377 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

https://media.giphy....veBs4/giphy.gif

[Wil McCullough]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

I actually find LRMs to be "easy to use" but "very hard to master" weapons. To just use them (get lock, spam shots) isn't all that hard. To use them to their effectiveness on the other hand (make sure they aren't blocked by a hills/buildings, will the missiles land before they get into cover, is it worth thowing bells and whistles into their ears to keep them under cover, etc) takes a lot more work than many people realize. (Predicting arcs of the missiles ls a lot harder typically than "can I see them" is. LRMs you have to think as much vertical as you do horizontal. Most direct fire weapons, you only need to worry about horizontal/directly in front of your guns.)

So, once again, it kinda depends upon what you expect out of the weapon. Spray and pray? Yup, low skill then. Actual contributing fire? A bit more difficult.

there's no point mastering them because how effective they are at the end mainly depends on how bad your opponents are, not how good you are with them.

you plateau really quickly with lurms and no matter how great your skill with lurms are, an equally skilled opponent will tear you apart with direct damage. basically, after a while it ceases to matter how good you are with lurms. which is why it's a low skill ceiling weapon.

HammerMaster, on 28 June 2018 - 07:02 AM, said:

Tide pods are intended to be used in my washing machine. Gen Z finds it better to consume them and be sickened. Should we balance Tide pods for Gen Z eating them or keep them as intended washing my drawers?

there's a big difference between eating tide pods and arguing that lurms are mainly an indirect fire, long range weapon.

you may as well be arguing that phones are for communication and cameras are for photos so people who take photos with their phones are the equivalent of tide pod eaters.

you're making yourself look stupid.

[HammerMaster]

How's that soap taste?

[Leone]

Wil McCullough, on 28 June 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

you plateau really quickly with lurms and no matter how great your skill with lurms are, an equally skilled opponent will tear you apart with direct damage. basically, after a while it ceases to matter how good you are with lurms. which is why it's a low skill ceiling weapon.

You are incorrect. Stop thinking like it's a 1v1 duel. Consider the overall battle. Consider the sheer amount of battlefield control indirect fire and range can give me. I have twelve opponents out there, and whilst yes, 1v1 direct fire has the advantage in a shoot out, I'm not just thinking about you. I'm considering my entire opposition, as well as how to best assist my team. LRMs give me options direct fire doesn't.

Long Range Missiles are easy to pick up, Yes, but they are also very hard to master. Just because you have hit a plateau doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 28 June 2018 - 07:34 AM.

[Michelle Branch]

HammerMaster, on 28 June 2018 - 06:55 AM, said:

https://en.m.wikiped...ell_OH-58_Kiowa
BTW. The infantry hates anyone not infantry.
Non-infantry thinks infantry is troglodytes.
All other non-infantry supports infantry whether they like it or not.11B!

I could never spell the stupid thing right. Oh well.
Rally on me in hell.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 28 June 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

there's no point mastering them because how effective they are at the end mainly depends on how bad your opponents are, not how good you are with them.

you plateau really quickly with lurms and no matter how great your skill with lurms are, an equally skilled opponent will tear you apart with direct damage. basically, after a while it ceases to matter how good you are with lurms. which is why it's a low skill ceiling weapon.

Considering the state of the solo MM, it's an acceptable risk. At the very least, playing with a full HOTAS plus iPad setup on an RS1 is fun. I no longer play MWO any other way -- if I'm even bothered to, that is.

And when there is an event, oh my!

Edited by Mystere, 28 June 2018 - 08:07 AM.

[Tom Sawyer]

If people still cared about the titles you can earn.....

Blot out the sun: Fire 20 million missiles

Fight in the shade: Destroy 10 million missiles

[Verilligo]

Mystere, on 28 June 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

I was actually just asking a very simple question for clarification purposes.

There's a small text blurb towards the top of the wiki before you get to individual weapon specs that calls LRMs "indirect fire weapons." That's what he's talking about. It's not misinformation, either, LRMs ARE indirect fire weapons. They're also direct fire weapons. Because every weapon can be fired with some degree of directness. But they are basically the only indirect fire weapon in the game that isn't a consumable.

