377 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

LRMs are finally in a good spot after 4+ years of being very underpowered, the velocity buff and now the ammo did the trick. They're still a bit weak but that's ok.

Just leave them as is now.

[Lykaon]

Eisenhorne, on 29 June 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

If you're tricked into waddling into the open to die to lurms, you are bad, or making a big mistake. Or you underestimate the opponent. In any case, it's an easily preventable mistake that your opponents made, not something you can really attribute to grand "strategy". Besides, it's group queue quick play. Most people that go there just go to screw around. Even if you beat a bunch of generally good players with LRM's, it proves nothing. Just try using LRM's in a comp 8v8 match on Tourmaline, see how good you do. Or in 12v12 FP against a team that knows what they're doing and takes appropriate mechs. LRM's aren't completely useless there, but they will lose to direct fire.

I'm not being dumb or obtuse here, I'm just saying it's a logical fallacy to state that because you coordinated in group quick play and beat some players you say are good it's any sort of proof that LRM's arent a lower tier weapon system that is out performed by most other setups in most situations. You decided to go LRM's in quick play... what happens if you get Solaris City? Oh well, you just lose? Don't take highly situational setups to quick play, otherwise you're just going to drag your team down more often than not.

Why can all these posters not get the point.

I agree LRMs are under performing easily countered junk tier weapons.

It wasn't specifically the LRMs that won it was the use of a plan and trickery to compensate for the low performance of the weapons.

The original point was the claim that the "skills" of LRM use plateau and there is nowhere to go once that plateau is reached wasn't entirely factual.

My counter point was by applying skills that exist outside the carefully framed ideals of MWo "skills" that primarliy mean what one player does with their own mech without regard for what that player can do with carefully coordinated team work raised the plateau above the line where the common expectations place those "skills" .

I will simplify.

Direct fire weapons are easier to use for the individual at higher levels of game play because the direct fire weapon skill set is more focused on what the current dogma of what "skill" is. Of course a coordinated team will raise the bar on the direct fire weapon's perfomance but LRMs REQUIRE higher levels of coordination to function at higher levels of game play more so than direct fire weapons.

This means ironicly LRMs require different and maybe even more skill to utilize effectivley at higher tier play mainly on account of how badly LRMs perform as a baseline weapon.

At higher levels of game play the "skills" needed to perform with LRMs include high levels of cooperation and frequently trickery. A point that was lost on many posters in this thread because they either don't want it to be true or refuse to believe that there are skills that exist beyond their carefully crafted dogma.

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 29 June 2018 - 09:44 PM, said:

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.

If the plan was to lure those players into a kill box by faking a retreat and triggering pursuit so they were seperated from cover and that is what happened then what was the cause of the good players getting caught in the open.

Was it just some sort of happy coincidence that the enemy move to precisely where we planed for them to go? was it just a mistake?

I think perhaps you actually don't know how to craft a strategic trap or at the very least can't grasp how the concept works.


If a poster replies to my posts and appears to be willfully obtuse or lacking in basic reading comprehension because they are so set on arguing rather than reading and understanding ...

I will call them out on it.

[Tesunie]

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

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)
Make AMS more "profitable" (Increase/Add in the Value AMS knocking down missiles gives to your match score and cbill earnings)

ECM before hand was outrageous. It needed to be toned down. It was never suppose to out perform AMS as an anti-missile "shield".

Radar Deptivation hasn't been nerfed. It still can completely counter Adv Decay and break locks near instantly to instantly.

AMS is more than profitable. It use to provide no rewards, now it actually does give reasonable rewards. When I take one of my dual AMS mechs and LRMs are flying around, I have good match scores, which in turn relates to C-bills and experience.



Besides ECM, I'm not exactly getting what you are going after here...

[Verilligo]

Tesunie, on 30 June 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

ECM before hand was outrageous. It needed to be toned down. It was never suppose to out perform AMS as an anti-missile "shield".

Radar Deptivation hasn't been nerfed. It still can completely counter Adv Decay and break locks near instantly to instantly.

