377 replies to this topic

[Nema Nabojiv]

Tesunie, on 29 June 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think spread should be increased when indirect, compared to damage (which, in turn, does reduce damage overall).

Adjusting spread makes more sense than adjusting damage straight up, yet yields similar results.

It is already increased for indirect fire, or rather reduced for direct fire. That's what artemis does. And if you do lurmboat without it, then it is kinda always increased in comparison with direct fire + artemis.

[HammerMaster]

Just look at how HBS did direct vs indirect. HUGE TRAJECTORY difference. This plus a larger spread. How hard is that? But as I said. PGI says no.

[Tesunie]

Nema Nabojiv, on 29 June 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

It is already increased for indirect fire, or rather reduced for direct fire. That's what artemis does. And if you do lurmboat without it, then it is kinda always increased in comparison with direct fire + artemis.

I'm talking without Artemis being considered. Artemis shouldn't be used as a comparison point for indirect weapons fire balance.

I'm thinking that indirect fire should have a small nerf to it's spread, even for normal launchers. Either that, or the reverse (probably the better option) where you have tighter spread with line of sight and "normal" spread when indirect shooting. (Then, this would stack with Artemis bonuses.)

Either way, it would make direct line of sight a bit better than indirect fire LRMs. It seems to be what many people are looking for.

[Alkabides]

Lrms are fine. They can be mega fun but if you get caught with your pants down you’ll pay. Seems karma intact. Different flavor of game play. I don’t think it’s outside the bounds of reason you’d have an effective weapon system like this that can fire over object in the year 3000. If anything they should be able to pack more a punch. They are working fine without being overwhelming in MWO I think. There are plenty of AMS options where you can still pack maximum dakka. Problem solved.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Tesunie, on 29 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'm talking without Artemis being considered. Artemis shouldn't be used as a comparison point for indirect weapons fire balance.

Well, that is how its being used since day one, whether you like it or not. What you ask is basically adjust the numbers because mechanics itself is already there and is already working.

[Tesunie]

Nema Nabojiv, on 29 June 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

Well, that is how its being used since day one, whether you like it or not. What you ask is basically adjust the numbers because mechanics itself is already there and is already working.

I'm just saying basically that we can't dismiss unmodified LRMs, because even they (via base sources AKA TT) had better direct fire abilities than they did indirect. (And I know, TT =/= MW:O, but it is the source material of everything Battletech.)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just think it should be a base ability that Artemis can improve on even more.

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 28 June 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

What happened was my team waited until the enemy had pressed forward into our pre designated killbox and had no good options. By creating a situation where we exploited the typical player actions on a specific map we had created a highly effective trap that was well timed and triggered.

By the time the Opfor realized it was a LURM fest they were exposed and cut off from cover because they got greedy chasing the bait that put them into the kill box to begin with.

The skill was using area knowledge of the map matched with typical player responses to typical situations and then faking the expected scenario to bait a trap and then waiting for the right time to spring the trap.

That and anticipating likely responses to the trap (that being why I was babysitting the LURMs with a dedicated brawler to handle any light mechs that flanked to counter)

The mode was skirmish the map was Tourmaline and you all know what happened because the enemy team did what most players do on that map D6 to D5 flank push to flank our forces while our team "fled" the push into E6 basin. The enemy got greedy as they thought we were in a full route and chased with abandon.

Once the bulk of the enemy assaults were in E5 outside of cover the spotter struck from E4 to NARC priority targets (ECM) while the LURM team (brawler + 2 LURM boats) were in F5 behind the rise of the dropship wreck sight.

Any other questions?


P.S. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the use of quotation marks can be used to emphasize sarcasm.

Like that guy is so "smart" it hurts to think about it.

Or those players are super "skilled"

You can be as flippant and defensive as you want it doesn't make what you are claiming fact. Sure sometimes you can catch people off guard, and even the best in the game make mistakes.

That's all it is though is a mistake. It has been proven and videos shown what happens when two comp teams go at it with one side using a lurm strat.

Obviously you fancy yourself an intellectual and are ready to attribute whatever occurred to your own brilliance and toot your own horn about it. Doesn't change that what you describe is a one off, and those super 'smart' individuals such as yourself are not able to do this to competent teams with any consistency let alone use this to regularly beat the really well known guys that are around.

[Tesunie]

S O L A I S, on 29 June 2018 - 01:38 PM, said:

You can be as flippant and defensive as you want it doesn't make what you are claiming fact. Sure sometimes you can catch people off guard, and even the best in the game make mistakes.

