93 replies to this topic

[Siegegun]

OmniFail, on 15 January 2019 - 02:36 AM, said:

Thanks for sharing Kroete.
Its seems that even though I have luanched a lot more LRMs than others my accuracy kinda sucks. I wonder if its because sometimes I will fire at any dumb lock.

"Accuracy" with LRMs will depend on playstyle. As you said the accuracy is kind of baked in statistically. But how you play with them will greatly affect the percentages. There are two types of playstyles with LRMs. Alpha launching and DPS launching. My accuracy is horrid because I DPS with LRMs instead of alpha striking with them usually. I will also, like you, lock on anything and fire, I carry a lot of ammo in anticipation of this. This is just spray and pray, at long distances with no other locks available I shoot at anything. My build with lots of ammo allows for this. My "accuracy" suffers because of it. But its planned that way so its ok. I also like to pin enemies behind cover if I have a friendly engaging them, I keep pouring missiles on them so they have a choice move and get rained on, or stay and get shot up by a DF friendly. They usually move and get shot up AND rained on. But doing things like that decreases "accuracy" a lot as well.

This thread has caused me to look up some of my missile stats again. Really funny to look at.

LRM5 2,292 4,005,954 1,322,514 33.01% 10 days 08:24:36 1,561,627

As a test I made a new account and have only played LRMs with it, to see how well I do or not without this accounts years of white noise. I need more samples of course I have only played 30 games with it, but its accuracy is a lot better. I think at 48%. I want to get around 200 games then see how it is. The low tier gameplay is allowing for inflated stats in my opinion. The lower tiers ARE different.

Edited by Siegegun, 15 January 2019 - 03:54 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Lethe Wyvern, on 15 January 2019 - 03:14 AM, said:

Excuse me, what?
Oh wait, you mean after that "lock on window" nerf adjustment LRM users were forced to use their hands instead of feet?

I said they are easier to play than direct fire weapons, you seem to agree with that. Not sure what your point is here.

Now easy to play can mean different things. It's easy to play LRMs and do ok, but pushing LRMs beyond the peak performance of competitive direct fire loadouts apparently isn't that easy or even possible.

In my mind a weapon shouldn't automatically be weaker just because it's easy to play, all weapons in the game should have a competitive power level, being able to aim them with your foot or whatever doesn't change that.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 January 2019 - 04:04 AM.

[Lethe Wyvern]

Sjorpha, on 15 January 2019 - 03:55 AM, said:

I said they are easier to play than direct fire weapons, you seem to agree with that. Not sure what your point is here.

Now easy to play can mean different things. It's easy to play LRMs and do ok, but pushing LRMs beyond the peak performance of competitive direct fire loadouts apparently isn't that easy or even possible.

In my mind a weapon shouldn't automatically be weaker just because it's easy to play, all weapons in the game should have a competitive power level, being able to aim them with your foot or whatever doesn't change that.

Daym you are right, my dude. Wish i had more weapon systems with feet control and decent results at same time or even with competitve power level! Just imagine new comp leagues like BFM(Bare Foot Massacre) or even MWOWC2019 with clan stock loadouts and feet control only. Sweet dreams...

Okay, now back to work. Thanks for the answer!

[Kroete]

Siegegun, on 15 January 2019 - 03:52 AM, said:

There are two types of playstyles with LRMs. Alpha launching and DPS launching.

Two use them at full capacity you must use both.
Alpha against ams-boats or on enemys where you can only launch one or maybe two salvos until you lose the lock. Or if the enemy has opened torsosections to remove a part or secure the kill.
DPS if you can be sure to hold the lock for more then 12 seconds, like narc, uav, enemy in the open or occupied by an ally (helps your allys more then alpha because constant shake and impact and warning distraction).
Firing a single launcher to test cover (can i get over/around it?) or scare enemy snipers at long range (works even if they are out of range).

Edited by Kroete, 15 January 2019 - 05:01 AM.

[VeeOt Dragon]

oddly enough I have read a lot of positive in this thread without all the "LRM suck blah blah blah Noob blah blah blah" meta crap. for keeping this thread relatively civil (well as far as this forum goes) I would like to thank those who made positive contributions.

