377 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

I know a lot of people don't consider this but one reason LRM assaults are at the back of the team is because the front of the team is engaged in a ******** nascar race around whatever random feature they've chosen to race for.

Assaults are slow(er), if you leave them behind you're leaving a lot of firepower behind, but no it's never the fault of the idiots at the front it's always the ones at the back that are at fault.

Stupid 'hero' mentality FTW.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

All I know is that no matter what stupid crap I'm doing. Suiciding in a light. Facetanking an Alphabro and getting cored. Hanging out in the back and LURMing a mountainside.

It's everyone's fault but mine.

[Weeny Machine]

Vellron2005, on 16 July 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Concept of Artillary units.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Yup, and when you forster even more peek-a-boo gameplay (because that's what's left when the lock on crap gets out of hand) then you can write that as often as you want - and the game will bleed even more players

Edited by Bush Hopper, 17 July 2018 - 06:04 AM.

[Mystere]

Dogstar, on 17 July 2018 - 05:24 AM, said:

I know a lot of people don't consider this but one reason LRM assaults are at the back of the team is because the front of the team is engaged in a ******** nascar race around whatever random feature they've chosen to race for.

Assaults are slow(er), if you leave them behind you're leaving a lot of firepower behind, but no it's never the fault of the idiots at the front it's always the ones at the back that are at fault.

Stupid 'hero' mentality FTW.

Here's the thing. Even if the NASCARs start fighting while the LRM assaults are still running behind, as long as the former get and hold locks, the LRMs will still come raining as the latter get into the fight more directly.

Of course, players actually need to realize that the concept of "teamwork" is real.

[Judah Malganis]

Quote

Of course, players actually need to realize that the concept of "teamwork" is real.

This. Bad mech,bad builds, and anything thing else we can think of are usually secondary concerns to the fact that many players refuse to play as part of the group due to having a slight overabundance of precaution, which is what often determines matches; one side holds it together for like 10 more seconds than the other and causes a snowball.

LRMs, snipers, brawlers, whatever, if played from the standpoint of 'how can I best help my group?' will often help drive wins. If one gets too wrapped around the axle on kills, match score, avoiding confrontation and finding The Perfect Spot From Which to Fire My ER LLas or Whatever, you will lose the match, because the best time to shoot enemies is usually 'as soon as possible'.

Edited by Judah Malganis, 17 July 2018 - 07:30 AM.

[Grus]

Dogstar, on 17 July 2018 - 05:24 AM, said:

I know a lot of people don't consider this but one reason LRM assaults are at the back of the team is because the front of the team is engaged in a ******** nascar race around whatever random feature they've chosen to race for.

Assaults are slow(er), if you leave them behind you're leaving a lot of firepower behind, but no it's never the fault of the idiots at the front it's always the ones at the back that are at fault.

Stupid 'hero' mentality FTW.

Maybe don't bring a slow LRM assault to solo QP... instead bring a faster heavy. My 2 cents.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Vellron2005, on 16 July 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Concept of Artillary units.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

12 "arty" against 12 "arty" sounds like fun, right? cause that is what QP is ALREADY shaping up to be.
just wait till the last one of us has given up being the stupid f*ck in the front, and we all stand behind -you- "supporting" from behind -you-.

lurmers..

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 16 July 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

First of all, it seems to me that the assumption that "most lurmers sit 900 meters away" is simply wrong.. most Lurmers sit 600-ish meters away.. At least those higher than T4..

Secondly, as a Lurmer, I see no reason why I would be close and on the front line.. I've been in countless situations that from a good spot, I can literally hit any enemy on the map, and often do. Locks provided, LRMs are just effective if they hit a target 800 meter of 300 meters away. Sure, it's harder to hit someone further out, but on some maps, like Polar or Grim Plexus, you really don't need to be close in.

On other maps you do.. so I'm just saying.. don't judge someone who's lurming from 800 meters away.. on some maps.. they don't need to get closer.

And even if they do.. Personally, I would rather fire at the enemy knowing I will not hit, but forcing him to keep his head down and run for cover while I move up, than not.

Not all shots are intended to hit. Some are pure suppression. And I often have more than enough ammo to spare.

I believe I was mentioning the "typical LRM view" from most players. I'm not saying that LRM boats do or do not stand 900m away from a fight, nor how common they might do it. However, I can say I've seen it done often enough to cringe every time I see it, knowing exactly what is about to happen. 600m and closer (to minimum) really is the best spot to be for an LRM mech. It's one thing to be behind your team a little bit. It's another thing to be "behind" your team, almost a full grid square away...

