466 replies to this topic

[Exard3k]

Jman5, on 08 December 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

You will need to define "good" for us. Otherwise we just wind up with people shifting the goalpost.

Matchscore, damage, wins? What would be a good performance for a LRM mech and for what weight class?

Yeah...metrics in MWO are somewhat vague. No stats we have actually show real value on the battlefield. Most people say damage or KMDD are good indicators...although LRMs prove superior in these stats very often and the same amount of people saying LRMs are bad. So stat is not really useful. I don't think any numbers we have measure real performance...

Edited by Exard3k, 08 December 2017 - 08:54 AM.

[Q]

Spheroid, on 03 December 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

Yes please tell me more about these lurms of yours.

I don't always like a post, but when I do it's usually someone being a clever jerk.

[JRcam4643]

Bombast, on 08 December 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Stop quoting people to advertise other threads. Quote people when you want to respond to them, or use their words directly in your post.

Exard3k, on 08 December 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

This is a thread in General Discussion, not a Feature Suggestion.




this

A couple of LRM Atlas users I see.

[Bombast]

JRcam4643, on 08 December 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

A couple of LRM Atlas users I see.

Why you're allowed to do this, while I can get suspended for saying what it is, is beyond me.

On topic, I actually did run an Lurmlas in Group a couple weeks ago. I made it as terrible as I could conceive. Even by LRM assault standards, it was an atrocious mess. Still averaged over 250 MSR - Several matches I actually ended up carrying.

That's not a statement to how good LRMs are. Just that a handful of games can't used as a balancing statement - It was a bad mech, but I was fighting bad pilots who let me do horrible, horrible things.

Edited by Bombast, 08 December 2017 - 09:21 AM.

[JRcam4643]

Bombast, on 08 December 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

Why you're allowed to do this, while I can get suspended for saying what it is, is beyond me.

On topic, I actually did run an Lurmlas in Group a couple weeks ago. I made it as terrible as I could conceive. Even by LRM assault standards, it was an atrocious mess. Still averaged over 250 MSR - Several matches I actually ended up carrying.

That's not a statement to how good LRMs are. Just that a handful of games can't used as a balancing statement - It was a bad mech, but I was fighting bad pilots who let me do horrible, horrible things.

What ever "it" is you think I'm doing it's no worse then what most of you have been doing to me through out these few days and I don't complain about "it". You can dish "it" out but you can't take it.

And you just said an LRM Atlas is a bad mech but as much as you wanted it to fail it still worked well. I don't know how you recover from a statement like that.

[Jay Leon Hart]

JRcam4643, on 08 December 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

What ever "it" is you think I'm doing it's no worse then what most of you have been doing to me through out these few days and I don't complain about "it". You can dish "it" out but you can't take it.

If I made a thread titled "LPPCs are the best PPCs" I would expect a good amount of ridicule.

[JRcam4643]

Jay Leon Hart, on 08 December 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

If I made a thread titled "LPPCs are the best PPCs" I would expect a good amount of ridicule.

I didn't use the word "best". But come on you didn't even address the good part about the Atlas. That was funny.

[Jay Leon Hart]

JRcam4643, on 08 December 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

I didn't use the word "best". But come on you didn't even address the good part about the Atlas. That was funny.

I know you didn't use the word "best", I was simply illustrating a point.

What about an Atlas? I agree, seeing an LRM Atlas is always funny.

[Jman5]

tker 669, on 08 December 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

I know you are a half decent player and all but this seems a bit like you are in denial. Lrm's are effective if you have a team that will support them. In CW my unit will use them on Polar and Boreal, but in tandem with a couple of narcers. Good team support is the only way that they are effective, which is not something you get in pug drop soloing CW....

What pisses folks off isn't anything to do with not playing by rules. Good units don't care if the enemy is going to be full lurmtard. It just makes for a quick and easy game. Where the frustration comes in is when you pick up a few pugs and they insist on bringing lrms to maps like Grim Portico or on attack on Boreal. When you are up against a Linebacker or Crab rush, nothing is more aggravating then having a couple of idiots trying to lurm them.

So just as you bring up people bringing brawlers to Polar, bringing lrm's especially when you have a group of guys asking you not too, is foolish.

I used to get frustrated. I have tried many, many times to get guys to switch it up if the conditions or map is not favourable. So to deal with it if I am dropping solo or if I have time to switch, I grab Raven or Cheetah with narcs and do my best to try and help them be more effective. This tactic does a couple of things. It shows some that I am not a super meta tryhard that is against them to be a richard, but a player focused on teamwork. And it makes me an ally that they might listen too, rather than someone who is attacking them for their choices.

