133 replies to this topic

[Dago Red]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 30 September 2018 - 07:45 AM, said:

I've seen too many lrm assaults with about 98% armor left mid game, who "agressively" sitting in cover and "tactically" lobbing lurms onto the first best friendly which appears. No thanks. I'd rather run my NARC/LRM deck with friends then cater towards the quickplay LRM crowd.

Also, who's affected by the lock on changes? Like how bad has someones aim to be that they can't even lock on anymore. That's pretty much in the realm of physical disability.

The Artemis nerf and ECM buff can add some pretty serious amounts of time to effective locking.

The lock on angle nerf is almost unnoticeable.

[HammerMaster]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 30 September 2018 - 07:45 AM, said:

I've seen too many lrm assaults with about 98% armor left mid game, who "agressively" sitting in cover and "tactically" lobbing lurms onto the first best friendly which appears. No thanks. I'd rather run my NARC/LRM deck with friends then cater towards the quickplay LRM crowd.

Also, who's affected by the lock on changes? Like how bad has someones aim to be that they can't even lock on anymore. That's pretty much in the realm of physical disability.

Now THAT is disingenuous. (maybe RUDE is more appropriate)

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 September 2018 - 08:08 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

Novakaine, on 30 September 2018 - 07:31 AM, said:

He's seen it before because he's played with me often enough to know.
Really nice guy though and everyone is entitled to his opinion.
If I'm running my Stalker 5M I have to close the range of my med lasers and SRM's.
304 to 350 meters to maximize to my firepower.
So with the massive ECM and AMS presence on the battlefield.
It's a stealth nerf in itself.
Which means you have to account for the totality of the battlefield environment.
So now it's not the best for lurmers unless you troll.
And I stand by that comment.
"Ya play the game you take your chances."
But now it's just an exercise in frustration.

Nova, I think we have a fundamental difference in understanding when it comes to what is effective, and what is not. It's my firm belief that "effective" means "most effective option at a specific range", and then you just do your best to stay at that optimal range where you are able to bring your weapons to bear. So, by that definition, any stalker with medium lasers, SRMs, and LRMs cannot be considered effective, because it's trying to do too many things at once. It should either stick to close range, and swap the LRMs for SRMs, or stick to long range and go large lasers, or dedicate to LRMs and just use LRMs.

Any mech that tries to fill multiple roles ends up doing none of them very well.

* edit - And I have seen LRM mechs try to be more aggressive... they just generally end up dying very fast and doing sub 300 damage in quick play, or sub 1000 damage total in faction play, which I consider fairly ineffective compared to the alternatives.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 30 September 2018 - 08:31 AM.

[Horseman]

Dago Red, on 30 September 2018 - 08:01 AM, said:

The lock on angle nerf is almost unnoticeable.

On the contrary, it's huge.

[Dago Red]

Horseman, on 30 September 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

On the contrary, it's huge.

SUBJECTIVE!

Edited by Dago Red, 01 October 2018 - 01:36 AM.

[Ssamout]

HammerMaster, on 30 September 2018 - 07:59 AM, said:

By no means is it a "LITTLE" nerf.
Too many factors came together for an OVERALL knocking down of a few pegs for LRM use.
AMS buffs. (which I'm fine with because LRMHaters SHOULD be mounting them)
ECM buff (Filth plain and simple. Range wise is fine but ECM implementation is plain wrong)
TWO (2) nerfs to lock cone/angle
Lock on time nerfs (due to Artemis nerf)

Yeah, isnt it fun to find out that the way you have played this game for a long long time is suddenly nerfed? You can imagine how for example people using clan pulse lasers or gauss+ppc's have felt when their weapon systems were gimped.

I can sure feel balance in the air!

[B L O O D W I T C H]

HammerMaster, on 30 September 2018 - 08:01 AM, said:

Now THAT is disingenuous. (maybe RUDE is more appropriate)

It's the opposite of disingenuous, i am just presenting my honest opinon (hench it appears rude).
It is purely based on what kind of LRM "gameplay" i'm encountering in quickplay. It is quite literally a minimal effort gameplay. Sit in cover, wait for red dorito, roughly point curso on said red dorito and hold down the mousebutton.
That is subjective 95% of all LRM gameplay, the rumored "aggressive LRM player" is the absolute minority i'm encountering.