I haven't seen an over use of LRM lately myself. then again I only play QP for the most part. the LOS buffs to LRM are a good idea I think. a step in the right direction, will have to wait and see the results. the LOS buff might bring more LRM players to the -600m range. though I don't think IDF needed a nerf anymore than it already has been especially with the nerfs to things like Artemis. at most you might see 2 LRM boats and perhaps another mech or two with some as secondary weapons (like my Timberwolf that has 2 LRM-5s with a single ton of ammo just to have something to soften the enemy with until I get within range or LOS for my main weapons). that is of course in QP matches.

I play a good mix of weapon systems but I enjoy LRM because they are different than just about any other system in the game. take a different approach to direct fire weapons. yeah they are easy to learn but to really get high performance from them against a skilled team does take skill and effort. mind you I said High performance. even against good players I can manage middle of the team numbers (mind you i'm a tier 3 player at best and make no claim at being the greatest at anything.). then again I play for fun. hell I pull out a Dragon mech from time to time, a Mech most people call garbage.

of all the weapons in the game its the LRM that needs work. not sure how to do it exactly myself because if you give it any kind of buff the haters come out of the woodwork or competitive teams flood QP with them so hard that they get nerfed back down again (just look at the outrage that filled this forum during the summer over a tiny 5% velocity buff to LRM).

Edited by VeeOt Dragon, 15 January 2019 - 05:11 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Lethe Wyvern, on 15 January 2019 - 04:41 AM, said:

Daym you are right, my dude. Wish i had more weapon systems with feet control and decent results at same time or even with competitve power level! Just imagine new comp leagues like BFM(Bare Foot Massacre) or even MWOWC2019 with clan stock loadouts and feet control only. Sweet dreams...

Okay, now back to work. Thanks for the answer!

I'm not sure what the whole sarcasm overload is about, but yes, all weapons should be competitive or they should not be in the game at all.

If a weapon is so badly designed that it makes the gameplay bad it's much better to change it mechanically or remove it from the game, making it too weak to be competitive is terrible design.

LRMs and other weapons that are easier to play can plateau at a lower performance peak to safeguard against excessive spamming, or they can be designed in a way that makes them only good in niche scenarios like a few specific maps etc, both of those things are currently true about LRMs by the way and that's why they have been kept so weak through the years and right now are still weaker than then the best direct fire systems as far as I can tell, or at least that is what the stats in the screenshot Yeonne posted shows.

Now I don't want LRMs to be truly overpowered, but I'm not quite convinced they are. If they aren't used competitively and if the best players go slightly down rather than up in performance when they play them, then I don't see much rational grounds to nerf them. If there is compelling evidence of them being actually overpowered then by all means share it.

[Dogstar]

Siegegun, on 15 January 2019 - 03:52 AM, said:

There are two types of playstyles with LRMs.

Actually I think it's a lot more than that with the proposed changes, or maybe there are more modes:

Locked, indirect, alpha
Locked, indirect, DPS
Locked, direct, alpha
Locked, direct. DPS
and...
Unlocked, direct, alpha/DPS

That's 5/6 different modes of fire, along with a choice of multiple small or fewer large launchers depending on chassis.

LRMs are anything but 'simple' with the proposed changes. Personally I'm hoping PGI stick to their guns with this proposed change. Right now LRMs are pretty poor as a weapon choice. With the direct fire buffs they're going to be a much better choice for aggressive play and a worse choice for defensive/passive play (except in well organised groups).

Lastly, everyone forgets you can fire LRMs unlocked, with the proposed arc change that unlocked fire is going to mix well with MRM and SRM builds making certain missile boat chassis have a bit of a comeback with any luck.

Edited by Dogstar, 15 January 2019 - 06:30 AM.

[R Valentine]

Dogstar, on 15 January 2019 - 06:29 AM, said:

Actually I think it's a lot more than that with the proposed changes, or maybe there are more modes:

Locked, indirect, alpha
Locked, indirect, DPS
Locked, direct, alpha
Locked, direct. DPS
and...
Unlocked, direct, alpha/DPS

That's 5/6 different modes of fire, along with a choice of multiple small or fewer large launchers depending on chassis.