I have found many times throughout the years of me playing that being closer to the front lines is often more preferable. I'm often on the front of the team, if not the front (and then razing my team for letting an LRM mech push the front instead of them). Then again, I don't exactly do traditional boating of LRMs, and instead do more LRM based builds with lots of direct fire punch. Even then, I've found being closer to other elements of your team tends to be helpful to your own survival if an enemy does get into your face. Rather than be alone in the back, you are shoulder to shoulder with someone else whom can help shoo the pest away.

I'll never fault an LRM user for shooting at long range. There are many times a shot might not hit, but is worth taking. Agreed on that. There are even some shots "this isn't likely to hit", but if it does, it still is damage. Basically, I find LRMing best when done closer than farther, but at the same time LRMing farther can work so I'm not going to knock it either. I just advise to LRM as you move with your team, rather and standing still in a "good spot" and letting your team leave you behind.

No One Lives Forever, on 16 July 2018 - 08:44 AM, said:

Fact is lurms are absolutely low skill weapons and way too powerful for the effort it takes to run lurm boat. Press one mouse button.

You do know the same could be said for direct fire weapons too, right? Hover your mouse over your target, then press one mouse button.

So... how much skill did that require?

Now, mind, I'm not saying direct fire weapons are "low skill" here, so don't take me wrong. But to say that LRMs are low skill is just as flawed.

Grus, on 17 July 2018 - 07:44 AM, said:

Maybe don't bring a slow LRM assault to solo QP... instead bring a faster heavy. My 2 cents.

Then, does that mean I should never work on an Atlas or Dire Wolf if I'm dropping into QP? Even if they aren't LRM assaults? What makes it so that LRM specific assaults shouldn't be in QP?

[MischiefSC]

Honestly it's not a terrible idea for anyone NOT in a "support" (lol that term) mech to just... hang back with the guys in the back. Let snipers and LRMs. Pug armor happens and LRMs sandbagging the team because everyone else let's them. If someone isn't sharing armor then the group should reform behind that guy.

It isn't the worst idea. I have yet to see anyone talking about how great LRMs are who isn't struggling for a 1.0 w/l. Why the **** would anyone in QP let someone in that situation have any real decision or control over how your match goes or team plays? When you get a disco or you see the guy going off alone in his Atlas you adjust to deal with it. Do the same with "support" mechs. Use their armor or use them as bait to make sure you get your useful damage in and secure quick kills that actually win matches.

[Weeny Machine]

Tesunie, on 17 July 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

Then, does that mean I should never work on an Atlas or Dire Wolf if I'm dropping into QP? Even if they aren't LRM assaults? What makes it so that LRM specific assaults shouldn't be in QP?

You don't get his point. A "normal" assault can easily defend himself against 1 mech. An LRM assault is fodder and cannot reposition quickly enough...and do hardly any damage.

Also, a faster mech can use LRMs and ATMs better imo. Simply because he can easier get into the sweet spot of his weaponry.

[Lightfoot]

How can you call an LRM nerf a buff? Where can pigs fly with no wings? Will the elephant in the room please release the flying monkeys, we are bored.

[Kubernetes]

Tesunie, on 17 July 2018 - 08:36 AM, said:

You do know the same could be said for direct fire weapons too, right? Hover your mouse over your target, then press one mouse button.

So... how much skill did that require?

Now, mind, I'm not saying direct fire weapons are "low skill" here, so don't take me wrong. But to say that LRMs are low skill is just as flawed.

No. By relative comparison, LRMs are low skill, whereas direct fire requires higher skill. Direct fire can require little skill if your enemy is standing perfectly still, but otherwise you have to lead with projectiles and hold on target with lasers. LRMs just require you to get the reticle close to the red box, something you can do with your foot.

[Tesunie]

Bush Hopper, on 17 July 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

You don't get his point. A "normal" assault can easily defend himself against 1 mech. An LRM assault is fodder and cannot reposition quickly enough...and do hardly any damage.

Also, a faster mech can use LRMs and ATMs better imo. Simply because he can easier get into the sweet spot of his weaponry.

Actually, I do to some extent.

LRM boat assaults can get problems in your described situation, which is one of the many reasons I never boat them. However, most any assault that becomes the "slow" end of the tail tend to get caught alone, and with light mechs up their backside, often times making even a direct fire payload all but useless as well.

I will agree that LRMs tend to be served better on more mobile platforms that can move into better positions with better ease and sooner, there is also something to be said for a mech that has more tonnage for more weapons, be it more LRM tubes or additional direct fire weapons.

A lot of it is all in how you intend to play it and how your team and yourself utilizes your mech's capabilities. Working with a team of people who don't get locks at all? Then providing LRM support will be difficult. Working with a team that will retreat from the enemy as soon as they are scratched? Doesn't help an assault if/when they push, expecting said allies to remain by their side. This could go through with most basically any class, role or anything else in this game.

Basically, it's no different than if a fast mech gets behind an enemy position, turn the enemy around, and then have their teammates run backwards while the enemy is distracted, rather than into the enemy while their attention is divided.

