466 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

Brain Cancer, on 15 March 2018 - 11:42 AM, said:

People say that, but good grief. Try to do consistently well with LRMs.

You will gitgud in ways that you never imagined.

True enough for scoring good with them, but for an 'average' level of performance, LRMs require hardly any skill at all (although to be honest, average performance in MWO is kinda crap).

Like, LRMs are a low skill floor, low skill ceiling type of weapon.

That means they don't require a lot of skill to reach an 'acceptable' level of performance with, but they quickly reach a level where more skill doesn't really improve performance much.
Only top players can really perform at a good level with LRMs, and even then they'll do better with non-LRM weapons.

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

And why is it possible to get in the 10% with them.

FYI, you aren't in the top 10% in wins/losses kills/deaths or kills/battles, but in the top 50% to top 25% area in those stats.
That's 'above average' but not exactly good.

This is what LRMs do; they inflate matchscore but don't actually win battles.

Edited by Zergling, 15 March 2018 - 07:33 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Zergling, on 15 March 2018 - 07:27 PM, said:

True enough for scoring good with them, but for an 'average' level of performance, LRMs require hardly any skill at all (although to be honest, average performance in MWO is kinda crap).

Like, LRMs are a low skill floor, low skill ceiling type of weapon.

That means they don't require a lot of skill to reach an 'acceptable' level of performance with, but they quickly reach a level where more skill doesn't really improve performance much.
Only top players can really perform at a good level with LRMs, and even then they'll do better with non-LRM weapons.

That's basically the point- the weapon can't get pushed much further past a certain level of effectiveness, no matter how good you are with them. Honestly, when I'm doing well it's flicking missiles back and forth between different targets like a maniac, attempting to predict while trying to stay in enough cover to keep from being burnt to death by the usual suspects but avoiding full indirect as much as possible to eke every bit of spread reduction possible (which after the last nerf is even more painful)..

Oh, and of course having to hit someone far, far more often than they do to kill you in turn. Which increasingly these days feels like bringing a pillow to a sword fight. You can push yourself closer to 100% of what LRMs can do, but PGI has been quite thorough about reducing what that 100% means over the course of the game. The Artemis nerf and killing cornershots/hilltopper shooting simultaneously made LRMs less effective despite the same damage and ruined one of the few "skill shots" LRMs had.

[Scout Derek]

This post is bait.

And you all fell for it.

I can't believe you done this.

[roekenny]

Scout Derek, on 15 March 2018 - 10:23 PM, said:

This post is bait.

And you all fell for it.

I can't believe you done this.

Was obvious for a while but the argument been going round in circles for last 3 pages on the same 3 points and was getting annoying. Gave the troll info he desired and will be intresting to see what moon locic will pull to try keep this going. Hopefully topic will stay dead this time but i doubt it.

[Xiphias]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:25 PM, said:

Depends on the races?
Lets do a f1 car, a highend sports car and an old unimog the paris/dakar race.
I think, the unimog will win with its 80kph.
Will the f1 be better at nascar then the sports car?

This is more akin to changing the map. Hence LRMs are "good" on Polar and bad on maps with lots of cover. The skill level doesn't affect the track, just the racers. In the MWO case we have a circuit of tracks and most of them favor the F1 significantly.

Quote

If a weapon is bad against the 5-10% top players, they must not be bad against the other 90% and they can be also op against the lowest 5-10%.
Thats why saying lrms are bad is as false as saying they are op, they are both, they can be both, if you consider the circumstances.

But in the big picture the cant be bad or op, if they are good or at least average in the average play and thats why i want evidence that they are bad in the average play if someone claims they are bad, because that is what matters.
Not the opinion of the specialsnowflakes in the upper/lower 5-10%.
For that we have the new players and compplay sections of the forum.

Our disagreement boils down to terminology at this point. By your rational a weapon can't be bad unless it's bad at all levels of play and a weapon can't be good unless it's good at all levels of play. I strongly disagree because I think overall balance should always be considered from the top (not that they shouldn't be balanced at the other levels as well). In the context of calling a weapon good/bad we're looking at general trends, not at every case. Almost every weapon is good/bad in certain situations, it's still fair to call them good/bad overall. With a modest amount of skill direct fire weapons can outperform LRMs.