In regards to Vellron... I think there's a disconnect here between what you think anti-LRM players are saying and what we're actually saying. We aren't hating on LRMs because we want them to be terrible and make everyone that uses them feel bad. We hate on LRMs because we want them to be BETTER, more widely useful, and more encouraging of good gameplay.

[Kubernetes]

Leone, on 28 June 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

Long Range Missiles are easy to pick up, Yes, but they are also very hard to master.
~Leone.

No, they're really not. If you know your mech and the maps, that's pretty much it.

[Lykaon]

Wil McCullough, on 28 June 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

there's no point mastering them because how effective they are at the end mainly depends on how bad your opponents are, not how good you are with them.

you plateau really quickly with lurms and no matter how great your skill with lurms are, an equally skilled opponent will tear you apart with direct damage. basically, after a while it ceases to matter how good you are with lurms. which is why it's a low skill ceiling weapon.



there's a big difference between eating tide pods and arguing that lurms are mainly an indirect fire, long range weapon.

you may as well be arguing that phones are for communication and cameras are for photos so people who take photos with their phones are the equivalent of tide pod eaters.

you're making yourself look stupid.

To address your first points.

At high levels of play LRMs require tight cooperation to be competative. The perspective you seem to be coming from is an "army of one" scenario where your LRM users is not in a team supporting the use of the LRM assets.

Recently for kicks my 4 player group dropped in the group queue with a pair of dedicated LRM carriers a dedicated spotter with NARC and my mech used to screen and defend the LRM boats,a dedicate close range brawler.

Our opfor included some well regarded players known for being skilled and proficient. But,they got their collective behinds handed to them because we skillfully applied cooperation to maximize the performance of the LRMs (mostly terrible weapons when not team supported) and achieved a landslide 12-1 win with both the LRM carriers securing over 1000 damage each and combined 8 kills between them.

The use of properly coordinated and supported LRMs is so rare in upper tier play that "skilled" players are not overly familular with counter play techniques.

At that level of play the "skill" is in effective team coordination over individual "skills"

With that being said,LRMs are still not very good considering the amount of support needed by team mates to leverage their effectiveness. We would have been better off using a less "one trick pony" group build to remain flexible and individually more independent within the team.



And....

"One picture is worth a thousand words"

Pictures are for communication,thus a phone with a camera is a multi function communication device that supports the transmission of text,audio and video/imaging .

Sort of like LRMs are suppose to be long range weapons AND indirect fire suppression artillery. A multi function weapon system.

[S O L A I S]

Lykaon, on 28 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

To address your first points.

At high levels of play LRMs require tight cooperation to be competative. The perspective you seem to be coming from is an "army of one" scenario where your LRM users is not in a team supporting the use of the LRM assets.

Recently for kicks my 4 player group dropped in the group queue with a pair of dedicated LRM carriers a dedicated spotter with NARC and my mech used to screen and defend the LRM boats,a dedicate close range brawler.

Our opfor included some well regarded players known for being skilled and proficient. But,they got their collective behinds handed to them because we skillfully applied cooperation to maximize the performance of the LRMs (mostly terrible weapons when not team supported) and achieved a landslide 12-1 win with both the LRM carriers securing over 1000 damage each and combined 8 kills between them.

The use of properly coordinated and supported LRMs is so rare in upper tier play that "skilled" players are not overly familular with counter play techniques.

At that level of play the "skill" is in effective team coordination over individual "skills"

With that being said,LRMs are still not very good considering the amount of support needed by team mates to leverage their effectiveness. We would have been better off using a less "one trick pony" group build to remain flexible and individually more independent within the team.



And....

"One picture is worth a thousand words"

Pictures are for communication,thus a phone with a camera is a multi function communication device that supports the transmission of text,audio and video/imaging .

Sort of like LRMs are suppose to be long range weapons AND indirect fire suppression artillery. A multi function weapon system.

Many things could have occurred in the match you describe yet you attribute it to high skill lurming.

I don't buy it.

In CW it is not uncommon to see skilled players using lurms properly and with support. On a couple of maps it is almost viable. However if the other guys are similarly skilled, the team with direct fire usually wins. That is a constant the has been around this game for the years I have been playing it.

As far as better players not being familiar with lrm counters? That's nonsense. Lurms are everywhere, and a skilled player could not be called a skilled player if he was dying to lurms all the time under any circumstance.