AMS is more than profitable. It use to provide no rewards, now it actually does give reasonable rewards. When I take one of my dual AMS mechs and LRMs are flying around, I have good match scores, which in turn relates to C-bills and experience.



Besides ECM, I'm not exactly getting what you are going after here...

I don't think match score has any relation to income and experience gains. Those are purely tied to certain activities that are rewarded for having been performed. Though I think AMS is actually the only thing that boosts your match score that doesn't also get some level of reward in any other category... other than, you know, general success at winning.

[Tesunie]

Verilligo, on 30 June 2018 - 06:48 PM, said:

I don't think match score has any relation to income and experience gains. Those are purely tied to certain activities that are rewarded for having been performed. Though I think AMS is actually the only thing that boosts your match score that doesn't also get some level of reward in any other category... other than, you know, general success at winning.

Hum. I'll have to check that out sometime... Isn't there a "Protected Light" event going on right now....? I think I have some experimenting to do.

I think you are correct though. My bad and thanks for the correction. I'll try to remember to come back here after I find out for certain.

[Clydewinder]

it takes less time to equip AMS than it does to type a reply to this thread

[Tesunie]

Yup. I saw no C-bill subtotal in the end of match screen. Appears as though AMS doesn't reward you C-bills for it's use.

[Falconer Cyrus]

Some guys really think that 12 lurmers out of 24 men is funny?

Edited: this is overload imho:

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

Edited by Falconer Cyrus, 01 July 2018 - 10:27 AM.

[Gwahlur]

Today is the very definition of lurm spam, it's insane.

No fun to play

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 30 June 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

If the plan was to lure those players into a kill box by faking a retreat and triggering pursuit so they were seperated from cover and that is what happened then what was the cause of the good players getting caught in the open.

Was it just some sort of happy coincidence that the enemy move to precisely where we planed for them to go? was it just a mistake?

I think perhaps you actually don't know how to craft a strategic trap or at the very least can't grasp how the concept works.


If a poster replies to my posts and appears to be willfully obtuse or lacking in basic reading comprehension because they are so set on arguing rather than reading and understanding ...

I will call them out on it.

I think you are telling a story and attributing what happened to something you did. You frame it in a way that could be perceived as you saying you beat high skill recognizable players with lurm strats. I call that out to use your terminology.

My assertion was if these alleged good players died to lurms it could be due to a lot of different reasons, but primarily because they made a snafu. Most of the quality players I know don't stumble into kill boxes and die to lurms. Again though good players and teams can make mistakes and it is certainly possible they stumbled into your kill box for whatever reason. Can't really say as it is only a one sided story that sounds suspicious and being told by someone with clear bias.

So no I am not being obtuse, I am pointing out that you are merely telling an unsubstantiated story. When questioned or not taken at face value, your reaction is to immediately start with insults. I challenge that considering you are telling a story and seem to feel that it is unassailable evidence you have put forward....

As far as reading comprehension you are failing to address what I am actually saying and keep returning to telling your story of what you think happened. So I am ignoring your story and pointing out the match could have went the way it went for all kinds of reasons. That is not me not understanding your story at all.

To clarify, most would agree (not really sure where you sit though) that lurm strats even when done by good players are easily countered and right now not competitive at higher levels. That's my point and it is tough when your replies are all anecdotal at best and coloured by your perception of what may have occurred.

[Vellron2005]

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

I think you are telling a story and attributing what happened to something you did. You frame it in a way that could be perceived as you saying you beat high skill recognizable players with lurm strats. I call that out to use your terminology.

My assertion was if these alleged good players died to lurms it could be due to a lot of different reasons, but primarily because they made a snafu. Most of the quality players I know don't stumble into kill boxes and die to lurms. Again though good players and teams can make mistakes and it is certainly possible they stumbled into your kill box for whatever reason. Can't really say as it is only a one sided story that sounds suspicious and being told by someone with clear bias.

So no I am not being obtuse, I am pointing out that you are merely telling an unsubstantiated story. When questioned or not taken at face value, your reaction is to immediately start with insults. I challenge that considering you are telling a story and seem to feel that it is unassailable evidence you have put forward....

