453 replies to this topic

[Eisenhorne]

HammerMaster, on 23 August 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

1 guy does this and you tubes it.
So you do it. Come on. Do it!
Just like you see people solve Rubic's cube in 5 seconds. Well that means EVERYONE can now ya?
Stop using bad examples.

It's more like saying if a guy can do it with his foot, you should be expected to do with with your hand. LIke saying if a guy can solve a rubics cube in 5 seconds, someone else should be able to do it in a day. The task can still be done.

[Tiy0s]

HammerMaster, on 23 August 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

Not my god.

Then do your pray to Lurm God? Because I can tell you right now that he doesn't run lrms either. Also what would possibly make you want indirect or lock on weapons to be stronger than direct fire weapons? A game is supposed to be more rewarding the more skill you have. So the weapons that are harder to use should reward more for proper use. I suggest you learn to use weapons that are harder to use than LRMs, as God intended.

[Lawrence Elsa]

HammerMaster, on 23 August 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:

1 guy does this and you tubes it.
So you do it. Come on. Do it!
Just like you see people solve Rubic's cube in 5 seconds. Well that means EVERYONE can now ya?
Stop using bad examples.

So... you ARE aiming with your foot?

Brain Cancer, on 23 August 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

not sure if sarcasm
Generally not with low velocity weapons, no. If it's a high velocity one? Heck, my best aimed headshot kill was BRRRRTing a Battlemaster to death with UAC/2 fire at about 800m or so. But most people focus damage better up close than at near-nothing ranges. A bigger target (and of course slower) is an easier target, after all.

See? You can aim well with weapons capable of those ranges because of your own skill. Weapons after their max range in TT stop doing damage because they just don't have the velocity or beam focus to hurt. While I admit the AC/20 is difficult to land beyond 500 meters you really shouldn't be using it beyond 250 meters. Damage drop-off and whatnot

Even with C3 you can't go past max range, and if you're using a rule set that does well... good for you. Have fun bending reality in a table top game since I don't even know how you could bring that into this game.

[Albanus]

The Year is 3028

We have lasers, gauss weapons that fire projectiles larger than a needle, and rapid firing grand pappy size battleship cannons. Advancements in engineering allows us to mount them on huge f*** bots designed to shove it were the sun does not shine.

But for what ever reason, radar guided missile systems appear to function worse than their 20th century predecessors?

[Lawrence Elsa]

Albanus, on 23 August 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

The Year is 3028

We have lasers, gauss weapons that fire projectiles larger than a needle, and rapid firing grand pappy size battleship cannons. Advancements in engineering allows us to mount them on huge f*** bots designed to shove it were the sun does not shine.

But for what ever reason, radar guided missile systems appear to function worse than their 20th century predecessors?

Because it wouldn't be fun to sit in cover and wait for cruise missiles and orbital bombardments to win the battles for us when we have giant robots.

[Tiy0s]

Albanus, on 23 August 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

The Year is 3028

We have lasers, gauss weapons that fire projectiles larger than a needle, and rapid firing grand pappy size battleship cannons. Advancements in engineering allows us to mount them on huge f*** bots designed to shove it were the sun does not shine.

But for what ever reason, radar guided missile systems appear to function worse than their 20th century predecessors?

There's a very key detail you're forgetting. It's a video game. The goal isn't meant to be 100% accurate to reality, it's meant to be fun. If it was 100% accurate to reality, our lasers would not have a maximum range of 1800 meters if they were strong enough to melt through mech armor. They would go KILOMETERS. But people aren't advocating for that because that would require more skill than the slight nerf that people are getting now.

The purpose of a video game is meant to be fun. If you find sitting in the back with LRMs to be more fun than actually trying to hit something then I suggest you go find a game with a simpler control scheme and gameplay. I would recommend FTL but that would require way too much intelligence for your average LRM boater.

[Rhaezor]

First thing, you manage to nerf LRMs
Now seriously, its the ecm that is disgusting. You make it even more powerfull... several mechs with ecm, WHICH IS BECOMING VERY COMMON, 100% block targetting - As does those crap flags in the VIP mode and the radar jam - and you think this is fair? That some mech become useless with these jams and ecm? so you nerf them and boost ecm ...