[Wil McCullough]

Lykaon, on 28 June 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

To address your first points.

At high levels of play LRMs require tight cooperation to be competative. The perspective you seem to be coming from is an "army of one" scenario where your LRM users is not in a team supporting the use of the LRM assets.

Recently for kicks my 4 player group dropped in the group queue with a pair of dedicated LRM carriers a dedicated spotter with NARC and my mech used to screen and defend the LRM boats,a dedicate close range brawler.

Our opfor included some well regarded players known for being skilled and proficient. But,they got their collective behinds handed to them because we skillfully applied cooperation to maximize the performance of the LRMs (mostly terrible weapons when not team supported) and achieved a landslide 12-1 win with both the LRM carriers securing over 1000 damage each and combined 8 kills between them.

The use of properly coordinated and supported LRMs is so rare in upper tier play that "skilled" players are not overly familular with counter play techniques.

At that level of play the "skill" is in effective team coordination over individual "skills"

With that being said,LRMs are still not very good considering the amount of support needed by team mates to leverage their effectiveness. We would have been better off using a less "one trick pony" group build to remain flexible and individually more independent within the team.



And....

"One picture is worth a thousand words"

Pictures are for communication,thus a phone with a camera is a multi function communication device that supports the transmission of text,audio and video/imaging .

Sort of like LRMs are suppose to be long range weapons AND indirect fire suppression artillery. A multi function weapon system.

To address the other guy as well:

Lurms don't show up in the wc which is the highest level.of play there is at the moment.

High level play stresses a lot of things contrary to the lurm ideology, which is focus fire and good trades. It's quite neanderthal but it works very effectively - deal more damage where it counts in every instance. That's why firing lines and concaves are used.

Lurms CAN function in a firing line but they lose out to direct fire weappns because of their low projectile speed, lock requirement and damage spread.

In a situation where lurms are allowed to deal massive indirect damage, the other team can simply not allow it by taking out the spotter. With consumables allowed, airstrikes can do the indirrct lurm's job more safely, effectively, more.sneakily and with an aoe. And every mech cab carry two.

As for the camera phone point, i'm simply using hammermaster's argument back at him. He thinks because lurms are "traditionally" a direct fire weapon, indirect fire lurmers are tide pod eaters because tide pods are used for washing and youngsters are instead munching on them. Well, going by that argument, phones are traditionally communication devices not cameras so everyone who takes photos with phones are tide pod eaters as well. It sounds stupid because it is a stupid argument and stance to take.

Jeez i feel like nev culleton explaing cyanide and happiness jokes.

[Tesunie]

Wil McCullough, on 28 June 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

there's no point mastering them because how effective they are at the end mainly depends on how bad your opponents are, not how good you are with them.

you plateau really quickly with lurms and no matter how great your skill with lurms are, an equally skilled opponent will tear you apart with direct damage. basically, after a while it ceases to matter how good you are with lurms. which is why it's a low skill ceiling weapon.

There is, if for nothing else than for fun.

However, there are a lot of tactics that one can use LRMs for within a single match. I love them on my jumping mechs, particularly mediums, where I take a reasonable amount of LRMs with a reasonable amount of direct fire. I use the LRMs for tactical flexibility in how I approach my opponents.

One of my favorite things I like to do is to jump over a ridge of some kind, shoot with my direct fire weapons as I gain an LRM missile lock, then pop the missiles out just before I fall back into cover. Can get some really good alphas on people that way, and they often times don't have any recourse but to eat the missiles bombarding into them (as I'm typically too close for them to effectively react). It's a rather low heat addition to my direct fire weapon option.

I'll also use those same LRMs at another point where we might be pushing through a choke point, where people are bunched all up behind one another. I can get a lock on someone and the LRMs can shoot over my bunched up teammates.

Then, if I start to become heavily damaged and risk blowing up if spotted and shot at again, I might switch to a more indirect role to continue to deal damage where otherwise I would die with little more effect. This tends to benefit my team, as I've done enough armor sharing to make a difference by that point, and instead of just dropping over dead I have options to continue to fight and influence the battle (via damage and "terror"). It has been the difference between defeat and victory enough times to make it a viable consideration.

Mind, I'm not running in LRM boats, but mechs far more like my Huntsmen (one of my best mechs in my opinion).

