377 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

S O L A I S, on 02 July 2018 - 12:14 AM, said:

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.

Section one defining debate to draw attention away from your failure to post a sufficent argument to support your point = Strawman. You argument is in essence that since I didn't frame my use of "debate" within it's literal and formal deffinition then my point about everything else is invalid.

Section two: So to clearify you do not believe that the use of a strategy to maximize the performance of a given asset ( in this case LRMs) improves the performance of that asset (in this case LRMs) If this is your standing maybe you should prove this in a general sense since it is commonly accepted that my point is true,that if a given asset is strategicly supported the performance of that asset is improved.

For example: LRMs + NARC and TAG = more effective LRMs when all assets are leveraged correctly.

If this is false I would like you to prove it.

Section three: Personal attacks. I was only trying to figure out what could possibly be the leading cause of an obvious disconnect from logic.

Section four: just for fun...

here is a strategic word problem for you.

You have three qualities of troops each assigned to regiments of 100 men.

You have 100 inexperienced green recruits
You have 100 average quality troops
You have 100 elite veteran troops

Your enemy has the exact same arangment with 100 green troops 100 average troops and 100 veterans.

Your goal is to win this battle by assigning a regiment to fight each of the enemy regiments.

What gives you the best overall odds?

[Vellron2005]

@Solais

Well LRMs have become used more since the velocity buff, and they have become more usefull.. If you say big units are using them more, I believe you. I have not seen much increase, although that' cose I rarely play FP anymore.. (don't like facing premades with a two-man).

I have also noticed a considerable AMS presence in GQ, which again leads me to bring larger tube counts, with 55 becoming the bare minimum.

In my own experience, I usually do my best with LRMs, and most times I do bad, it's my own damn fault, cose' I tend to focus on a target, and then find myself left behind.. but that's on me.

When I'm focused however, I normally do much better than I ever do with direct fire, with multiple solo kills and 1K+ damage.

And I'm not talking about just Polar.. Basically I'm finding only Rubellite and Solaris maps difficult, and I'm slowly, but surely learning Rubellite (I think my top score in a LRM boat there is about 680 damage).

As far as priorities go, I know what an unattended LRM boat can do, so I tend to prioritize those.. and there's no sweeter prize than killing a LRM boat with a LRM boat.. except perhaps killing an Irondome or an SRM boat

I'm finding that lately, ERLL+LRM55 or higher is a great combo.. ERLL do out-range LRMs, but a good LRM boater will know how to counter that.. it's all about positioning and teamwork.

[vonJerg]

Brawler's these days:

[Wil McCullough]

vonJerg, on 02 July 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

Brawler's these days:

American gods! Great series heh

[Kroete]

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..

The are no good lrm players,
as example, i just put all my stat-points on my luck-attribute to get into the 96%.
Has nothing to do with my skill or abilitys!

Edited by Kroete, 02 July 2018 - 02:42 AM.

[Anastasius Foht]

vonJerg, on 02 July 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

Brawler's these days:

Me when im slowly strip off armor from a light
https://video.twimg....S6d_I.mp4?tag=3

Good example of skilled LRM pilot https://www.reddit.c...salt_must_flow/

Edited by Anastasius Foht, 02 July 2018 - 04:08 AM.

[thievingmagpi]

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

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.

and with lurms it requires exactly zero skill to do this.

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 01 July 2018 - 11:53 PM, said:

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.

I'm more of the stance that if they ask I'll work with them if I feel it will create a more cohesive group. However, if it's demanded of me, I won't budge.

I've had that happen once when I was playing FP back in the day. Came across a group who demanded I changed my starting mech. They never asked. At first, because I was just a random solo, I was going to honor the request to be helpful to the team. While I was in mech selection to make the change, they got hostile and demanded even more forcefully. Eventually, I did change to show them I could, then changed back because of their rudeness. Then they yelled at me all that match. I ended up switching engagement sides (back then you could) to avoid them, but dropped with them a second match where they continued berating me. Only match I've left intentionally before it was completed.

Oh, and they where so bad, they followed me onto the forums and continued there as well...