As far as reading comprehension you are failing to address what I am actually saying and keep returning to telling your story of what you think happened. So I am ignoring your story and pointing out the match could have went the way it went for all kinds of reasons. That is not me not understanding your story at all.

To clarify, most would agree (not really sure where you sit though) that lurm strats even when done by good players are easily countered and right now not competitive at higher levels. That's my point and it is tough when your replies are all anecdotal at best and coloured by your perception of what may have occurred.

So basically, if you do bad with LRMs, you suck... And if you do good with LRMs, you got lucky or the enemy sucked?

I disagree wholeheartedly..

You people simply need to accept the fact that there are players out there who actually do good with LRMs.

Sure, LRMs are not comp oriented, but in a normal casual setting, yes, you can do extremely well..

I myself actually had a interestingly annoying match a few days back.. a toxic player went on to troll me the whole match, blocking my movement, and potentially opening my boo's back thinking it was me (cose' we were in the same mech), and inspite of him, I still managed to do top damage, with 2 kills and 3 KMDDs on mining..

(naturally, I reported him to moderation, and have not seen him in-game since.. hope I won't see him ever again)

So while my own teammate was aiding the enemy, blocking my movement and being toxic in VOIP, I still managed to do amazing with an Assault LRM boat. The opposition was neither low-tier, nor noobs..

My point is - if you do good with LRMs, it doesn't mean the enemy sucked. It means you were good.

Lurmers everywhere, don't let others take your victories away from you! These haters are just intimidated and jealous.

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

I think you are telling a story and attributing what happened to something you did. You frame it in a way that could be perceived as you saying you beat high skill recognizable players with lurm strats. I call that out to use your terminology.

My assertion was if these alleged good players died to lurms it could be due to a lot of different reasons, but primarily because they made a snafu. Most of the quality players I know don't stumble into kill boxes and die to lurms. Again though good players and teams can make mistakes and it is certainly possible they stumbled into your kill box for whatever reason. Can't really say as it is only a one sided story that sounds suspicious and being told by someone with clear bias.

So no I am not being obtuse, I am pointing out that you are merely telling an unsubstantiated story. When questioned or not taken at face value, your reaction is to immediately start with insults. I challenge that considering you are telling a story and seem to feel that it is unassailable evidence you have put forward....

As far as reading comprehension you are failing to address what I am actually saying and keep returning to telling your story of what you think happened. So I am ignoring your story and pointing out the match could have went the way it went for all kinds of reasons. That is not me not understanding your story at all.

To clarify, most would agree (not really sure where you sit though) that lurm strats even when done by good players are easily countered and right now not competitive at higher levels. That's my point and it is tough when your replies are all anecdotal at best and coloured by your perception of what may have occurred.

Ok so just so you are absolutely aware. I have read and comprehended your post and,well your counter argument is still

"nuh uh" and " 'cause I said so" and you evolved it a little bit by adding a little bit of "liar liar pants on fire"

What is next? maybe a smidge of "you're a big doo doo head" ?

If you are not being obtuse then you are quite possibly the worst at debating I have seen on these forums and that is no small task. You have conquered the mastery of 2nd grader debate skills so completely that I totally fell into the "nuh uh" defense and of course the dreaded " 'cause I said so" ploy.

Or you are so totally detached from the strategic skill set needed to successfully execute an ambush plan that the very concept of how to perform it is so completely alien to you that you are dumbfounded by the concept.
Because you lack any ability to think on that level the possiblity of it happening seems utterly impossible to you.

Both of these scenarios seemed unlikely to me.

So this lead me to believe you were being willfully obtuse since I could not bring my self to believe that someone could be to put this very bluntly.

Either so incredibly ignorant they couldn't put forth a decent argument or so strategicly inept that they couldn't grasp of even believe in the concept of a planned ambush tactic working.

There is one last possibility that makes sense to me. You are actually a twelve year old as this would explain your apparent lack of debate skills or understanding in basic strategic planning.

So if you are actually a twelve year old I guess I should appologize to you for trying to treat you as an adult who should be held accountable for some pretty poorly thought out arguments.