I take LRMs for their utility. I also find that I'm really good with my LRM builds. I'm one of the few people in my unit that can change over to an LRM mech and have no one protest. (My specific company within my unit don't like people using LRMs, but I've kinda proven to them that I'm not going to just hide in the back on them.)

I'm not going to say I'm a comp player (far from it), but I do very well with LRMs. I even have some screen shots with end of match scores where I was in an LRM based mech and I did very well against some comp teams.

Overall, I find LRMs to be a low skill entry, but high skill level to effectively use. It also depends upon what you expect to get out of the weapon system and how you intend to use it. Also... there is the intangible measurement of "fun" to be considered as well. I enjoy playing LRMs a lot, and I tend to have better W/L rates on my LRM based mechs.

Verilligo, on 28 June 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

In regards to Vellron... I think there's a disconnect here between what you think anti-LRM players are saying and what we're actually saying. We aren't hating on LRMs because we want them to be terrible and make everyone that uses them feel bad. We hate on LRMs because we want them to be BETTER, more widely useful, and more encouraging of good gameplay.

There are many out there who do want LRMs to be better, but there are also just as many who berate anyone who uses or supports the use of LRMs as well. If I really wished to dig, I could show you some "new player help" threads about LRMs where, instead of answering the new player's questions, people went off on them about LRMs and to "never use them".

So sadly... there are people who just want to hate LRMs and anyone who use them.

Why, one match I literally had a MC MKII follow another MC MKII an entire match. One was set up as an LRM primary mech (I didn't see his build, but he was boating those LRMs), and was doing his thing in the back (too far in my opinion, but he was doing "typical LRMing" tactics). The direct fire only MC MKII, after standing out of the fight the WHOLE match, decided to blow out the leg of his own teammate simply because "he has LRMs and is being a detriment to the team". THAT is how much some people HATE LRMs. (However, he got a large tongue lashing from the rest of the team for his actions, as every one of us saw the LRM user as at least trying to be helpful, compared to the LRM hater.)

Kubernetes, on 28 June 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

No, they're really not. If you know your mech and the maps, that's pretty much it.

Hehehe... Don't meet me then where you think you are safe from LRMs. I've been known to LRM under the docks of Crimson (it is possible), inside the HPG "zapper/basement" as well as within the confines of the new Solaris City map. It is very possible to LRM on every map in the game. Some just provide... interesting challenges...

That is the difference between someone who knows how to use LRMs effectively, and those who don't. Also, I bring alternative weapons as well, and enough of them to be a threat even if my LRMs are not. So even face huggers need to be a little weary of me, which is also the difference between using LRMs and boating LRMs.

This is not saying that mech types and maps (and tactics) don't have an influence, of course. Nor am I trying to say that LRMs "are the best weapon in the game", because they aren't. But... they have their uses and can be effective.

[S O L A I S]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

This is not saying that mech types and maps (and tactics) don't have an influence, of course. Nor am I trying to say that LRMs "are the best weapon in the game", because they aren't. But... they have their uses and can be effective.

There's lots of reasons to hate lurms. They are not really that effective is one of them. They are situational and basically a gamble. Outside of that you even recognise that lurming from the back is a common trait.

All that said in quick play it seems to be a ridiculous amount of people using them and having fun.

[Wil McCullough]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

There is, if for nothing else than for fun.

Yep the rule of cool. I find lurms fun too but they're objectively really meh.

I suspect half the fun stems from how underpowered they are. They're the mwo version of pommel throwing to End Them Rightly.

I still stand by the argument that doing well with lurms is something your opponent allows. What i noticed when i played was that.in games where my lurmboat did well, i would have done better with direct-fire. In other words, it is a purely supplementary weapon. It makes you win that much harder in games you're already winning and make you lose harder in games you're already losing.

[Mr Steinbrenner]

Ok plodder assaults sitting at the back are topping damage and kills pretty consistently now. sorry but thats not good, lurms need a nerf.

[Kubernetes]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Hehehe... Don't meet me then where you think you are safe from LRMs. I've been known to LRM under the docks of Crimson (it is possible), inside the HPG "zapper/basement" as well as within the confines of the new Solaris City map. It is very possible to LRM on every map in the game. Some just provide... interesting challenges...