Edited by Rhaezor, 23 August 2018 - 07:01 PM.

[Hiten Bongz]

Lawrence Elsa, on 23 August 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:

Because it wouldn't be fun to sit in cover and wait for cruise missiles and orbital bombardments to win the battles for us when we have giant robots.

Tiy0s, on 23 August 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

There's a very key detail you're forgetting. It's a video game. The goal isn't meant to be 100% accurate to reality, it's meant to be fun. If it was 100% accurate to reality, our lasers would not have a maximum range of 1800 meters if they were strong enough to melt through mech armor. They would go KILOMETERS. But people aren't advocating for that because that would require more skill than the slight nerf that people are getting now.

The purpose of a video game is meant to be fun. If you find sitting in the back with LRMs to be more fun than actually trying to hit something then I suggest you go find a game with a simpler control scheme and gameplay. I would recommend FTL but that would require way too much intelligence for your average LRM boater.

He was being slightly facetious to make a point. Chill out dudes.

[Brain Cancer]

Lawrence Elsa, on 23 August 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

See? You can aim well with weapons capable of those ranges because of your own skill. Weapons after their max range in TT stop doing damage because they just don't have the velocity or beam focus to hurt. While I admit the AC/20 is difficult to land beyond 500 meters you really shouldn't be using it beyond 250 meters. Damage drop-off and whatnot

Unless, of course you're using the Extreme Range rules. Then it's actually similar to MWO, since damage is reduced.

Quote

Even with C3 you can't go past max range, and if you're using a rule set that does well... good for you. Have fun bending reality in a table top game since I don't even know how you could bring that into this game.

See above. Given an evasive enough C3 slave carrier like a zooming hover/VTOL/WiGE or light, you can be dishing out damage at effectively medium range while at worse-than-long range (extreme range fire using C3 data is treated as one rangeband further than the closest target actually is), although not at full levels of firepower, and your carrier may be nearly impossible to hit in the process as it's lancemates pound your target of choice. I did say I'm used to fun tricks to break tabletop rules...

Heck, LRMs in MWO originally only had a 630m range, but since everything else in this game can fire past tabletop "long range" (and at accuracy levels that would shame elite pilots) with only reduced damage, they gave LRMs the equivalent of extreme range capacity without damage loss. Of course, it's still a slow projectile, so firing past 700m or so is giving most targets outside of Polar plenty of time to cover up.

Not surprisingly, most "lurms are EZmode" screenshots come from Polar, where the map is basically perfect for them to fire even at extreme ranges. I do wonder what would happen if they reverted to 630m range, which would mean they get the same base ranges as all other missiles in the game. (ATMs of course naturally get obscene reach, being able to 1-damage it at 810m in tabletop)

[Brain Cancer]

Albanus, on 23 August 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

But for what ever reason, radar guided missile systems appear to function worse than their 20th century predecessors?

Fluffwise, it's because ECM even in the era of lostech was good enough to baffle complex guidance systems, leading to more robustly resistant but simpler and "dumber" ones being used. Antimissile capacity also pointed more towards saturation fire versus single larger missiles, which is why the Thunderbolt launcher wasn't super-popular even when it was developed around MWO's point in the timeline.

Mind you, LRMs are actually dumber than tabletop, as they require constant target data from a friendly unit to maintain lock and guidance. In tabletop, even base LRM systems get target data loaded before launch and can continue to track a target even if the original unit lacks or loses further sensor data, albeit with lower accuracy. Artemis is a system that basically quasi-TAG's the target and can feed updates that fine-tune the LRMs own basic systems (and the ammo is more expensive because of it, but like that matters in MWO). NARC in MWO originally fell off after X amount of damage, but proved to be utterly not worth it at that point since one salvo could literally turn it off before even a second unit's fire hit the thing, leading to the gradual upgrades into the thing we have now.

