377 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Verilligo, on 27 June 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

Technically he did say LRM80 with two LL. You can get that with non-Artemis LRM80, 9 tons of ammo, 2 ERLL, XL300, no ferro or endo, 10 armor off the head and each leg, and fit in 10 external DHS with a TAG and CAP. Gets you up to 36% heat efficiency on Smurfy, with skills you can probably fire the LRMs near-constantly. It's also an unabashedly garbage build, but it is technically possible.

36% cooling efficiency would be 11 seconds before shut down occurs (without skill nodes) let's just agree that the statement made was a gross exageration. 36% cooling is decent though,decent enough to put up some serious clouds of sandblasting ordnance on the regular.

So we have establish that by optimizing for cooling over actual performance one could create an LRM 80 + 2 L-laser mech if they compromised the build's mobility and also happened to have a Supernova A .

<golf clap>

[Kroete]

Lykaon, on 27 June 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

36% cooling efficiency would be 11 seconds before shut down occurs (without skill nodes) let's just agree that the statement made was a gross exageration. 36% cooling is decent though,decent enough to put up some serious clouds of sandblasting ordnance on the regular.

So we have establish that by optimizing for cooling over actual performance one could create an LRM 80 + 2 L-laser mech if they compromised the build's mobility and also happened to have a Supernova A .

<golf clap>

Its not useable, too hot.
Maybe try a build before you post it and give some claims.

If you take lrm80, you take 4 light weapons, 10 tons of ammo, cap, a big engine and lots of heatsinks,
the main holdback for lrms is heat. Even more if you want to overwhelm mass ams with alphafiring your lrm80.

If you want to combine ll (or lpls) you take at max. 4xlrm15 and even that its real hot. Tried it, as i tried the 4x20 and got back to simple 4xalrm15 with 4 mls for the best results the way i use my svn.

Edited by Kroete, 27 June 2018 - 12:16 PM.

[Novakaine]

I would humbly like to apologize for the past few weeks sheninigans.

[Nightbird]

LRMs are so OP, surprised so many newbies are still using direct fire.

[frumpylumps]

I agree with OP. Buffing lurms seemed like a dumb idea that reeks of obsessive compulsive disorder. There is nothing that says all weapon systems need to be relatively useful in high tier play. This ezmode indirect fire crap has no place in a competitive multiplayer shooter. The threat of lurms on the map forces players to huddle together behind tall obstacles the whole game and contributes to un-fun.

Lurm advocates always seem to fail to realize that although its true that you can avoid lurms by hiding behind a rock the whole game, you won't be able to accomplish much else in doing so and it isn't much fun.

Edited by frumpylumps, 27 June 2018 - 02:19 PM.

[The Blood God]

well we can see that some folks like em and some don't and that the 2 pilot types don't mix i feel a solo queue for lrmers and their maps and one for everything else would help both parties, no more lrmers crying about all the metas and no more crying about lrms from the everything else players, i think an lrm queue would do better than solaris did seen as people already play them a lot and it might help retain players too if they dont have to play their version of a bad map and game mode

[Kalimaster]

According to the damage counters, LRM's needed to be boosted so people would start using them instead of laser vomit.

Lasers get nerfed, LRM's buffed. Now people will stop yelling at the Devs about Laser vomit because lasers worked. Now LRM's work.

[James Argent]

Zibmo, on 27 June 2018 - 09:25 AM, said:

And yeah, I LOVE gimping the crap out of my mech to provide enough tonnage for AMS ammo for protecting Assaults.

By way of comparison, how much does a destroyed mech gimp your game?

[Quandoo]

LRMs were never underpowered, they were simply used the wrong way. You have to move with your team and focus mechs 300-500m away, not shoot over 1000m. After patch I can pull off 900-1000dmg each game with LRM80 if im in a good mood.

Edited by Quandoo, 27 June 2018 - 02:38 PM.

[XDevilsChariotX]

lrms are so bad we should just ask to remove them. would make everyone happy, no?

[Cato Phoenix]

There does seem to be a hell of a lot of lrm boats around these past couple weeks.

Still, though, aside from the occasionally painful spot you get in, they're still a bad weapon. Mostly I just sigh heavily if my teammates have a lot of lrms, because they're then usually sitting around not helping the team in any great respect.

[The Blood God]

https://clips.twitch...rlewNinjaGrumpy

a twitch clip of AMS doing its thing

Edited by The Blood God, 27 June 2018 - 02:50 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

Quandoo, on 27 June 2018 - 02:33 PM, said:

LRMs were never underpowered, they were simply used the wrong way. You have to move with your team and focus mechs 300-500m away, not shoot over 1000m. After patch I can pull off 900-1000dmg each game with LRM80 if im in a good mood.

That makes it a lbx with bad spread and a need for a lock.

It's kinda sad actually. The best way to use a long range, indirect fire weapon is to use it like a subpar direct fire weapon.

Yet some people think it's op.

And some people think that the people who think it's op are the same people who think it's terrible *cough* vellron *cough*.

I don't know which is a harder fail - the weapon or the intelligence of the community.

[HammerMaster]

Contrary to popular belief, LRM IS a direct fire weapon. Just because you CAN use it indirectly does not mean it is it's intended application. Hence it's far inferior efficacy when used as such. Stop insisting "oh it's indirect" now please.

Edited by HammerMaster, 27 June 2018 - 05:27 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

HammerMaster, on 27 June 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

Contrary to popular belief, LRM IS a direct fire weapon. Just because you CAN use it indirectly does not mean it is it's intended application. Hence it's far inferior efficacy when used as such. Stop insisting &quot;oh it's indirect&quot; now please.

Can you link me to a quote or article for an official stance regarding its "intended application"?

[HammerMaster]

Check source books. Lrm indirect fire rules are it's SECONDARY application.

[Tesunie]

HammerMaster, on 27 June 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

Check source books. Lrm indirect fire rules are it's SECONDARY application.

Yup. Basic rules for LRMs treat it like any other weapon in TT. Oh, and LRMs HURT in TT with direct fire.

[HammerMaster]

http://www.sarna.net...g_Range_Missile

[Wil McCullough]

HammerMaster, on 27 June 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

Check source books. Lrm indirect fire rules are it's SECONDARY application.

Source books have nothing on mwo weapons.

If we went by source books, clan lbx would have dual ammo systems, majority of acs wouldn't be single round shots, gauss wouldn't have charge up mechanics and more.

What you need to back uo your "intention" claim is a statement from pgi itself regarding the weapon's intent. Failing which your point doesn't have legs to stand on.

[Tesunie]

Wil McCullough, on 27 June 2018 - 06:08 PM, said:

Source books have nothing on mwo weapons.

If we went by source books, clan lbx would have dual ammo systems, majority of acs wouldn't be single round shots, gauss wouldn't have charge up mechanics and more.

What you need to back uo your "intention" claim is a statement from pgi itself regarding the weapon's intent. Failing which your point doesn't have legs to stand on.

You did ask "Can you link me to a quote or article for an official stance regarding its "intended application"?" Seen as this game is heavily based on TT, as well as lore from BT... that is a source or article about LRM's "intended application".

In TT, LRMs where better at direct fire. Far better than they were at indirect fire.