QP might also be seen as the "don't care about it" game mode. If you "can't" play something there, than what's the point? My only point here was that it's not exactly a good thing to try and place limitations on other people's play. Personally, I'd rather people play the game to have fun while trying to win. What's the point of playing a game if it isn't fun to play? Winning isn't everything.

Kubernetes, on 17 July 2018 - 01:32 PM, said:

No. By relative comparison, LRMs are low skill, whereas direct fire requires higher skill. Direct fire can require little skill if your enemy is standing perfectly still, but otherwise you have to lead with projectiles and hold on target with lasers. LRMs just require you to get the reticle close to the red box, something you can do with your foot.

Hey. I'm just saying what's been mentioned about direct fire weapons, which does have some truth to it. Which requires more skill is dependent upon how you use the weapons and what you are expecting out of them.

PS: Your reticle needs to be inside the box, not just close to it. Also, sometimes your reticle needs to be inside that box longer than any laser beam duration (ECM), and unlike direct fire weapons which only need concern itself with horizontal obstructions, LRMs need to worry about horizontal AND vertical obstructions, as well as need to consider what the arc will be for a shot of that distance as well as timing for the missiles to get to the target and if they will have enough time to get into cover (which is very similar to leading with ballistic weapons).

AKA: LRMs seem to require more skill than you give them credit to use effectively. To use them to just deal damage spamming shots at every lock can be seen as the equivalence of just trying to splash laser damage onto a target without trying to keep your reticle on target for the whole beam duration. Sure, in each case each of them can deal lots of damage when used that way, but that doesn't mean each is the only or most effective way to use said weapons. In the case of lasers, you want to keep your reticle on target on a specific location for maximum effect. In the case of LRMs, you need to consider the potential flight path which requires knowing what arc the missiles will take depending upon distance to the target, then consider if they will have enough reaction time to get into cover, consider if it's worth the risk of them knowing where you are when you shoot, will you keep the lock long enough for the missiles to hit (hint: you don't need to actually hold the lock for the whole flight to still hit most times), are there any overhanging obstructions or are they under an umbrella/in a cave, etc... Oops. I just out did the short skill list requirement for effective use of lasers...

In other words, LRMs are easy to use, but can be hard to master.

[Kubernetes]

>> Also, sometimes your reticle needs to be inside that box longer than any laser beam duration

Right, so instead of holding on a tiny visible sliver of a mech that is running and twisting, you just need to be in the box.... while behind cover where nothing is shooting at you.

>>. I just out did the short skill list requirement for effective use of lasers

Oh, ok, sure, whatever you say.

>>LRMs are easy to use, but can be hard to master.

Anyone who competent/good at direct fire can easily master LRMs. Telling yourself that LRMs require skill may make you feel better, but it's not true.

Edited by Kubernetes, 17 July 2018 - 03:22 PM.

[Mystere]

Captain Caveman DE, on 17 July 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

12 "arty" against 12 "arty" sounds like fun, right? cause that is what QP is ALREADY shaping up to be.
just wait till the last one of us has given up being the stupid f*ck in the front, and we all stand behind -you- "supporting" from behind -you-.

lurmers..

You never studied Roman infantry tactics, nor the Parthians', nor the Mongols', did you?

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 17 July 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

>> Also, sometimes your reticle needs to be inside that box longer than any laser beam duration

Right, so instead of holding on a tiny visible sliver of a mech that is running and twisting, you just need to be in the box.... while behind cover where nothing is shooting at you.

>>. I just out did the short skill list requirement for effective use of lasers

Oh, ok, sure, whatever you say.

>>LRMs are easy to use, but can be hard to master.

Anyone who competent/good at direct fire can easily master LRMs. Telling yourself that LRMs require skill may make you feel better, but it's not true.

Being behind cover is "optional". Most times, it's actually not "optimal" to work only behind cover, especially if you took upgrades such as Artemis or Adv Decay, which only work if you got the lock yourself.

I was merely correcting a false assumption of "near the box" with the actual fact of "inside the box". Often times, for a much longer duration than any laser duration in the game if you consider lock on times and missile flight. Add in ECM, and getting the lock takes that much longer, which means that much shorter of a chance to get the lock in time to shoot the missiles with enough time for them to still connect and deal damage.



Lasers can be described as "easy to use". Line up a shot, pull the trigger. Even if you "miss" initially, you can hone in on the target while the beam is active and at least deal some damage to a target. However, the argument could be made (once again), that better skill produces more effective use of a laser. So, another "easy to use" weapon that can be more effectively used "with skill". Very similar to LRMs.



Not everyone. Here is the difference; LRMs require predictive skills, where as direct fire typically requires reactive skills.