If you are actually an adult...well I doubt anything anyone can say can help you understand much of anything.

Edited by Lykaon, 01 July 2018 - 11:42 PM.

[Anastasius Foht]

Vellron2005, on 01 July 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

So basically, if you do bad with LRMs, you suck... And if you do good with LRMs, you got lucky or the enemy sucked?

I disagree wholeheartedly..

You people simply need to accept the fact that there are players out there who actually do good with LRMs.

Sure, LRMs are not comp oriented, but in a normal casual setting, yes, you can do extremely well..

I myself actually had a interestingly annoying match a few days back.. a toxic player went on to troll me the whole match, blocking my movement, and potentially opening my boo's back thinking it was me (cose' we were in the same mech), and inspite of him, I still managed to do top damage, with 2 kills and 3 KMDDs on mining..

(naturally, I reported him to moderation, and have not seen him in-game since.. hope I won't see him ever again)

So while my own teammate was aiding the enemy, blocking my movement and being toxic in VOIP, I still managed to do amazing with an Assault LRM boat. The opposition was neither low-tier, nor noobs..

My point is - if you do good with LRMs, it doesn't mean the enemy sucked. It means you were good.

Lurmers everywhere, don't let others take your victories away from you! These haters are just intimidated and jealous.

I tryied LURM-boat myself (not assault ofc) and get some rage from my team couple times, even before fight starts, blaming me for choosing that weapon (??). I'm trying rly hard to get damage on some maps but overall it was very strategic mind games for me piloting it, not too easy as people can imagine.

[S O L A I S]

Vellron2005, on 01 July 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

So basically, if you do bad with LRMs, you suck... And if you do good with LRMs, you got lucky or the enemy sucked?

I disagree wholeheartedly..

You people simply need to accept the fact that there are players out there who actually do good with LRMs.

Sure, LRMs are not comp oriented, but in a normal casual setting, yes, you can do extremely well..

I myself actually had a interestingly annoying match a few days back.. a toxic player went on to troll me the whole match, blocking my movement, and potentially opening my boo's back thinking it was me (cose' we were in the same mech), and inspite of him, I still managed to do top damage, with 2 kills and 3 KMDDs on mining..

(naturally, I reported him to moderation, and have not seen him in-game since.. hope I won't see him ever again)

So while my own teammate was aiding the enemy, blocking my movement and being toxic in VOIP, I still managed to do amazing with an Assault LRM boat. The opposition was neither low-tier, nor noobs..

My point is - if you do good with LRMs, it doesn't mean the enemy sucked. It means you were good.

Lurmers everywhere, don't let others take your victories away from you! These haters are just intimidated and jealous.

Hey Vellron hope you and your wife are well. Know you a bit from CW.

Your point is not exactly where I was going with this guy but I will bite. Lurms are situational and the one thing Lykaon and I do agree with is that they take an extra amount of co-ordination. It is why in CW if you see a mech with narc on Polar, that guy has to die quick.

Can good players do well with lurms? Watch my buddy Reckless' stream (shameless plug for an awesome dude) and look at the million dollar smile on his face while whipping out the lrm Spirit Bear or Scorch. Or what he or Writhenn (apparently the great infector of the high level lurming) actually pull off match after match in the dreaded Supernova A.... but listen to what they say and look carefully at who they kill.

Outside of being narc'd on Polar, if you die to lurms and I am talking about getting rekt by them not a finishing blow after you have been opened up, yes you have in fact made a boo boo.

Are there good lurmers? Sure the guy that is in good position and recognises situations and reacts accordingly, but those rely if not demand that a player does something dumb like be wide out in the open. Of coarse there are also situations where you have no choice but to cross out in the open like the dumb spawn sites on Tourmaline in CW on certain modes.

I play CW for a well known unit and I very, very infrequently die to lurms. It is not as if I am playing in a lurm free zone either, they are over used in the mode to almost an extreme especially by new players. Even on Caustic, Alpine or Polar unless there is a narcer, and a good one at that (since you know, high priority target) there is very little reason to die to lurms outside of making a huge mistake along the line.

