144 replies to this topic

[Lawrence Elsa]

A Headless Chicken, on 23 August 2018 - 01:49 AM, said:

i mean lets face it, none of the weapons in mwo require THAT much skill (if you use a mouse, and you should be using one) but LRM players who insist they are being useful firing at walls? just dead weight most of the time...

You broke character! MY IMMERSION REEEEEEE

[S t P a u l]

Quote

ATMs are dead

[Mystere]

Requiemking, on 22 August 2018 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nope, not at all. Artemis has lost the only upgrades that made it worth taking, resulting in mass nerfing of ATMs and Streaks, all apparently to make indirect mass LRM spamming less viable, only to do just the opposite.

The anti-LRM crowd seems to be so blinded by their hatred of the weapon they are unable to see this.

[Mystere]

A Headless Chicken, on 23 August 2018 - 01:49 AM, said:

i mean lets face it, none of the weapons in mwo require THAT much skill (if you use a mouse, and you should be using one) ...

The skill is in choosing not to use a mouse.

[Lethe Wyvern]

Mystere, on 23 August 2018 - 03:41 AM, said:

The skill is in choosing not to use a mouse.

The skill is in choosing to play the game via forum, and not using game client.
https://leaderboard....earch?u=Mystere

[Gen Lee]

People who prefer ballistics would be raising hell if blanket nerfs were introduced to their favorite weapons, such as machine guns introducing screen shake, with more shake added with each machine gun (making using 12 MGs shake the screen so much you can barely tell what you're looking at). Or how about a recoil that makes you inaccurate with other weapons such as lasers anytime ballistics other than MGs are used, like the Heavy Gauss. Imagine peoples' responses to all those ACs and UACs making their aim no longer perfectly static when firing, forcing them to to recover and aim again on a vertical level (I won't even get into horizontal yaw from firing from just one side of a mech). You'd see their effective damage drop pretty quick, especially at medium to long range.

You'd see a lot of people raising a lot of hell, and a lot of people quitting the game. Unfortunately, whenever one weapon type gets nerfed, you'll see people naturally gravitate towards other more reliable, and more effective, weapons. Whenever a new meta is fleshed out, you'll eventually see it too get nerfed. Then people gravitate towards the next best meta, which will also eventually get nerfed. I haven't been playing this game for years like some folks, but it doesn't take years to see how things work with PGI. You can see this cycle if you've been around for just one year or less.

Edited by Gen Lee, 23 August 2018 - 04:04 AM.

[Mystere]

Lethe Wyvern, on 23 August 2018 - 03:58 AM, said:

The skill is in choosing to play the game via forum, and not using game client.
https://leaderboard....earch?u=Mystere

You're heard of flying under the radar, right?

And speaking of flying: Alula.

Also, admit it, you're jelly of my 21K+ posts, right?

Edited by Mystere, 23 August 2018 - 04:11 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Lethe Wyvern, on 23 August 2018 - 03:58 AM, said:

The skill is in choosing to play the game via forum, and not using game client.
https://leaderboard....earch?u=Mystere

Maybe he's just huge into faction play, and thats why his stats aren't on the Jarl's list

I know I've played like 8 QP games this month because of all the FP events taking up my game time.

[Mystere]

Eisenhorne, on 23 August 2018 - 05:28 AM, said:

Maybe he's just huge into faction play, and thats why his stats aren't on the Jarl's list

I know I've played like 8 QP games this month because of all the FP events taking up my game time.

Nah! QP is the epitome of skill!

[Verilligo]

You know, even after reading the entire thread, I'm not sure if anyone actually understands the point of it. You can say, and certainly believe, that aggressive LRM play is a purely mythical beast. It probably is. But the option of playing it that way HAS been excised from the game.

The nerfs to Artemis ONLY apply to people that were getting their own locks and establishing LoS. They tightened the angle at which you can lock your missiles. Okay, so that means the closer you are, the more you have to move to keep up with a target's movement. That means you want to move further back with some mechs due to potentially having a poor twist angle or speed. Then they make it so that you don't gain the bonus to lock speed. That means if you're gaining your own locks, you have to expose yourself to potential return fire for longer, something which you don't have to worry about if you're using someone else's locks. Then they also stripped tracking strength, meaning your missiles don't track as well if your target can make sharper angled turns compared to where you're firing from, which is a lot easier to do when the LRM mech is closer. ALL THREE of these changes are only impactful to people who gain their own locks.

And why are they making these changes? Because players were gaining the benefits even when they weren't gaining their own locks by getting LoS on the target. And so rather than fixing how Artemis and missiles work by making it so that you DID have to gain LoS, they just stripped it from the system entirely. Sure, it's a nerf to both styles of play, but indirect fire mechs were WAY less impacted. Most of them probably don't even care, they just strip Artemis can carry more missiles. We are directly punishing GOOD play over bad.

[Jonathan8883]

Lock on missiles are dead to me. It's hard to even get a lock on a moving wolfhound (big target) at 400 meters. The window is so small...with direct LOS you basically have to be hitting with a laser already to lock on.