Yes, I'm aware that you can use LRMs in covered spaces under certain ranges. Those are definitely "make do with what you have" situations, and vastly inferior to direct fire. I've run LRMs a fair amount, so I know what they're capable of doing. Hell, I've run entire matches just dead-firing and never using lock.

I do admit it can be fun, but it's a mindless, deceptive fun--much of it is derived from a schadenfreude-esque joy at imagining that your opponent is panicked and helpless. It's fun late at night when I'm tired, but that's about it. What's not fun is endlessly chaining LRM15s at an open-CT assault only 300m away and watching it not die, meanwhile a Mist Lynx runs up and machine guns it to death in less than a second. The inability to land precise or concentrated damage where and when you want makes it inferior to direct fire in most situations.(It would be neat if Narc or Tag made 80% of missiles hit center mass--that would really change things.)

Edited by Kubernetes, 28 June 2018 - 07:24 PM.

[Tesunie]

S O L A I S, on 28 June 2018 - 06:37 PM, said:

There's lots of reasons to hate lurms. They are not really that effective is one of them. They are situational and basically a gamble. Outside of that you even recognise that lurming from the back is a common trait.

All that said in quick play it seems to be a ridiculous amount of people using them and having fun.

LRMing from WAY BACK is common... too common... and often not good...

Wil McCullough, on 28 June 2018 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yep the rule of cool. I find lurms fun too but they're objectively really meh.

I suspect half the fun stems from how underpowered they are. They're the mwo version of pommel throwing to End Them Rightly.

I still stand by the argument that doing well with lurms is something your opponent allows. What i noticed when i played was that.in games where my lurmboat did well, i would have done better with direct-fire. In other words, it is a purely supplementary weapon. It makes you win that much harder in games you're already winning and make you lose harder in games you're already losing.

My LRM based mechs statistically seem to have better overall W/L than my direct fire only builds, over the course of hundreds of matches in those mechs.

If you don't mind a bit of stats thrown in (which only apply to me, not to what everyone else might achieve). I'm going to only present mechs with long standing builds for 100+ matches.
LRM mechs:
Huntsmen A, 124 matches played, 1.21 W/L
Huntsmen Prime (S), 148 matches played, 1.24 W/L (Excluding mixed stats of the normal Prime, which is direct fire.)
Hunchback 4J, 126 matches played, 1.23 W/L
Mad Dog Prime, 81 matches played, 0.78
Thunderbolt 5S, 88 matches played, 1.38 W/L

Direct fire only mechs:
Crab 27B, 211 matches played, 0.89 W/L
Huntsmen B, 147 matches played, 0.99 W/L (Was ranked on the Huntsmen event leaderboard back in the day)
Huntsmen Pakhet. 249 matches played, 1.37 W/L
Linebacker Prime, 81 matches played, 0.93 W/L
Marauder 3R, 80 matches played, 1.05 W/L
Nova B, 112 matches played, 0.58 W/L (Is a mirror build of the Huntmen

Overall, my LRM based mechs appear to have better W/L averages. So I'd dare to actually argue that LRMs (when used effectively) can help win matches, or have as much of a chance to impact winning positively as they can negatively as much as any other weapon can.

Mr Steinbrenner, on 28 June 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

Ok plodder assaults sitting at the back are topping damage and kills pretty consistently now. sorry but thats not good, lurms need a nerf.

How might you suggest to nerf them then? I mean, more than they already are considering AMS, ECM, radar deprivation...

If you are going to suggest they be nerfed, it might not be a bad idea to say why and what you think might be the aspect in need of a nerf.

[Wil McCullough]

My stats tell the opposite story.

My lurmdogs are at sub 1.0 wlr and kdr but my direct damage mechs are all positive. Highest wlr is 2.4 in my madiic and highest kdr is 3.5 in my arctic cheetah.

Anecdotal evidence us anecdotal though.

[Yosharian]

I don't know what's worse, that LRM spammers feel special and/or skilled because they can hit potatoes, or the potatoes that are getting killed by LRMs that actually think the weapon system is anywhere near 'good'.

LRMs are trash, if you die to them or take massive damage from them consistently then you are just a bad player or your builds suck, I'm sorry but there it is. Even Assaults should not fear LRMs that much.