So why is this and why is this not attributable to superior lurmer skill? Well in a way if you are doing well and exploiting players mistakes, you are doing your job and sure that is do to your skill absolutely. It still requires the enemy expose themselves for an ungodly amount of time. More time than if you peek wrong and eat an alpha, and even more so considering the nature of pinpoint vs. spread weapons. To be owned by lurms you need to be out of cover and be no where near any, be in this situation for quite a bit, and be unaware of where the enemy lrm boat is to the point of it being too late.

So what's a skilled lurmer to me then? Guy who exploits the mistakes of others, and does his best to shoot at what his team is shooting at. That should not be taken as a dig at you or your weapon choice, but the inherent shortcomings of the weapon itself.

[Vellron2005]

Anastasius Foht, on 01 July 2018 - 11:45 PM, said:

I tryied LURM-boat myself (not assault ofc) and get some rage from my team couple times, even before fight starts, blaming me for choosing that weapon (??). I'm trying rly hard to get damage on some maps but overall it was very strategic mind games for me piloting it, not too easy as people can imagine.

I understand you completely on this.. your team giving you rage before you do anything, just cose' you're a LRM boat..

LRM users are the scapegoat-on-call right now, and it needs to stop.

I usually don't play with people who are LRM haters. if I'm in a group and they ask me to "switch to a brawler, or a lighter LRM boat", I am like 90% likely to quit that group outright.

Nobody has the right to tell you how and what to play.

It is hard to be good on some maps with LRMs, especially Rubellite and Solaris.. I used to say that for HPG, but have since found a way to do good even there..

If your team is bullying you for LRMing, you can always join ALRM..

We're like 100% casual and don't take it all too seriously..

[Vellron2005]

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

Hey Vellron hope you and your wife are well. Know you a bit from CW.

Your point is not exactly where I was going with this guy but I will bite.

Thank you for stating your view in a respectful manner. We are great, thanks.. Hope you are good too

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

I play CW for a well known unit and I very, very infrequently die to lurms. It is not as if I am playing in a lurm free zone either, they are over used in the mode to almost an extreme especially by new players. Even on Caustic, Alpine or Polar unless there is a narcer, and a good one at that (since you know, high priority target) there is very little reason to die to lurms outside of making a huge mistake along the line.

This is exactly why you die infrequently to LRMs.. because you play in a well known, and well organized unit. Organized units know how to counter LRM boats, and usually either play a defensive AMS rich strategy, or prioritize LRM boats as prime targets that have to be taken out as quickly as possible.

If you played in a well organized unit against a well organized unit that actually played with LRM boats in their team, you would die alot more to LRMs, trust me.

But FP right now is a seal-clubbing zone where big units stomp small groups, and the only big units you ever face rarely use LRMs, cose' LRMs are a big no-no for most big unit brass..

Good LRM boaters are mostly shunned by big units, regardless the fact that they are good, and just cose' they use LRMs, and this is why they don't play much FP, and you're not facing them.

S O L A I S, on 01 July 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

So what's a skilled lurmer to me then? Guy who exploits the mistakes of others, and does his best to shoot at what his team is shooting at. That should not be taken as a dig at you or your weapon choice, but the inherent shortcomings of the weapon itself.

Your definition of a good LRM boater can be easily applied to any weapon in the game. Any player using any weapon has to exploit the mistakes of his enemy, it's the only way to win.

The difference is that a Lurmer exploits bad positioning, while a brawler exploits lack of torso-twisting.

Also, keep in mind that Lurming is a completely different play style than direct fire, akin to artillery Vs tanks.

So, if you ask me, a veteran LRM boater, what is a good LRM boater, I would say that is it a player who suppresses the enemy, controls the battlefield, and punished enemy mistakes, all the while turning a 1 vs 1 into a 2 vs 1 by putting 2 mech's worth of ordnance on target while only giving a single target.

In Star Wars Rouge One, there is a good quote that says "make 10 men feel like a hundred" - this is exactly what a good Lurmer does.

Edited by Vellron2005, 02 July 2018 - 12:09 AM.