LRMs are anything but 'simple' with the proposed changes. Personally I'm hoping PGI stick to their guns with this proposed change. Right now LRMs are pretty poor as a weapon choice. With the direct fire buffs they're going to be a much better choice for aggressive play and a worse choice for defensive/passive play (except in well organised groups).

Lastly, everyone forgets you can fire LRMs unlocked, with the proposed arc change that unlocked fire is going to mix well with MRM and SRM builds making certain missile boat chassis have a bit of a comeback with any luck.

I don't have a problem with LRMs being a more potent LOS weapon. Right now they're garbage because the direct fire person you're staring at will always outgun you. He picks his shots and you can't. I know a lot of people hate LRMs, but I don't see an over-abundance of them right now and the only time they're really annoying is when you're already losing. They just make a losing game a super annoying losing game. And if PGI had never invented the cancer that is polar/domination I doubt half as many people would care about LRMs, but making a map where there's absolutely no LRM cover to speak of was stupid. It's always the outliers that throw things out of whack. And wasn't Polar supposed to be our rework of Alpine? All we got was two garbage maps instead of fixing the one.

[Asym]

Mole, on 14 January 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

This is a change I have honestly wanted to see for a while. LRMs are not OP and are frankly one of the worst weapon systems in the game right now. This is solely because they are difficult to utilize effectively against skilled players who know how to use cover, break locks, equip AMS, use ECM, have Stealth Armor, but they are absolutely deadly to unskilled players who waddle out into the open and just expect because they are in an assault they don't need to find cover and then come to the forums and complain loudly about how OP they are. Frankly I am of the opinion that the moment someone complains about LRMs being OP they instantly flag themselves as a potato. There is no excuse to be getting wrecked by LRMs except you simply have no idea what you're doing. A skilled LRM player is up front sharing armor at medium range anyway, where their LRMs are most effective. Not lobbing indirect fire from 1000m back, which accomplishes pretty much nothing. This will buff people using LRMs in a manner that is helpful to their team and nerf LRMs for people who think they can just sit in the back and beg for locks all match.

OK, I agree with your assessment but, the concern is that I can't be "right behind" your assault.... I can't "curve" the volley either anymore. So, sharing armor becomes "problematic" on some maps; specifically maps where you are shooting "uphill and over terrain features". Flatter arcs may be a benefit in the many tunnels or corridors on the maps but, any shot up hill will require "distance" to clear the mechs in direct contact.

I'm not playing at all until the next big event so I haven't tested anything and I could be wrong...... But, MWO is trying real hard to drive this game into the earth at warp speed and to this day, I really don't understand why?

I return LRM's to the pre-skill tree change. Mole has it right. There are enough ainti-LRM features in the game and the reason many don't use them is that they just don't want to give up the space or weight..... Heck, during the holiday events, I'd see brawling mechs over heat all of the time and ask why??? The answer was that they did want to use enough heat sinks because that meant they have to "give up" 2 medium lasers to meet the meta alpha...... And yet, they were being destroyed shut down all of the time, blocking the only path to the enemy.... Oh yeah, LRM's need to be returned to pre-skill tree values.

Good luck all.......

[Asym]

Kiran Yagami, on 15 January 2019 - 06:57 AM, said:

I don't have a problem with LRMs being a more potent LOS weapon. Right now they're garbage because the direct fire person you're staring at will always outgun you. He picks his shots and you can't. I know a lot of people hate LRMs, but I don't see an over-abundance of them right now and the only time they're really annoying is when you're already losing. They just make a losing game a super annoying losing game. And if PGI had never invented the cancer that is polar/domination I doubt half as many people would care about LRMs, but making a map where there's absolutely no LRM cover to speak of was stupid. It's always the outliers that throw things out of whack. And wasn't Polar supposed to be our rework of Alpine? All we got was two garbage maps instead of fixing the one.

What? no LRM cover?? Seriously? Let see: I am a complete potato and rarely play anymore and I say that up front to be honest.
I joined in early 2017 so I've not been around "forever".... On polar, in all of that time, in domination matches, I have been destroyed roughly 20% of the time by LRM's and that 20% usually is late game......... I have always used every bit of Radar Deprivation, ECM, and AMS possible..... And yes, I rarely sit still and use every depression or hill to break LOS.....