[Eisenhorne]

Jonathan8883, on 23 August 2018 - 07:57 AM, said:

Lock on missiles are dead to me. It's hard to even get a lock on a moving wolfhound (big target) at 400 meters. The window is so small...with direct LOS you basically have to be hitting with a laser already to lock on.

... you make it sound like that's an impossible task? I used plenty of LRM's yesterday, it was still trivially easy. If you're unable to track a target with a mouse like a Wolfhound at 400 meters, you really shouldn't be doing much damage anyway, because that's a pretty low bar for skill.

[K O Z A K]

I've noticed no difference whatsoever in ease of lrm use, it's still a job that can basically be done by really meh AI

like really, narcers are the only ones that actually do anything in a lrm team, you could have 2 narc players +10 AI lrm boats play against 12 players and I think it would look almost exactly the same as now

[Lukoi Banacek]

Mystere, on 23 August 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

The anti-LRM crowd seems to be so blinded by their hatred of the weapon they are unable to see this.

Less of an anti-LRM crowd, and more of a demographic that understands their inherent limitations and adjusts accordingly on this thread. Also, many of the commentors here seem to understand that sky is indeed not falling between the recent buffs and now these recent adjustments back to keep the weapon viable but not obnoxious. Oddly enough, this same demographic also wasn't ******** the bed over LRM being OP when the buffs came, as amusingly easy as they were to abuse because they still remembered the myriad of hard counters to them.

So when tryhard teams were absolutely crushing groups in FP and GQ, it had more to do with poking fun at the speed buffs and reinforcing the value of coordination/teamwork, and not that LRM were suddenly OP.

[Lances107]

Its a change to the mechanics.
/shrug

My problem with LRMS is first, the people that boat them do not share armor. Secondly the people that boat them mostly do not understand the concept they need to be used on targets in the open, as a result they waste most of there ammo. Thirdly people that boat them do not understand they are a limited tactical support weapon, and really only useful in certain circumstances. Fourthly the people that boat them boat them too much, and you end up getting stuck with a team that as too many LRM boats, and the result is you get rolled like a bad habit. Lastly the unforgivable sin of all time, the endless, unending, piss on everyone else spamming of bloody polar highlands.

[Lukoi Banacek]

When you play with folks who know how to run LRM to their strengths and absorb some of the risk of the team, you wont hate all of the LRM boaters out there.

[K O Z A K]

Lukoi Banacek, on 23 August 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

So when tryhard teams were absolutely crushing groups in FP and GQ, it had more to do with poking fun at the speed buffs and reinforcing the value of coordination/teamwork, and not that LRM were suddenly OP.

the jig is up, lol. It's amazing how many people missed this

[Mystere]

Lukoi Banacek, on 23 August 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

Less of an anti-LRM crowd, and more of a demographic that understands their inherent limitations and adjusts accordingly on this thread. Also, many of the commentors here seem to understand that sky is indeed not falling between the recent buffs and now these recent adjustments back to keep the weapon viable but not obnoxious. Oddly enough, this same demographic also wasn't ******** the bed over LRM being OP when the buffs came, as amusingly easy as they were to abuse because they still remembered the myriad of hard counters to them.

So when tryhard teams were absolutely crushing groups in FP and GQ, it had more to do with poking fun at the speed buffs and reinforcing the value of coordination/teamwork, and not that LRM were suddenly OP.

Hmm. Although you are correct, you're still going to have to point me to the lines where you refuted Requiemking's statement.

Unless of course your intent was just to pontificate.

Hazeclaw, on 23 August 2018 - 10:02 AM, said:

the jig is up, lol. It's amazing how many people missed this

Yep, you did miss it.

Edited by Mystere, 23 August 2018 - 10:37 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

My comment didn't need to refute Requiems comment at all, it stands on own.

As to his opinion that Artemis lost the only thing that made it worth taking, that's an entirely valid point of view whether I agree with it or not. The recent buffs and this week's nerfs taking in total in no way however, kill the viability of LRMs and I find them as easy to use and effective as they were previously with some minor adjustments to my playstyle to accommodate differences in lock on. Incidentally, since Artemis is meant to tighten grouping and that's what it does, I think it's useful if your build can utilize but it's not a necessity. Pro and con, seems legit to me.

Personally, I ran it on one of the very few mechs that I ran LRM on before this change, as it wasn't that integral to my playstyle to begin with.

Edited by Lukoi Banacek, 23 August 2018 - 10:47 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Put a CERLL in with my 3 CERMLs on the 4xLRM20 SNV I have. I have Artemis, no TC, but do have BAP.

It took less time to get a lock than it took the CERMLs or the ERLL to finish their burn.

If someone is complaining that they can no longer get a lock fast enough to use LRMs with LOS then they have just exactly identified why LRMs are called a low/no skill weapon. Every single player using direct fire weapons that involve lasers or any Clan ballistics manages to do this every time they pull the trigger and successfully kill mechs and win matches - in fact they're better at it consistently (as the leaderboard shows) for winning matches than any LRM focused player has ever been in the history of MWO.

I absolutely understand that part of the draw of LRMs has always been that you really didn't need to get very good to use them. Well, be comforted, you still don't. You probably do need to be a tiny bit better than you were before.

Oh cruel world.