I disagree. LRMs can be very effective independent of what your team does. It's why I like them. Naturally they can do even better with a team that supports you with NARCs or UAVs, or holding targets, but the same can be said of any build. An ER Laser boat can be more effective if he has buddies also poke-trading with him. A brawl build can be more effective when he's got other brawl builds backing him up and sharing armor. Naturally, the more synergized your teams loadout, the more successful you can be. If a LRM-boat is standing 1000 meters away while the rest of the team is trying to brawl, he isn't synergizing well with his team. But the same could be said for an ER Large Laser build standing in the back. Bringing a build that doesn't fit well with the map or team is not unique to LRM-boats. Yet it seems like they are the only ones who get shade thrown on them.

You know when MischiefSC was telling me his MRM mech was solid, I didn't believe him. So I gave him a condition and he proved me wrong. I could have equivocated and made up excuses, but I didn't because I think that's mostly BS. I set out a condition, he proved it, and so I changed my mind.

I've played with LRMs off and on for a long time and the blame that gets thrown in LRM-boats faces by this community has always struck me as wildly out of proportion and biased. I see other people in builds making all sorts of mistakes and bad decisions that bring the team down. I don't think well that must mean laserboats are bad. I just think well that player is bad.

Exard3k, on 08 December 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Yeah...metrics in MWO are somewhat vague. No stats we have actually show real value on the battlefield. Most people say damage or KMDD are good indicators...although LRMs prove superior in these stats very often and the same amount of people saying LRMs are bad. So stat is not really useful. I don't think any numbers we have measure real performance...

So where am I supposed to go with this? You want proof, but then say no metrics will convince you because you believe LRMs cause stat-inflation?

You guys see why this whole argument is so frustrating? It's why I usually just shrug my shoulders and ignore these threads. There is nothing I can do or say that will change people's mind because people argue both sides of this when its convenient. People use performance and item stats to prove that LRMs are not good, but then say that stats don't matter when you see good performance from LRMs. It's crazy. Either stats matter or they don't. and if they don't then you can't argue that any weapon is good or bad because you have already discounted statistical evidence as a tool. All you have are anecdotal and apocryphal ideals of what you think LRMs uniquely do to bring the team down.

I don't disagree that stats presented to us offer an incomplete picture, but they are better than gut-checks and feelings. Especially if you look at multiple stats.

Edited by Jman5, 08 December 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Bombast]

JRcam4643, on 08 December 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

What ever "it" is you think I'm doing it's no worse then what most of you have been doing to me through out these few days and I don't complain about "it". You can dish "it" out but you can't take it.

What we've been doing is pointing out flaws in what could loosely be called your arguments and trying to reason with you, which you've refused to accept. This is not what you've been doing.

Quote

And you just said an LRM Atlas is a bad mech but as much as you wanted it to fail it still worked well. I don't know how you recover from a statement like that.

I don't need to recover, because it's perfectly in line with all my previous statements - That anything can work in QP for a few matches. Literally anything. If I ran this Atlas for a statistically relevant amount of matches and checked the stats, we'd get the real picture - That its a trash pile and I got lucky a handful of times and benefited from a SRM Cyclops body guard.

Unless you think this...

Is good mech design. In which case... well I don't know where in the hell to go from that.

On the actual subject of THE Lurmlas (The Premier LRM Assault Mech), I was having a terrible week, just completely burned out in game. Nothing was working, all my teams were terrible, and nothing I did worked, so I decided that if I was going to fail, I was going to give myself a good reason to. Ended up being one of the best ingame days I've had - I was laughing my head off the entire time. The rational for how I built this, if you want a chuckle...

1. Multiple sized launchers, combined with the Atlas's tube count, create an automatic chain fire system. No need to hit backspace!
2. NARC launcher, because if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.
3. Maximum ammunition, so I can go the distance.
4. Dual CT MPLs and an STD engine, because you never know when you'll need to zombie.
5. A single LMG, for close range defense. If they're OP on a clan light, think about how awesome they are on a 100 ton Atlas!
6. Stripped legs, because no one ever shoots an Atlas in the legs.
7. Maximum arm armor, for superior torso twisting action.

Edited by Bombast, 08 December 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[Khobai]

you did it wrong

if you take out the machine guns and lasers you can have more lrm ammo and more tag. and you need a bagel active probe. and artemis.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...14994339e0d7e69

the whole point of lurm atlas is to lurm so why take anything that doesnt help you lurm

specialization is the key to success

Edited by Khobai, 08 December 2017 - 10:49 AM.

[ANOM O MECH]

Jman5, on 08 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

I disagree. LRMs can be very effective independent of what your team does. It's why I like them. Naturally they can do even better with a team that supports you with NARCs or UAVs, or holding targets, but the same can be said of any build. An ER Laser boat can be more effective if he has buddies also poke-trading with him. A brawl build can be more effective when he's got other brawl builds backing him up and sharing armor. Naturally, the more synergized your teams loadout, the more successful you can be. If a LRM-boat is standing 1000 meters away while the rest of the team is trying to brawl, he isn't synergizing well with his team. But the same could be said for an ER Large Laser build standing in the back. Bringing a build that doesn't fit well with the map or team is not unique to LRM-boats. Yet it seems like they are the only ones who get shade thrown on them.

You know when MischiefSC was telling me his MRM mech was solid, I didn't believe him. So I gave him a condition and he proved me wrong. I could have equivocated and made up excuses, but I didn't because I think that's mostly BS. I set out a condition, he proved it, and so I changed my mind.

I've played with LRMs off and on for a long time and the blame that gets thrown in LRM-boats faces by this community has always struck me as wildly out of proportion and biased. I see other people in builds making all sorts of mistakes and bad decisions that bring the team down. I don't think well that must mean laserboats are bad. I just think well that player is bad.

You disagree? I mean you are in the series of videos commonly used to show how direct fire is simply far superior.

If you are going with the synergy or good lurmer vs. bad lurmer argument, it still doesn't wash if you are the one or two guys bringing lurms when you absolutely shouldn't be. They are so easy to counter and do the worst type of damage, you can't synergize a lurm boat with lvom or some other playstyles well.

As far as the blame? They lose matches. More than any other tactic or what have you, in CW they will cost matches over and over and time and time again. So it is pretty easy to hate the guy on your team who thinks running lrms on Grim Portico is fine.... You expect it on Polar, Alpine, Sulferous (defence), Grim Plexis... there are lots of maps where a guy who knows what he is doing with lurms can be effective. The hate doesn't come from there. It comes from losing a close game because one guy was completely ineffective and made a poor choice. Then you throw in an lrm Atlas or King Crab on top of that??? It is sometimes very hard not to tk some of these guys.

None of what I said applies to you? Still you are super effective with lurms in every situation on every map? Or perhaps you can see a little of my point, especially when conditions are simply not right. Or that there are a great deal of lurmers that are not like you and know how to get the most out of them (and willing to bet you know when not to use them). In fact it is pretty safe to say that the number of bad lurmers with bad builds and bad habbits, far outnumber the guys who really shine with lurms....

What I can concede the vitriol around lurmers (#lurmersarepeopletoo) is often unwarranted and excessive. A guy that gets pissed off that someone brought lurms to Polar is an imbecile. Snipers don't get the hate lurmers do, but it is at least second in line for the playstyle that pisses people off the most. Funny as personally I like the way snipers and lurmers synergize. Also it seems that brawling to so many is some sort of pinnacle of what every match is supposed to be and often it's diehard fanatics are leading the nascar or rushing in and dying horribly. Yet the rushing brawlers causing half the nascar at the very least (I'd say followed by people chasing their alpha lance instead of grouping up with charlie is second), don't get called out nearly enough for their nonsense.

Khobai, on 08 December 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

you did it wrong

if you take out the machine guns and lasers you can have more lrm ammo and more tag. and you need a bagel active probe. and artemis.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...14994339e0d7e69

the whole point of lurm atlas is to lurm so why take anything that doesnt help you lurm

specialization is the key to success

Dual tag...Really?

[Bombast]

tker 669, on 08 December 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

Dual tag...Really?

Dual TAG? Get your glasses checked, son - That's Quad TAG. That's the good stuff.

Edited by Bombast, 08 December 2017 - 11:10 AM.

[Mole]

Alright I've lost enough IQ points today. Time to stop reading this thread.

[Khobai]

dual tag is for @!$$ies

its got quad tag

[MischiefSC]

Jman5, on 07 December 2017 - 07:55 AM, said:

You know where LRMs aren't as effective? When you're on a kickass premade who trade/push aggressively and shoots well. You know where LRMs are effective? When you're fighting a kickass premade who trade effectively while your team huddles in cover and are otherwise ineffective.

In my long range faction play dropdeck, I bring an ER Laserboat battlemaster, and LRM-Boat Stalker. Whenever I play a good premade, it's always a nightmare trying to win trades with my battlemaster because every time I poke, there are 4 hellbringers just sitting on the ridge shooting anything that moves. Trying to shoot them all back into cover and dominate the ridge is wishful thinking. However, once I bust out the LRM-boat it becomes 100 times easier to reach out and touch these guys without getting obliterated. No this isn't about relying on other people to hold locks for you. You sneak a peak to get the lock yourself and then use target decay to hold it while the LRMs rain down on them. You will force them under cover or they will die. Then it's much easier to out trade them. Once they are taking cover it's easier for you and your team to police the ridgeline.