Hence I say, if they ask, I'll change (at least at first). If they demand, I'm out.

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

and with lurms it requires exactly zero skill to do this.

Zero skills means they don't even get locks...

[Eisenhorne]

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

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.

Plz tell me what skills I need to learn in order to make an attack on Grim Portico work with LRMs (or pretty much any siege attack in FP)?

Or how can I use skill to make LRM's effective on a map like Solaris City, when a good team can easily break line of sight?

Or if the enemy team just kills one mech and then turtles up under hard cover on rubelite or something, making you make the next move? Or if they grab 3 caps, and stay back behind hard cover, forcing you to expose yourselves to grab a third?

LRMS have a relatively low skill cap, and once you get to a map just naturally counters them or a team that takes an advantage early and then refuses to run into the open, you are going to be a detriment to your team, unless the enemy team is significantly worse. Of course you can trot out examples where you lurmed effectively on Solaris City, but I'm willing to bet it's because the enemy team was full of spuds who stood in the open and just died, and when you're up 3-4 mechs it's not hard to just press that advantage to win.

The fact is that taking LRM's to quick play is a gamble that you will A) have a map that is favorable for LRM's or B ) the enemy team is bad enough that it doesn't matter. LRM's have their place, but outside of faction play on those specific maps, you're better off taking a mech that will always be useful regardless of map or game mode. Unless you want to roll those dice and possible put your team at a disadvantage.

Also, if you agree they are junk tier weapons, why are you bothering to defend using them? It's like you agree, but reach a different conclusion.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 02 July 2018 - 08:05 AM.

[Viagra Rage]

Too bad. Just pointing out that there are those of us that have physical disabilities that prevent us from brawling effectively or midrange dueling. SSRMS and LRMS help even the odds and makes it fun. If you don't like it, adapt and overcome. Get over it.

Edited by Viagra Rage, 02 July 2018 - 08:31 AM.

[Tesunie]

Eisenhorne, on 02 July 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

Plz tell me what skills I need to learn in order to make an attack on Grim Portico work with LRMs (or pretty much any siege attack in FP)?

Or how can I use skill to make LRM's effective on a map like Solaris City, when a good team can easily break line of sight?

Or if the enemy team just kills one mech and then turtles up under hard cover on rubelite or something, making you make the next move? Or if they grab 3 caps, and stay back behind hard cover, forcing you to expose yourselves to grab a third?

LRMS have a relatively low skill cap, and once you get to a map just naturally counters them or a team that takes an advantage early and then refuses to run into the open, you are going to be a detriment to your team, unless the enemy team is significantly worse. Of course you can trot out examples where you lurmed effectively on Solaris City, but I'm willing to bet it's because the enemy team was full of spuds who stood in the open and just died, and when you're up 3-4 mechs it's not hard to just press that advantage to win.

The fact is that taking LRM's to quick play is a gamble that you will A) have a map that is favorable for LRM's or B ) the enemy team is bad enough that it doesn't matter. LRM's have their place, but outside of faction play on those specific maps, you're better off taking a mech that will always be useful regardless of map or game mode. Unless you want to roll those dice and possible put your team at a disadvantage.

Also, if you agree they are junk tier weapons, why are you bothering to defend using them? It's like you agree, but reach a different conclusion.

Well, first you need to know your maps. Another point is you need to know your missile arcs depending upon the range they are at.

For Grim, there are places on the map that if you aren't at the right angle, you'll just shoot a wall, rock or building roof. If you stand still in some locations, you'll broadcast your location to the enemy and there are enough side paths with cover that they can get behind you. (This is why LRM mechs should stay near their team, no farther than 200m away from the front line.

Solaris City is another beast different from Grim. It's got some areas with low buildings that you can LRM effectively from, and other areas where you might only have a thin corridor that you can use. On Solaris, you typically need to get closer to the enemy than on other maps (such as Polar Highlands). You need to be more aware of the map, and the locations of enemies. It's even easier for enemies to get behind you from a side corridor than Grim, so another thing you need to be aware of. If you are a boat, you need to have very sharp area perception around you, because if anything gets right behind you, you are toast. Where as a direct fire mech might not need to worry so much if someone gets behind them, as they are better equipped for it.