That's all it is though is a mistake. It has been proven and videos shown what happens when two comp teams go at it with one side using a lurm strat.

Obviously you fancy yourself an intellectual and are ready to attribute whatever occurred to your own brilliance and toot your own horn about it. Doesn't change that what you describe is a one off, and those super 'smart' individuals such as yourself are not able to do this to competent teams with any consistency let alone use this to regularly beat the really well known guys that are around.

Every time I've seen those "one comp team used LRMs vs another comp team using direct fire", I always see the fact that each side already knows that is happening in the match. Plus, I always see the LRM comp team flooding the field with LRMs, instead of sparing use of them.

Just saying, that does have an impact on the match. If you know what your opponent is bringing in, you can adjust what you are bringing in and what strategies to use.

So, I take those matches you are referring to with a pinch of salt.

[S O L A I S]

Tesunie, on 29 June 2018 - 01:44 PM, said:

Every time I've seen those "one comp team used LRMs vs another comp team using direct fire", I always see the fact that each side already knows that is happening in the match. Plus, I always see the LRM comp team flooding the field with LRMs, instead of sparing use of them.

Just saying, that does have an impact on the match. If you know what your opponent is bringing in, you can adjust what you are bringing in and what strategies to use.

So, I take those matches you are referring to with a pinch of salt.

Look I am sorry if you are skeptical and you are a super nice fella. Thing is if it was effective Emp would have used it in the World Championships. You may with this stock mech business see it some this year, I don't know.

There's all kinds of evidence via screenshots I won't get into that show decent and supported teams (ie a mix of lurms, ppc/er, and narc support) going up against a relatively equal group with all direct fire in CW and the lurm team loses. Generally it is hard if the front line traders are outnumbered to not die quicker than the team lurming. That said, there are times such as Boreal attack the unit I play for (BCMC) has effectively used a couple of self narcing Hunchies to keep the enemies head down and allow easier movement.

Lrms are in a better place than they have been in a long time. They can be used on certain maps in certain situations but they are a gamble. ATM's even more so. Example was owning teams trying to attack on Vitric Forge with ATM Huntman, then ran into a decent unit with smart tactics (Goon) and they all had AMS....ALL OF THEM. Not used to getting zero damage and dying horribly in my first mech.

[Tesunie]

S O L A I S, on 29 June 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

Look I am sorry if you are skeptical and you are a super nice fella. Thing is if it was effective Emp would have used it in the World Championships. You may with this stock mech business see it some this year, I don't know.

I'm more so just saying "how clear is the evidence" or "how precise was the experiment/results", far more than saying "LRMs are comp weapons".

LRMs have their strengths, which can be leveraged by the team or used to good effect as an individual (depending upon how it's used), but they also certainly have their weaknesses. They pay for their strengths with reasonable weaknesses.

I also feel a lot of players, some comp included, use them poorly. Most people also want to boat them, which I find ineffective. But that's me.

I'm of the party of "LRMs are good, but they aren't great and they aren't bad either. They are neither the best weapon in the game, but they are useful enough to not be the worst". So, completely agree that they aren't a comp weapon. (But they are fun.)

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 29 June 2018 - 01:38 PM, said:

You can be as flippant and defensive as you want it doesn't make what you are claiming fact. Sure sometimes you can catch people off guard, and even the best in the game make mistakes.

That's all it is though is a mistake. It has been proven and videos shown what happens when two comp teams go at it with one side using a lurm strat.

Obviously you fancy yourself an intellectual and are ready to attribute whatever occurred to your own brilliance and toot your own horn about it. Doesn't change that what you describe is a one off, and those super 'smart' individuals such as yourself are not able to do this to competent teams with any consistency let alone use this to regularly beat the really well known guys that are around.

Thanks I really appreciate the permission to be as flippant as I want. I was worried I may upset someone but it seems you're ok with it.

So...um yeah that was the plan. Fooling someone into screwing up and then exploiting it. And if you are aware of many of the successful military strategies of the past you will know that this is pretty how it's done when you can't count on just smashing through an inferior enemy with brute strength.

This is how I like to play. I enjoy keeping people off balance and performing unpredictably. I realize that the bulk of MWo players don't think like this and instead when dropping on X map they perform Y. And frankly when I can get team mates that realize this we will beat the snot out of any opfor that performs predictably.

Seriously have you not noticed the predicability of players in this game? Have you not devised counter strategies for what players will do most of the time?


To remove all ambiguity from this interaction we have...

You can win by tricking players into making the mistakes they will predictably make because players are in general predictable.