Polar is one of the best maneuver maps there is! The problem is, no one has a tactical clue how to maneuver as a team; nor, has the real life experiences to take tons of steel and be "invisible." If I can do this as a Super Spud Grand National Potato, with two additional skill identifiers (ASI) of Mashed and Twice Baked, you should be able to do this.... All you have to do is:

• use the RD, ECM, AMS skills/tools; and,
  
• give up the what, 28 or so skill nodes (you've used in Survival); and,
  
• a few slots/tons of weapons space and you'd be just fine on polar

[Jman5]

Y E O N N E, on 14 January 2019 - 08:54 PM, said:

I can't give you his LRM stats page, but I can give you the final result:

Sjorpha, on 15 January 2019 - 12:22 AM, said:

I mean I understand the point about LRMs being too easy to play etc.

But if the point was too prove LRMs are overpowered you'd expect the performance to be higher than normal, not lower.

These stats would actually indicate that LRMs are weaker than the weapons and mechs he usually plays.

If a slight decrease in stats is what happens when a top level player plays the "easy mode" weapon that seems like pretty good balance to me actually, at least for solo queue.

Group and FP are different beasts with the narc support of course, a similar experiment for group queue/FP could be interesting. Top players, big group, all LRMS on every map for 3 months and then compare to the same group in full tryhard direct fire mode 3 months. Not asking anyone to actually do such a thing obviously, but if the goal is to settle the actual competitive strength of LRMs...

You guys on the top almost had me convinced LRMs were OP when you all agree on it, I'll go back to being a bit sceptical about that claim now I think. It's starting to look like you don't actually mean overpowered, but rather that LRMs should be a weak weapon and isn't weak enough when it almost matches the strongest direct fire weapons. Now IMO slightly weaker, as indicated by the above evidence (actually quite a bit weaker if you go by the win/loss numbers) is perfectly fine for a weapon that's a bit easier to play.

The real lesson that people should take from that screenshot is something I have been trying (and mostly failing) to hammer into people's heads for years.

You can do very, very well with all sorts of builds and mechs that aren't considered tier 1 meta and just like with any meta build: You have to build it competently, you have to practice enough in it to get experienced, you have to play to its strengths, you have to pilot well.

People will play 500 games with some meta build. Then they'll play 1 or 2 games in an alternate build they slapped together and then go: "Well it didn't play so good...."

No, really?!

You've got to put in the time practicing with how it plays and tinker with it. I do badly playing the Wolfhound, but that's because I hardly ever use it.

Meta is meta for a reason. They're great builds with proven track records. Yet, there is a vast world of competent mechs and builds out there just waiting for people to explore and tinker with. You don't have to be confined to whatever comp-land or the twitch.tv crew are currently playing.

Edited by Jman5, 15 January 2019 - 07:27 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Sjorpha, on 15 January 2019 - 12:22 AM, said:

I mean I understand the point about LRMs being too easy to play etc.

But if the point was too prove LRMs are overpowered you'd expect the performance to be higher than normal, not lower.

These stats would actually indicate that LRMs are weaker than the weapons and mechs he usually plays.

If a slight decrease in stats is what happens when a top level player plays the "easy mode" weapon that seems like pretty good balance to me actually, at least for solo queue.

Group and FP are different beasts with the narc support of course, a similar experiment for group queue/FP could be interesting. Top players, big group, all LRMS on every map for 3 months and then compare to the same group in full tryhard direct fire mode 3 months. Not asking anyone to actually do such a thing obviously, but if the goal is to settle the actual competitive strength of LRMs...

You guys on the top almost had me convinced LRMs were OP when you all agree on it, I'll go back to being a bit sceptical about that claim now I think. It's starting to look like you don't actually mean overpowered, but rather that LRMs should be a weak weapon and isn't weak enough when it almost matches the strongest direct fire weapons. Now IMO slightly weaker, as indicated by the above evidence (actually quite a bit weaker if you go by the win/loss numbers) is perfectly fine for a weapon that's a bit easier to play.

Y E O N N E, on 14 January 2019 - 10:19 PM, said:

Lots of group play before the CLAG CENTRAL area.