On Solaris City, you can also use infrequently used locations within the low buildings to utilize your strengths. If one has JJs, they could jump up enough to get a lock on people out in the open (a location that typically isn't open on that map), and bombard from the low buildings. (Had that happen to me. Was pincered between the enemy team and buildings that were cover, only to find out that I had an LRM user or two off to the side that had cover, but not enough to block them. I couldn't remove myself from the position where the LRMers where, without exposing myself to the rest of their team's direct fire. At the same time, I couldn't go after the LRMers either, for much the same reason.)

LRMs do require their own skill set. Many of their skills can transfer over to direct fire and vice versa, but there are other skills that can't. I find with LRMs they require a bit of "thinking outside the box", where as direct fire weapons can't always do so. It's hard to explain. But there are ways to utilize LRMs that require skill and make them effective.


I'll just say what someone else says from my unit. I keep insisting that he's better than I am as an overall pilot. He insists instead that we are each equal pilots with different skills, and then points out that he can't use LRMs at all, and then comments on how well I can utilize LRMs (from the front lines too). There are differences in skill sets.

[Lykaon]

Eisenhorne, on 02 July 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

Plz tell me what skills I need to learn in order to make an attack on Grim Portico work with LRMs (or pretty much any siege attack in FP)?

Or how can I use skill to make LRM's effective on a map like Solaris City, when a good team can easily break line of sight?

Or if the enemy team just kills one mech and then turtles up under hard cover on rubelite or something, making you make the next move? Or if they grab 3 caps, and stay back behind hard cover, forcing you to expose yourselves to grab a third?

LRMS have a relatively low skill cap, and once you get to a map just naturally counters them or a team that takes an advantage early and then refuses to run into the open, you are going to be a detriment to your team, unless the enemy team is significantly worse. Of course you can trot out examples where you lurmed effectively on Solaris City, but I'm willing to bet it's because the enemy team was full of spuds who stood in the open and just died, and when you're up 3-4 mechs it's not hard to just press that advantage to win.

The fact is that taking LRM's to quick play is a gamble that you will A) have a map that is favorable for LRM's or B ) the enemy team is bad enough that it doesn't matter. LRM's have their place, but outside of faction play on those specific maps, you're better off taking a mech that will always be useful regardless of map or game mode. Unless you want to roll those dice and possible put your team at a disadvantage.

Also, if you agree they are junk tier weapons, why are you bothering to defend using them? It's like you agree, but reach a different conclusion.

What I disagree with is LRMs are either "no skill" full stop or have a fixed unalterable plateau that prevents them from ever under every and all circumstances ever being capable of beating "skilled" players.

I get it there is a metric bucket ton of player hubris on these forums. And this prevents certain players from ever even considering that something could be done to at least improve a low performing weapon's odds of leveraging a win and that 'SKILL' is not limited to ones ability to line up a pixel with another pixel and use direct fire weapons.

At this point any point to be made has been muddlled by a suprising amount of idiocy,hubris and dogmatic obediane to blind assumption.

But I will take a very basic crack at answering your questions.

When utilizing a weapon with a specific weakness you will formulate a course of action that reduces or removes exposure to that weapon's weakness.

So with LRMs, do not ever lob shots at distant targets hold your fire until you can be reasonably assured the targets are to far from reaching defensable cover to be saved or, that the defensable cover they are most likely to run for is where you want them to be pinned to be hit from another point of attack.

I will admit faction play is a tough nut to crack because of the respawn nature of drop decks so even if you do succeed with the first clash any follow up engagments are going to unlikely to succeed at using a similar ploy. If the Opfor does fall for the same trick over and over again you were probably over thinking the scenario and all you really needed to do was go dig some spuds.

[Imperius]

Use ECM, AMS, RADAR DEPREVATION, AND COVER. You’ll be surprised how worthless LRM’s are.

[Tesunie]

Lykaon, on 02 July 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

When utilizing a weapon with a specific weakness you will formulate a course of action that reduces or removes exposure to that weapon's weakness.