[Lawrence Elsa]

Hiten Bongz, on 23 August 2018 - 07:02 PM, said:

He was being slightly facetious to make a point. Chill out dudes.

And the point he's trying to make is what we disagree with.

[Kirito Kerenksy]

Lawrence Elsa, on 23 August 2018 - 10:22 PM, said:

And the point he's trying to make is what we disagree with.

Don't bother, they're just gonna keep finding new ways to say "This isn't like the lore" and the only thing you need to tell them is what I said ad-nauseam.

The meme is dead and the cows have been milked dry, go home.

[Kroete]

Bennesto, on 22 August 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Well... LRM users can't aim and don't want to. That is the whole deal.

Do you have a cure for a stroke and the problems i have after it?

I dont like the nerf for direct fire and that not much changed for indirect fire.
I dont want to be a skillless indirect massspammer,
but you and other posters cried enough thats the only option left.

Edited by Kroete, 24 August 2018 - 02:56 AM.

[Reposter]

I use quite a lot of Artemis LRMs and they did not super perform in the 1900+ games I played. Smart fix, make TCs help LRMs, Artemis LRMs and Streak SRMs. I do not know who uses a lot of MRMs but some sort of TC buff without trying to imbalance the weapon may or may not work.

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Arkhangel, on 23 August 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:

fact is, if you wanna be a lurmer, you need to learn to grow a pair and stick with the team, not hide way in the back and promptly get your butt handed to you when a flanking light eats your only-LRM mech.

Getting tired of being lumped in with the V pushing autocannon users.

[Eisenhorne]

Bwah Ha Ha, on 24 August 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

Getting tired of being lumped in with the V pushing autocannon users.

consider that "LRM users" who claim to specialize in using LRM's are lower than "v pushing autocannon users" in terms of skill.

Kroete, on 24 August 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Do you have a cure for a stroke and the problems i have after it?

I dont like the nerf for direct fire and that not much changed for indirect fire.
I dont want to be a skillless indirect massspammer,
but you and other posters cried enough thats the only option left.

I'm sorry you had a stroke, but unless PGI can confirm that all LRM users have had strokes, it's too easy to use. I've had games where I sit still, barely move, and score 1,000 + damage with LRMs. It's disproportionate success for the effort it requires on my part.

[Brain Cancer]

What I wonder about is how people consider damage = "success".

C'mon, folks. We all know that LRMs spread damage like mad, and even more so (until now) firing indirect since no Artemis without LOS. I mean, if you're regularly mowing down half the team with LRM fire, you're brutal.

I'm still waiting for people to actually start whining about their team NOT bringing AMS like noobs, which would mark the point of an actual lurmageddon. It never happened.

[Arkhangel]

Brain Cancer, on 24 August 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

What I wonder about is how people consider damage = "success".

C'mon, folks. We all know that LRMs spread damage like mad, and even more so (until now) firing indirect since no Artemis without LOS. I mean, if you're regularly mowing down half the team with LRM fire, you're brutal.

I'm still waiting for people to actually start whining about their team NOT bringing AMS like noobs, which would mark the point of an actual lurmageddon. It never happened.

Yeah, honestly, what shows you're a successful pilot is doing LESS damage and still killing killing targets, because it shows you're efficient and precise which getting kills, for instance, headshotting Annihilators, which is actually pretty easy to do if you can aim at all, or STing Clan Omnis, as they're stuck with Clan XLs, and hardly ever have remotely the same armor on the STs as the CT.

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Eisenhorne, on 24 August 2018 - 05:31 AM, said:

consider that "LRM users" who claim to specialize in using LRM's are lower than "v pushing autocannon users" in terms of skill.

r

That's funny considering the team you were on last night utterly obliterated us in our attack in siege with lrms.

[Z Paradox]

this is a team game, I dont mind losing 6 tons for Narc + ammo on my Rvn-3l (and some armor when i use narc) so my team can win. and if we dont have Lrm-s, knowing enemy location is helping. you dont like QP game?... make unit and play with ppl that dont use Lrm... No problem that way.

and who give a f***, play what you want... this is just a game.