Imho, passive locks should get nerfed even harder, like really hard. Active locks should get buffed.

LRM warriors need to get their comfy zone reevaluated.
Minimum effort should translate into minimum results. It's just rude towards the part of your team which is actually actively engaged and trying to obtain said locks lrm warriors leech on.

I don't think some folks have realized how potent lrms can be.
While we're at it, i can tell you what's rude. Get the right enemy on polar, get narced and embrace an lrm 600 (yes six hundred) volley. The kind of volley which literally melts annilators in one go. Now THAT is rude.
I've honestly getting legit framedrops (80 fps on max settings) when someone is doing "serious" lrm spam.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 30 September 2018 - 10:24 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Eisenhorne, on 29 September 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

I have literally never seen tactical and aggressive LRM use be effective in a game. I'm not joking. I've never seen it. Only on these forums is it discussed.

That's when your team is pushing up and driving the win and you have to really hustle to leech your damage from the back with LRMs and get even a single kill steal.

I've played with Novakaine before and he plays from the front and plays direct fire plenty often. I've seen players LRM from reasonably close -

Just that if you're that close direct fire is flat out better.

Edited by MischiefSC, 30 September 2018 - 10:55 AM.

[Variant1]

oh no an op system was nerfed! and its still being used. the same weapon system responsible for losing a ton of mwo player base ever since lrmagedon. And aparently those that dont like lrms are aparently the "anti lrm fascists group" so where resorting to name calling now? Lrms should have been nerfed but not direct fire playstyle to it, heck they shouldnt have buffed it to begin with then this nerf wouldnt have happened. And those posting anti lrm threads arent trolls, lrms have been the most problematic/controversial weapon system since the begining of the game. Even after this nerf the number of lrm boats i encounter is still the same, so this nerf didnt do much for the "worst" weapon system.

[HammerMaster]

Ssamout, on 30 September 2018 - 09:19 AM, said:

Yeah, isnt it fun to find out that the way you have played this game for a long long time is suddenly nerfed? You can imagine how for example people using clan pulse lasers or gauss+ppc's have felt when their weapon systems were gimped.

I can sure feel balance in the air!

While you have a hint of a point, I have no sympathy for people for Link Nerfs when we have a pinpoint alpha problem.
LRMs are spread type and a different issue.
MOVE ON.

Toha Heavy Industries, on 30 September 2018 - 09:19 AM, said:

It's the opposite of disingenuous, i am just presenting my honest opinon (hench it appears rude).
It is purely based on what kind of LRM "gameplay" i'm encountering in quickplay. It is quite literally a minimal effort gameplay. Sit in cover, wait for red dorito, roughly point curso on said red dorito and hold down the mousebutton.
That is subjective 95% of all LRM gameplay, the rumored "aggressive LRM player" is the absolute minority i'm encountering.

Imho, passive locks should get nerfed even harder, like really hard. Active locks should get buffed.

LRM warriors need to get their comfy zone reevaluated.
Minimum effort should translate into minimum results. It's just rude towards the part of your team which is actually actively engaged and trying to obtain said locks lrm warriors leech on.

I don't think some folks have realized how potent lrms can be.
While we're at it, i can tell you what's rude. Get the right enemy on polar, get narced and embrace an lrm 600 (yes six hundred) volley. The kind of volley which literally melts annilators in one go. Now THAT is rude.
I've honestly getting legit framedrops (80 fps on max settings) when someone is doing "serious" lrm spam.

THIS I agree with.
IN LOS LRM BUFF (Insta lock, more direct flight path, HIGH VELOCITY)
OUT OF LOS LRM NERF (Long lock, Large arc, HUGE SPREAD,Slower Velocity{pre buff speed})
Remove Free C3. (out of LOS lock depends on tag/NARC, dedicated spotting {needs new mechanic})
The sit back LRMer is one WE ARE ALL RAILING AGAINST.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 September 2018 - 11:50 AM.

[LordNothing]

Lykaon, on 29 September 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

A forward positioned LRM carrier can and frequently is a force multiplier. A frequent occurance is having more mechs pressing an attack than can reliably utilize a firelane.