[Michelle Branch]

Lykaon, on 30 June 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

The original point was the claim that the "skills" of LRM use plateau and there is nowhere to go once that plateau is reached wasn't entirely factual.

My counter point was by applying skills that exist outside the carefully framed ideals of MWo "skills" that primarliy mean what one player does with their own mech without regard for what that player can do with carefully coordinated team work raised the plateau above the line where the common expectations place those "skills" .

Direct fire weapons are easier to use for the individual at higher levels of game play because the direct fire weapon skill set is more focused on what the current dogma of what "skill" is. Of course a coordinated team will raise the bar on the direct fire weapon's perfomance but LRMs REQUIRE higher levels of coordination to function at higher levels of game play more so than direct fire weapons.

This means ironicly LRMs require different and maybe even more skill to utilize effectivley at higher tier play mainly on account of how badly LRMs perform as a baseline weapon.

At higher levels of game play the "skills" needed to perform with LRMs include high levels of cooperation and frequently trickery. A point that was lost on many posters in this thread because they either don't want it to be true or refuse to believe that there are skills that exist beyond their carefully crafted dogma.

So I want you to re-read what you wrote and then again compare direct fire to LRMs.

Why would I choose to pick up LRMs over direct fire when A. I have the potential to kill something faster/immediately over something that is not guaranteed to kill what I'm aiming at IE - A side torso, or a leg? And B. Why would I choose a weapon that, in your words, is way harder to use, over something that is easier?

I don't get this argument really, because the folks that defend or use LRM's religiously, can't hit the broad side of the barn. This shows the first instance when they are forced into mid range against anything that looks at them funny.
If direct fire is easy mode, then prove it to me.

Listen homie G skillet. LRMs are not "easier" or require heavy skills to play. Do you have a lock? Is there a wall in front of you and are they in cover? Congratulations, you can press a button. The difference being is that a direct fire weapon will normally put you in the line of sight of the enemy team. Something LRMer's hate. I know you'd like to believe that it's some "elaborate dogma" or some hidden scheme us filthy high tier players came up with, but mayhaps accuracy trumps indirect is more of a truer statement than you will ever realize?

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 01 July 2018 - 11:40 PM, said:

Ok so just so you are absolutely aware. I have read and comprehended your post and,well your counter argument is still

"nuh uh" and " 'cause I said so" and you evolved it a little bit by adding a little bit of "liar liar pants on fire"

What is next? maybe a smidge of "you're a big doo doo head" ?

If you are not being obtuse then you are quite possibly the worst at debating I have seen on these forums and that is no small task. You have conquered the mastery of 2nd grader debate skills so completely that I totally fell into the "nuh uh" defense and of course the dreaded " 'cause I said so" ploy.

Or you are so totally detached from the strategic skill set needed to successfully execute an ambush plan that the very concept of how to perform it is so completely alien to you that you are dumbfounded by the concept.
Because you lack any ability to think on that level the possiblity of it happening seems utterly impossible to you.

Both of these scenarios seemed unlikely to me.

So this lead me to believe you were being willfully obtuse since I could not bring my self to believe that someone could be to put this very bluntly.

Either so incredibly ignorant they couldn't put forth a decent argument or so strategicly inept that they couldn't grasp of even believe in the concept of a planned ambush tactic working.

There is one last possibility that makes sense to me. You are actually a twelve year old as this would explain your apparent lack of debate skills or understanding in basic strategic planning.

So if you are actually a twelve year old I guess I should appologize to you for trying to treat you as an adult who should be held accountable for some pretty poorly thought out arguments.

If you are actually an adult...well I doubt anything anyone can say can help you understand much of anything.

I am sorry you feel that way.

I will point out to you since you brought up debate, that anecdotal and unsupported stories are not considered to have place in a proper debate without supporting evidence. Even people who participated in structured high school debate programs should be aware of this, so it is fair to assume you are not overly familiar with actual debating. Also don't think you are getting the point as your argument is that the deficits of the weapon system can be over come by high level play and against high level players. Nothing you have had to say thus far actually supports this.