Similar to the concept between a specialized/focused build and a generalistic/mixed build.

A specialist build plays to it's strength, and only has to worry about working within that strength.

A mix build is a different beast. It needs to analyze it's opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and then engage within the opposing builds weakness. This is instead of always playing to your strength, you instead play to your opponent's weakness.

A mix build typically takes more skill to fully utilize, but it's harder than a specialized build to use where you only have to worry about playing to your strengths. Yet, which one tends to be meta? The easier to use for greater effect specialized builds (for good reason).

[Eisenhorne]

Lykaon, on 02 July 2018 - 08:50 AM, said:

What I disagree with is LRMs are either "no skill" full stop or have a fixed unalterable plateau that prevents them from ever under every and all circumstances ever being capable of beating "skilled" players.

I get it there is a metric bucket ton of player hubris on these forums. And this prevents certain players from ever even considering that something could be done to at least improve a low performing weapon's odds of leveraging a win and that 'SKILL' is not limited to ones ability to line up a pixel with another pixel and use direct fire weapons.

At this point any point to be made has been muddlled by a suprising amount of idiocy,hubris and dogmatic obediane to blind assumption.

But I will take a very basic crack at answering your questions.

When utilizing a weapon with a specific weakness you will formulate a course of action that reduces or removes exposure to that weapon's weakness.

So with LRMs, do not ever lob shots at distant targets hold your fire until you can be reasonably assured the targets are to far from reaching defensable cover to be saved or, that the defensable cover they are most likely to run for is where you want them to be pinned to be hit from another point of attack.

I will admit faction play is a tough nut to crack because of the respawn nature of drop decks so even if you do succeed with the first clash any follow up engagments are going to unlikely to succeed at using a similar ploy. If the Opfor does fall for the same trick over and over again you were probably over thinking the scenario and all you really needed to do was go dig some spuds.

I don't think anyone here is saying that LRM's are no skill, or that they are incapable of beating good players. If I gave that impression, sorry, it wasn't my intent. I know HHoD did a LRM-heavy strat on caustic in FP a few days ago, against a few EVIL / BCMC guys ( admittedly they had a lot of spuds on their team as well) and when we spotted the better players, they were narc'd and LRM'd and died just as easily as the spuds. It's just that they are such a situational weapon, I cannot ever believe it's a good idea taking them into a quick play room where you cannot guarantee they will be useful. You're better off taking a generalist mech that can do everything, instead of a specific mech for a specific role. It's why I never take my ER LL boats to quick play, or why I never take my pure-brawl mechs to quick play (yea, I know you can do OK with SRM boats in QP, but they are also situational, and if you get stuck on polar GG you lose).

There are things you can do to play better with LRM's. I agree it requires strategy and positioning to use them well, and obviously a bad player with LRM's is worse than a good player with LRM's. They are just limited in some scenarios. I think we're agreeing on these points at least, so I'm just gonna stop arguing the smaller points

Edited by Eisenhorne, 02 July 2018 - 09:04 AM.

[Falconer Cyrus]

Imperius, on 02 July 2018 - 08:58 AM, said:

Use ECM, AMS, RADAR DEPREVATION, AND COVER. You’ll be surprised how worthless LRM’s are.

Play this game a while and you will be surprised how many your teammates (assaults first) caught in plain terrain will die under 4 lurmers mutual fire in a minute while you been successful found cover.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Falconer Cyrus, on 02 July 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

Play this game a while and you will be surprised how many your teammates (assaults first) caught in plain terrain will die under 4 lurmers mutual fire in a minute while you been successful found cover.

Yes, it is quite surprising how many people prefer to delude themselves they can avoid lurms because "muh skillz", but in fact there will always be that one guy who presents a good target and eats it all.

[Eisenhorne]

Nema Nabojiv, on 02 July 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yes, it is quite surprising how many people prefer to delude themselves they can avoid lurms because "muh skillz", but in fact there will always be that one guy who presents a good target and eats it all.

taters gonna tate.

[Michelle Branch]

[Nightbird]

Direct fire is overrated, LRM is the superior choice