Here is why I say this, LRMs you need to predict a lot of things before you even pull the trigger (if you want to be effective with them). Meanwhile, lasers on the other hand require you to line up the shot, and then react to your target to keep it burning on one location. (AC/SRMs kinda fall in between these two, with mostly reactive aiming, with a little predictive (leading) aim added in.)

I actually know of several people who admit that they can't use LRMs very well, yet they play the game well with things such as light mechs. On the other hand, when I point out that they are good at the game they point out my skills with LRM use and other abilities (such as utilizing JJs well) as counter points in my favor. So, no. There are different skills necessary to truly utilize LRMs over direct fire weapons.

As explained above, it's no different than with lasers. Each are easy to use and "land damage". However, to use either of them effectively and well require specific skills. To say LRMs are a no skill weapon is wrong, as much as saying direct fire weapons are no skill. (And as mentioned, there could be a reasonable argument created that direct fire weapons are "point and click a button no skill weapon". Mind, I don't agree with that, but it could be said.)



There is also the consideration of how to use LRMs in a good way with the team. To use them without being "a leach to the team". As such, hiding behind cover far from your team is not conductive to that. Sadly, that is what many see LRMs as useful for, and thus there are many people who use them only indirect and only in such a manner.

[Kubernetes]

Good grief, I give up. LRMs are the epitome of an anti-skill weapon. You've got to watch for terrain? Me too, I can't shoot through rocks. Moreover, I actually have to expose when shooting, so I'm trying to expose to as few enemies as possible. You've got to anticipate and predict? Me too, because gauss and PPC projectiles have travel time. Also, I've got to think about positioning just as much as you. Your bad positioning means missiles hit dirt; my bad positioning means I get hosed down by multiple mechs when I shoot. Your skill: put reticle in box and shoot. My skill: twist and snapshot my HGRs into a CT 400m away while it's running and twisting. Precise mouse work and anticipating requires much more skill than "Am I standing in the right spot?"

[thievingmagpi]

Kubernetes, on 17 July 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

Good grief, I give up. LRMs are the epitome of an anti-skill weapon. You've got to watch for terrain? Me too, I can't shoot through rocks. Moreover, I actually have to expose when shooting, so I'm trying to expose to as few enemies as possible. You've got to anticipate and predict? Me too, because gauss and PPC projectiles have travel time. Also, I've got to think about positioning just as much as you. Your bad positioning means missiles hit dirt; my bad positioning means I get hosed down by multiple mechs when I shoot. Your skill: put reticle in box and shoot. My skill: twist and snapshot my HGRs into a CT 400m away while it's running and twisting. Precise mouse work and anticipating requires much more skill than "Am I standing in the right spot?"

Haven't you heard? Aiming is only reactionary.

Lining up my reticle with a target someone has provided and leaving it there, that's pure predictive skill baby.

[Quxudica]

The Blood God, on 26 June 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

the game just isn't fun to play because of it and everything it brings

Lrms have never been fun. They are either feast or famine; So effective that they make playing other builds a frustrating chore, or so ineffective that they might as well not even exist. Which side you get can vary not just from patch to patch, but from game to game in the same patch. LRM's have almost certainly received the most balance changes over the years because they are an inherently broken weapon system and will always be so.

Personally, I hope this patch change passes by quickly. The game is more fun when LRM's are left to collect dust in the background.

[Tesunie]

Kubernetes, on 17 July 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

Good grief, I give up. LRMs are the epitome of an anti-skill weapon. You've got to watch for terrain? Me too, I can't shoot through rocks. Moreover, I actually have to expose when shooting, so I'm trying to expose to as few enemies as possible. You've got to anticipate and predict? Me too, because gauss and PPC projectiles have travel time. Also, I've got to think about positioning just as much as you. Your bad positioning means missiles hit dirt; my bad positioning means I get hosed down by multiple mechs when I shoot. Your skill: put reticle in box and shoot. My skill: twist and snapshot my HGRs into a CT 400m away while it's running and twisting. Precise mouse work and anticipating requires much more skill than "Am I standing in the right spot?"

Do you have to watch out for angled crystal formations on Tourmaline that goes above the fighting, but may still block your shots because it's in your missile arc? (For an example)

I'd make the argument that LRM users might need even more situational awareness than other weapons, simply because of their minimum range and that it's easy to track LRMs back to their source (especially if they aren't moving, which is another common problem LRM users tend to have... They find a spot and stop instead of continuing to move).

However, I feel my words are now falling upon deaf eyes(?), as you seem to fail in differing levels or degrees of certain skills needed.

Here, let me help you. Of course you need to anticipate and predict with direct fire weapons, but LRMs tend to require more prediction for effective use. Of course positioning is important for direct fire only builds, but it can be more important to an LRM mech (such as on maps like Solaris, but less so on Polar).