Literally direct fire weapons are impossible to fire because your teammates are blocking. Forward aggressive LRM use does not have this problem because LRMs will arc over the vanguard and still technically be fired with LoS and with TAG on occation (accidently raking a team mate with TAG while targeting through the line is harmless. as is near pointblank friendly fire if a team mate does block the launchers)

A skillful tactician can use this forward position to select targets of priority to improve the success of the vanguard (suppressing/blinding/softening targets of choice)

Well at least I used to do this . I havn't touched LRMs with any faith that this is even a reliable option anymore for months.

when i still used lrms, i mostly used them in mixed builds (i have fond memories of both clan and is highlanders). just when they were about to call me a worthless lerm assault, id pop em square in the torso with an ac20 or a couple uac10s. i also have backup lasers for when i run out of ammo, essential on a mixed build. i find those players who brag about absurd ammo counts to be the worst of the bunch. i never equipped more than four tons lrm ammo, you just dont need it if you play aggressive. i also seem to recall gauss+lrm builds being somewhat useful. used at range but still capable of direct fire and thus was always out where it could fire all its weapons. fire missiles till something opens up and then take it off with the gauss.

Edited by LordNothing, 30 September 2018 - 12:40 PM.

[HammerMaster]

LordNothing, on 30 September 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

when i still used lrms, i mostly used them in mixed builds (i have fond memories of both clan and is highlanders). just when they were about to call me a worthless lerm assault, id pop em square in the torso with an ac20 or a couple uac10s. i also have backup lasers for when i run out of ammo, essential on a mixed build. i find those players who brag about absurd ammo counts to be the worst of the bunch. i never equipped more than four tons lrm ammo, you just dont need it if you play aggressive. i also seem to recall gauss+lrm builds being somewhat useful. used at range but still capable of direct fire and thus was always out where it could fire all its weapons. fire missiles till something opens up and then take it off with the gauss.

And this is a build that us LRM Aficionados would approve of.
A min/max purist would scoff at this (Eisen)
But its more "Battletech-ey" and more IMMERSIVE.

[Eisenhorne]

HammerMaster, on 30 September 2018 - 12:48 PM, said:

And this is a build that us LRM Aficionados would approve of.
A min/max purist would scoff at this (Eisen)
But its more "Battletech-ey" and more IMMERSIVE.

Ah yes, this discussion again. I may be a "min-max purist", but isn't that just another way of saying, "more successful at this game?"

I mean... what else are you supposed to do in a game, except try to win? You're adding external rules that aren't part of this game, when you say things like "It's more battletech-ey". If you want to play Battletech, go play that then. This is Mechwarrior Online, and while it shares many similarities to Battletech, make no mistake, it is not Battletech. Following the same rules will not result in victory.

I honestly cannot see the appeal of taking a mech you KNOW is sub-par. The players who do that are no threat in quick play or faction play, and are almost always the ones dragging their team down with poor scores.

[HammerMaster]

Eisenhorne, on 30 September 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

Stuff and:
with poor scores.

Come on!
We are discussing two different things.
I have pointed out before respectfully we don't see eye to eye.
Poor Scores indeed. (poor indicator as our Vaunted Elite Top Tier, Meta-fondling,Try Hard 12 damage participants have shown.)

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 September 2018 - 01:36 PM.

[Oldbob10025]

Eisenhorne, on 29 September 2018 - 06:28 PM, said:

I have literally never seen tactical and aggressive LRM use be effective in a game. I'm not joking. I've never seen it. Only on these forums is it discussed.

[Eisenhorne]

Oldbob10025, on 30 September 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

-video-

Those were streaks and ATM's, which by MUST be used aggressively, and cannot be used passively. (well not very well anyway)

[Oldbob10025]

I was using streaks and ATM's most of the team wasn't. We run LRM nights about once a month and cream about 85% of the matches with LRM boats and Narc Boats as a team. It can work but you have to work as a team. Most people in Quickplay run off and do their own things.

I was replying to his post that He never saw anyone do a LRM team. I have other videos of it being done on our Theme nights but this was a quick one I pulled from my youtube page.

[Oldbob10025]

Eisenhorne, on 30 September 2018 - 01:33 PM, said:

Those were streaks and ATM's, which by MUST be used aggressively, and cannot be used passively. (well not very well anyway)

Here is a better example and took some time to find it on my channel

[HammerMaster]

Honestly these videos just corroborate evidence that good coordination (Donald) Trumps all weapons/skills.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 September 2018 - 02:10 PM.

[Horseman]

You forgot the classic: