues or event related issues.

9 times out of ten i come here and I find alot of you just bitching about how LRMS suck, bout how meta sucks, about how being a loyalist sucks.

Just alot of bitching. ( I've been known to drunkenly contribute quite a bit myself)
Nothing constructive ever unless 6th messenger decided to grace us with mathematics.
Which is good, I like math.

There is nothing to prove. All of you already have your minds made up and there is no changing them with the amount of arguing and endless bitching/nitpicking.

Edited by November11th, 01 October 2017 - 09:38 PM.

[McHoshi]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Lol.

Okay. So you believe that LRMs are great 'when you use them right'.

So why don't you participate in a test. You do your special thing with LRMs that you do that makes them work so well that I (and clearly so many others) don't get and we'll do two teams, one will have at least 2 mechs using LRMs, the other only direct fire.

In all the years of tests and constant testing my everyone from mediocre teams to the constant and regular tests that top tier and comp teams do on different strats, LRMs even being comparable to direct fire has never been shown.

So why don't you show us all what we're not understanding?

Such Test were made in the past and surprise: Lrms aren´t that bad at all.

If you are lame or tired: get your lurm mech and have some fun! ^^

[MW222]

MischiefSC, on 01 October 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I heard that people who play LRMs love to talk **** about how good they are if you "use them right".....

Right up until you ask them to prove it. Then they go quiet.

Crazy.

[VXJaeger]

Shard Phoenix, on 01 October 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

Thanks, now I will forever envision LRM Assault pilots as helpless neckbeards who have freezers full of crappy microwave "hawaiian" pizzas as their only sustenance.

Now you gave me fuel for nightmares...gotta go to wash brain with nitric acid, BRB.