Another way of putting it is like this, which is better, a weapon that's effective against 90% of players or a weapon that effective against 100% of players? Direct fire weapons work against all players. LRMs simply aren't effective on most maps against at least a percentage of the population. Add in loadouts that effectively stop LRMs and you have a decent chunk of situations where LRMs are performancing significantly below direct fire weapons. Direct fire weapons on the other hand are primarily limited by personal skill, not weapon effectiveness.

Short of PGI giving me access to the game data I can't provide in game stats to show it, but my (and plenty of other pilots') experience has shown that LRMs simply aren't as good as direct fire weapons. I'm T1 which means I play against players all the way down to T3. That greater than 50% of the player base that I get to play against. It's one big pond that we get to play in together. In that context I think its perfectly fine to say that LRMs are bad.

[JRcam4643]

I've discovered the best LRM boats ideas ever.

[Bombast]

JRcam4643, on 15 April 2018 - 10:07 AM, said:

I've discovered the best LRM boats ideas ever.

Spoiler

That's pretty stale. Better go to the shop to get your hands on fresher stuff.

[MischiefSC]

I love that thread is still going.

[jss78]

I used to occasionally run LRM's, without any shame.

Nowadays my major issue is that MRM's exist. LRM's were only ever really effective out to mid-range, but require locks and have minimum range. MRM's solved both problems and I haven't ever run LRM's again.

Missile spam is kind of hilarious, but it's just easier with MRM's.

[JRcam4643]

On a more serious note here are some possibilities I'm thinking about for Solaris.

[MischiefSC]

If taking LRMs to Solaris please don't forget to take a good 15 tons of ammo.

Because what is functionally a pure brawl environment with no teammates to keep the enemy off you should always end with a massive ammo explosion.

[Prototelis]

jss78, on 15 April 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

Missile spam is kind of hilarious, but it's just easier with MRM's.

MRMs are funny when its like 3 people doing it to one person and all they can do is twist and still die.

Other than that.. they're kind of butt, but good for damage score padding. Might be cooler with a higher crit damage/chance

[Burke IV]

Is it possible that the reason LRMs can never be balanced is because "LRMs take no skill" So PGI are constantly trying to balance a weapon whilst completely discounting player input?

Just reading back pages in this thread, you people are severely biased and unfair towards LRMs. Time to accept you died cause the LRM player was better than you.

[BTGbullseye]

jss78, on 15 April 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

I used to occasionally run LRM's, without any shame.

Nowadays my major issue is that MRM's exist. LRM's were only ever really effective out to mid-range, but require locks and have minimum range. MRM's solved both problems and I haven't ever run LRM's again.

Missile spam is kind of hilarious, but it's just easier with MRM's.

That only works for IS though... Clan is stuck with LRM and ATM... And ATMs aren't even true to their name. (ton for ton LRMs do better in any range outside of the 90m 3 damage zone)

[Brain Cancer]

BTGbullseye, on 15 April 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

That only works for IS though... Clan is stuck with LRM and ATM... And ATMs aren't even true to their name. (ton for ton LRMs do better in any range outside of the 90m 3 damage zone)

Not quite, since range nodes increase the 3-damage zone, and they're still faster missiles than LRMs are, even post-Solaris patch. The flat arc also tends to make them quite good at kneecapping targets slightly above the user, and a max-ranged ATM user is actually reasonably effective out to 600m and lethal at just over 300m or less.

[Lightfoot]

Clan LRMs are terrible unless you are carrying 4xALRM20, but that is an Assault Mech, likely a Supernova or MKii. And as a back-up weapon, like 2xLRM20 or LRM15, they are just about worthless, not really worth the added heat load and risk of ammo explosions.

[Alan Hicks]

Oh, just another Trump post...

[Vellron2005]

If I could just direct your attention to this final score..

https://mwomercs.com...60#entry6070360

Not even me.. just a show of how bad LRMs are ;-)

Lightfoot, on 15 April 2018 - 11:44 PM, said:

Clan LRMs are terrible unless you are carrying 4xALRM20, but that is an Assault Mech, likely a Supernova or MKii. And as a back-up weapon, like 2xLRM20 or LRM15, they are just about worthless, not really worth the added heat load and risk of ammo explosions.

Some of my most successful IS mechs are a 2xLRM15 + 6ERML Archer, Stalker and Mauler.. Great mechs if you ask me.

[sycocys]

Nobody has disputed you can put up big numbers with LRMs, it's actually part of their problem. They bloat damage because they put it onto everything.

[Variant1]

that because they are meant to soften up targets from distance. Learn to lrm my friend. Also ugghhhhhhhhhh necro thread...........