LRMs are a great equalizer in an unequal matchup because in a lot of ways they subvert the meta. A firing line of laserboats can't out trade a LRM boat that's dumping missiles on their face because he barely needs to expose himself to get and hold the lock. If your team is able to reclaim the ridge then it gets even easier to LRM targets because you can hold locks longer and your teammates will help you with indirect locks.

A lot of the discussion here is very theorycrafty with discussions about hypothetical accuracy of a laserboat that can hypothetically be more accurate. (because apparently I'm imagining the countless laserboats that spray and pray all over my mech before I finally fall to pieces). Or a theoretical team that is courageously trying to hold the ridge while the greedy LRM boat slinks around in the back only grabbing indirect locks. (because apparently I'm imagining the countless games where half my team brought brawl builds to polar highlands and the other half is either sitting under cover, or just suiciding their mech).

Also I notice that the more closely someone or a team sticks to the traditional laservomit builds, the more disregard they have for LRMs and the more vulnerable it makes them to them. Unlikely to bother with AMS, unlikely to bother with radar deprivation, too used to just bullying pugs off the ridge with their buddies' aggressive trading. There is a massive amount of hubris that you can exploit when you don't play by their rules.

This is the key. LRMs do not play by your rules and frankly, I think it pisses you guys off a little bit. It's why I think these discussions always get so heated compared to virtually any other "underpowered" weapon discussion.

I would not waste my time with a build if it wasn't effective or I felt I was bringing the team down. I've churned through a bajillion different iterations that sounded good in theory, but fell flat in practice. My LRM boats do well and more importantly they do well in situations where traditional direct-fire builds do not.

In countless FP matches I can remember 2, only 2 matches where enemy LRMs gave me trouble.

One was on Alpine. A hunchie with a head tag was 500m away across the valley while we were on top of Victory Hill. I couldn't lock him but could see the tag; because it was painting me. Just the head laser was poking over and I couldn't consistently land hits on the ******* but the moment we came up into the open the rain started.

The other was on Polar. A hunchie.... doing the exact same thing. Head TAG hunchie is a bothersome beast.

However it's important to note that your LRM build is not drawing fire nor holding a lane - you're not forcing the other team to be wary of a position. Sure, you're splattering some damage out but either your whole team has to soak all the damage the enemy puts out to keep them back for you or your whole team does what you do and the enemy pushes up and rolls you.

That's the crux of the issue. Sure, you can avoid damage with LRMs - that's the only thing they do well. You avoid it however by letting all your teammates soak it without you. If your whole team does what you do, the enemy just rolls up on you and WHUMP. All over. So to do 'well' with LRMs you need your team to be your pug armor. Full stop. No other option to do well with LRMs. If they're not pug armoring and actually holding the enemy back you'll get stomped.

[MischiefSC]

Jman5, on 08 December 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

You will need to define "good" for us. Otherwise we just wind up with people shifting the goalpost.

Matchscore, damage, wins? What would be a good performance for a LRM mech and for what weight class?

Consistently successful at winning matches vs other options. That's good for anything; is a weapon/loadout consistently good at driving a win? Does it hold its own against other options? Is something else more successful at winning the match?

Because LRMs are 'good' at damage, when your team carries you long enough. However they're bad for w/l, because much like being the 733t Snyper it's only 'good' because it involves your team fighting largely without you so you have longer to put out damage.

How good something is at consistently winning matches is 'good'.

[Wolfways]

Arkham Chase, on 08 December 2017 - 12:02 AM, said:

They are not good or op. They are however, annoying and fun spoiling.

Is getting pounded by AC's any better?

[Bombast]

Wolfways, on 08 December 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

Is getting pounded by AC's any better?

Feel wise, no. Being hit with Machine Guns feels crappy too.

But generally you can fire back at mechs firing though, while you can't when LRMs are being fired at you.

I wouldn't say LRMs are that annoying, actually. There's really only one map where its impossible to just say 'screw it' and block them with terrain. Of course, on that map, they're often annoying beyond belief, particularly those matches where you get legged/are in a slow assault and pretty much just have to walk away from your computer, while you're still alive, because you are 100% boned and there's nothing left to do but die.

[Khobai]

being able to indirect fire is the whole thing that separates LRMs from other weapons though

the problem with buffing LRMs is that it would make indirect fire too strong though.

so if you wanna buff LRMs you also have to make indirect fire require more effort/skill to pull off.

LRMs could be buffed if indirect fire had substantially weaker tracking/spread without TAG/NARC. But with TAG/NARC, indirect fire should be just as good, if not better, than it always was.

Edited by Khobai, 08 December 2017 - 01:27 PM.