"All warfare is deception" Sun Tzu

[Wil McCullough]

Dragonporn, on 29 June 2018 - 08:01 AM, said:

I see, so lurms are in right place at the moment in terms of balance, and long-range artillery weapons with very particular application doesn't really need any buffs (or nerfs). What's to discuss here?

That's kinda like saying your steak is raw on one side and well-done on the other so on average it's a perfect medium rare.lol.

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 29 June 2018 - 05:25 PM, said:

Thanks I really appreciate the permission to be as flippant as I want. I was worried I may upset someone but it seems you're ok with it.

So...um yeah that was the plan. Fooling someone into screwing up and then exploiting it. And if you are aware of many of the successful military strategies of the past you will know that this is pretty how it's done when you can't count on just smashing through an inferior enemy with brute strength.

This is how I like to play. I enjoy keeping people off balance and performing unpredictably. I realize that the bulk of MWo players don't think like this and instead when dropping on X map they perform Y. And frankly when I can get team mates that realize this we will beat the snot out of any opfor that performs predictably.

Seriously have you not noticed the predicability of players in this game? Have you not devised counter strategies for what players will do most of the time?


To remove all ambiguity from this interaction we have...

You can win by tricking players into making the mistakes they will predictably make because players are in general predictable.


"All warfare is deception" Sun Tzu

Yeah so you can use lurms effectively against everybody in the game cause you are a genius. Clearly you are the best player in the entire game and no one knows more than you do about anything.

Typical post from you and it is on me as I should have known better. Keep on keeping on though as you now have full approval to continue sharing your 'knowledge'.

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 29 June 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yeah so you can use lurms effectively against everybody in the game cause you are a genius. Clearly you are the best player in the entire game and no one knows more than you do about anything.

Typical post from you and it is on me as I should have known better. Keep on keeping on though as you now have full approval to continue sharing your 'knowledge'.

See there is the disconnect from what someone actually has said compared to what you want them to have meant so you have a reason to be opposed to them.

Here is the reality of what I have said.

I have said that LRM are basically trash weapons against proficient players UNLESS you take acceptional steps to utilize trickery and exceptional team work to leverage the performance of those garbage Lurms.

Your counter was essentially...

"nuh uh"

And I think anyone with an IQ over 90 who has played this game knows that "nuh uh" doesn't make an opinion factual.

I have said that LRMs are NOT good weapons in and of themselves but,If you apply some planing you can catch even proficient players off guard and leverage a win while utilizing trashy weapons (LRMs).

Yet somehow you want to double down on your claim that well orchestrated team work is not essential to overcoming actually proficient players.

Your counter point seems to be that all one needs to do to beat skilled opposition is not use LRMs. "direct fire" is all you need no planning just point...click...point...click...

You Sir must truly be a master of strategy because I never thought that that would be enough to carry the day. At least not when my opposition has an IQ over 90 and has actually played MWo.

Or do you and I agree that that if a team does utilize a clever ploy they can tip the odds in their favor? Even when they are performing with a handicap (like utilizing and LRM based team format)


Mechwarrior online "a thinking man's shooter" indeed.


Maybe the slogan should be changed to Mechwarrior online "try not to hump the furniture"

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 29 June 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:

See there is the disconnect from what someone actually has said compared to what you want them to have meant so you have a reason to be opposed to them.

Here is the reality of what I have said.

I have said that LRM are basically trash weapons against proficient players UNLESS you take acceptional steps to utilize trickery and exceptional team work to leverage the performance of those garbage Lurms.

Your counter was essentially...

"nuh uh"

And I think anyone with an IQ over 90 who has played this game knows that "nuh uh" doesn't make an opinion factual.

I have said that LRMs are NOT good weapons in and of themselves but,If you apply some planing you can catch even proficient players off guard and leverage a win while utilizing trashy weapons (LRMs).

Yet somehow you want to double down on your claim that well orchestrated team work is not essential to overcoming actually proficient players.

Your counter point seems to be that all one needs to do to beat skilled opposition is not use LRMs. "direct fire" is all you need no planning just point...click...point...click...

You Sir must truly be a master of strategy because I never thought that that would be enough to carry the day. At least not when my opposition has an IQ over 90 and has actually played MWo.

Or do you and I agree that that if a team does utilize a clever ploy they can tip the odds in their favor? Even when they are performing with a handicap (like utilizing and LRM based team format)


Mechwarrior online "a thinking man's shooter" indeed.