To reiterate you have absolutely provided nothing to support this claim. There are however lots of factual arguments that point out that the case you describe is likely due to pilot error as well as the unknowns (such as if the players you describe actually being competent or not and such) make what you selling tough to swallow.

If you want to make this about personal attacks, then have at it. It doesn't support what you are saying though and it does nothing to prove your point.

However if you tire of being unable to express or prove your point without relying on a story and want to test your theory and excellent trap setting skills with your team, launch in CW to see how easy it is to catch my unit or others successful at the mode off guard. It would be great to see people inject some strategy in the mode as it is mostly full of potatos running around like headless chickens.

[S O L A I S]

Vellron2005, on 02 July 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Thank you for stating your view in a respectful manner. We are great, thanks.. Hope you are good too



This is exactly why you die infrequently to LRMs.. because you play in a well known, and well organized unit. Organized units know how to counter LRM boats, and usually either play a defensive AMS rich strategy, or prioritize LRM boats as prime targets that have to be taken out as quickly as possible.

If you played in a well organized unit against a well organized unit that actually played with LRM boats in their team, you would die alot more to LRMs, trust me.

But FP right now is a seal-clubbing zone where big units stomp small groups, and the only big units you ever face rarely use LRMs, cose' LRMs are a big no-no for most big unit brass..

Good LRM boaters are mostly shunned by big units, regardless the fact that they are good, and just cose' they use LRMs, and this is why they don't play much FP, and you're not facing them.



Your definition of a good LRM boater can be easily applied to any weapon in the game. Any player using any weapon has to exploit the mistakes of his enemy, it's the only way to win.

The difference is that a Lurmer exploits bad positioning, while a brawler exploits lack of torso-twisting.

Also, keep in mind that Lurming is a completely different play style than direct fire, akin to artillery Vs tanks.

So, if you ask me, a veteran LRM boater, what is a good LRM boater, I would say that is it a player who suppresses the enemy, controls the battlefield, and punished enemy mistakes, all the while turning a 1 vs 1 into a 2 vs 1 by putting 2 mech's worth of ordnance on target while only giving a single target.

In Star Wars Rouge One, there is a good quote that says "make 10 men feel like a hundred" - this is exactly what a good Lurmer does.

Force multiplier for sure and we can agree there.

Big units shunning the lurms? Nah, not these days. Run mostly mixed BCMC/Evil groups with guests and if you heard the comms when we get Boreal or Polar, it sounds a lot like 'come on guys not all of you can bring lurms' and 'whose gonna narc' (and boy we have some all stars narcing for the most part).

Being prepared? Actually since the buff AMS is used a good deal more (I actually have it equipped on a couple of mechs for the very first time!!!). Look at some of the folks choosing the Stalker as a sniper and notice the FB (ecm baby) and the one with two AMS hardpoints have become more popular as of late to mix in with all of those BLR 1G's. That preparedness also extends to tactics which is why you will see me running er large mechs on Tourmaline first drop, which is entirely due to the recent speed increase. Also consider as a counter that the er's do a good deal of damage outside of lrm range and even sitting just inside their range at full er damage you can still in most situations side step lurms.

Just like to point out as well that an lrm boat is only a priority to us at least, if it is creating a cross fire, or preventing movement. If in close (lots of lurmers don't think about this) in the 400-600m sweet spot, other direct fire mechs get focused first because you can generally roll off a bit of lrm damage. Although I am sure you see that focus from others more because of how annoyed people get when lurmed, but they are doing it wrong imo.

Edit: forgot to mention that we actually ran a well supported lurm strat recently against a lesser skilled opponent on Polar who brought all direct fire and got owned... Hard to counter a concave with lurms and difficult when you can't do damage until you get into 1000m and really even with narc you want to be at least in 800m. Velocity was the primary thing I was advocating for with the lurms, perhaps PGI really needs to take a look at the range of this supposed ranged weapons and devise a way it can complete with mechs capable of putting out hurt at 1200-1300 if they truly intend to make the weapon more on par with cerppc and er large lasers.

Edited by S O L A I S, 02 July 2018 - 12:55 AM.