Maybe the slogan should be changed to Mechwarrior online "try not to hump the furniture"

If that is how you interpreted my answer than the IQ issue is not on my side. To remind you I called your explanation of what happened into question. Like I said good players sometimes get caught. They sometimes make mistakes. They sometimes die to lurms. You saying it was do to your brilliance doesn't sound right.

Like I said considering your history of going straight to insults, and inability to consider anything other than how great you are or be questioned about anything makes this mostly my fault.

Your story though, is exactly that, your story. That you are completely unable to accept that your interpretation and that you are obviously biased in telling it is also not good evidence that you are a card carrying member of Mensa.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I think the only solution here is to buff non-streak SRMs.

[TechChris]

Eh.......is what it is.


I've played, 11, 15, 17, 20, make that 24, matches tonight so far. Every One Has Been LRM With A Spattering Of ATM Spam. Wish I was joking for sake of this post, but I'm not......not even a little....it's sad.

Either way, just let em keep at it. One the few ways, aside from spamming Twitter with multiple accounts, to get something nerfed in this game (Aside From Clan Laser Vomit, since that always needs to be king) is for a lot of people to be abusing it.

Personally, I hope they don't unbuff the lurms. Instead they should un**** all the other stuff they've horrible ******, I mean "balanced", into the ground.

Such as
un-"nerfing" ecm. (making ECM work like it use to again, instead of having to waste a ridiculous amount of nodes to get it to)
un-"nerfing" radar deprivation. (not hiding it behind an absurd amount of useless nodes)
un-"nerf" and stopping "passing by" AMS. (Undo the nerf to the AMS node values, and stopping skipping it for "upgrades" like when all the ammo amounts FINALLY got increased, except for Gauss and AMS)
Make AMS more "profitable" (Increase/Add in the Value AMS knocking down missiles gives to your match score and cbill earnings)
I'm sure there's a few more things I'm forgetting, but basically, don't Nerf LRMs, UN**** all the other **** they did.

My 1 cent at least!!! (I'm too lazy to give 2! )

Edited by TechChris, 29 June 2018 - 11:53 PM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

TechChris, on 29 June 2018 - 10:57 PM, said:

I've played, 11, 15, 17, 20, make that 24, matches tonight so far. Every One Has Been LRM With A Spattering Of ATM Spam. Wish I was joking for sake of this post, but I'm not......not even a little....it's sad.

They've been finally made somewhat sensible to use after years of being a joke. How can that be sad?

I must give it to The One I Can Not Name To Not Get Banned, the combination of velocity and ammo buffs actually revitalized one of the playstyles. Though I'm sure it was unintentional because the trend is still in killing playstyles.

[Dogstar]

DrtyDshSoap, on 28 June 2018 - 06:40 AM, said:

What we would do is call for air support, either an Apache or a Kiawah to identify the enemy. If the Apache/Kiawah can take them out, they will, otherwise, once we get an 8 to 10 digit grid, we roll out, find them, then kill them. We then go back to the FOB or COP or strongpoint, dependent on your level of POG or FOBBITness, go to the chow hall and bang the terps.

This quote explains a lot.

First - any comparison of Battletech to the real world is an instant fail. Battletech, and by extension MWO, doesn't have physics it has plot! and drama! and Stackpoling!

Secondly - the poster was clearly comparing LRMs to first world war artillery and yet you deliberately misconstrued it to try and make a point

Thirdly - assuming you actually are ex-military (and not someone pretending to be so) then you should know that the military approach to arguing online doesn't come over well on most forums, people using it end up sounding like opinionated jerks with no concept of nuance, you might want to reconsider your approach to avoid that

Lastly, to address the overall argument, LRMS seem to me to be in a good position right now regarding their indirect use. There are an abundance of counters and it's only when you get caught out that you're screwed - which is how things _should_ be: you have to pay for your mistakes.

However LRMs could do with a buff when fired directly, but all that's needed is lowering the arc a tad to reduce the flight time a bit. It could be about halfway between the ATM arc and the current LRM arc.

In my opinion LRMs are one of the unique features of MWO and should be retained, they should also be good enough that everyone should consider fitting a launcher when designing their build rather than dismissing them out of hand.

Edited by Dogstar, 30 June 2018 - 01:06 AM.

[Asylum Choir]

Mystere, on 26 June 2018 - 03:36 PM, said:

I beg to disagree, completely and without any shred of doubt.

Yes I've been running a lrm spammer recently. It was enormous fun lolrekking people without even having to risk getting hit. 600-1000 damage games becoming the norm, printing cbills. However that was all selfish fun as I doubt any of my victims had fun in those matches.

Edited by Asylum Choir, 30 June 2018 - 04:27 AM.