He wasn't sandbagging his team at all, that was kind of the point of the meme. He doesn't have to do much, and he gets to basically relax in the back while farming significantly more c-bills than literally 99% of the playing population and getting way more wins than losses in the process.

Though the point of displaying the stats was really to show who King LRM Potato is, lul.

Reading is hard.

[R Valentine]

Asym, on 15 January 2019 - 07:14 AM, said:

What? no LRM cover?? Seriously? Let see: I am a complete potato and rarely play anymore and I say that up front to be honest.
I joined in early 2017 so I've not been around "forever".... On polar, in all of that time, in domination matches, I have been destroyed roughly 20% of the time by LRM's and that 20% usually is late game......... I have always used every bit of Radar Deprivation, ECM, and AMS possible..... And yes, I rarely sit still and use every depression or hill to break LOS.....

Polar is one of the best maneuver maps there is! The problem is, no one has a tactical clue how to maneuver as a team; nor, has the real life experiences to take tons of steel and be "invisible." If I can do this as a Super Spud Grand National Potato, with two additional skill identifiers (ASI) of Mashed and Twice Baked, you should be able to do this.... All you have to do is:

• use the RD, ECM, AMS skills/tools; and,
  
• give up the what, 28 or so skill nodes (you've used in Survival); and,
  
• a few slots/tons of weapons space and you'd be just fine on polar

"One of the best manuever maps there is" is disingenuous to say the least. The terrain varies from smooth to slightly sloped, but that's about it. There are no visual landmarks of any meaning, so even if it is a "great maneuver" map it's hard to learn, and it's so unpopular that no one cares to learn it. They just resign themselves to death or pray their team has more LRMs than the other team. Sorry, but that's bad map design. You can like it as much as you please. At least someone likes the map, but if the majority of the community makes an exacerbated sigh every time someone blows their 12x multiplier on it then it at least needs some alterations. And again, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR REWORK OF ALPINE. Instead Alpine stayed the same and we got 2 maps most people hate. As for taking all the ECM and radar derp nodes, that'd be fine if I could choose my mech after I know what map we're playing on, but that's a privilege reserved only for FPers, which makes zero sense to begin with. I can't even spec my camo for polar because bright white sticks out like a sore thumb on every other map. They couldn't at least let us change the paint scheme for a map?! But in QP you get to play map roulette, so specializing your mech or skill nodes to the map is not a thing.

[VeeOt Dragon]

I agree with Jman5 above, to many people put to much stock in meta builds. I enjoy mucking about with builds even running a Dragon with an LBX-10, 2 ER LLs, and a pair of Flamers (might have missiles but can't remember). people should concentrate on having fun just as much as having an effective build.

LRM are just another tool in the box. one that hasn't seen enough positive change. how many people use clan micro-lasers (on something other than a Piranha)?

[S t P a u l y]

'LRM Afficianado'. Gets me every single time.

[HammerMaster]

VeeOt Dragon, on 15 January 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

I agree with Jman5 above, to many people put to much stock in meta builds. I enjoy mucking about with builds even running a Dragon with an LBX-10, 2 ER LLs, and a pair of Flamers (might have missiles but can't remember). people should concentrate on having fun just as much as having an effective build.

LRM are just another tool in the box. one that hasn't seen enough positive change. how many people use clan micro-lasers (on something other than a Piranha)?

Ahem.
https://mwo.smurfy-n...ead17ca2e9f81a9

Edited by HammerMaster, 15 January 2019 - 08:45 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Mole, on 14 January 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

This is a change I have honestly wanted to see for a while. LRMs are not OP and are frankly one of the worst weapon systems in the game right now. This is solely because they are difficult to utilize effectively against skilled players who know how to use cover, break locks, equip AMS, use ECM, have Stealth Armor, but they are absolutely deadly to unskilled players who waddle out into the open and just expect because they are in an assault they don't need to find cover and then come to the forums and complain loudly about how OP they are. Frankly I am of the opinion that the moment someone complains about LRMs being OP they instantly flag themselves as a potato. There is no excuse to be getting wrecked by LRMs except you simply have no idea what you're doing. A skilled LRM player is up front sharing armor at medium range anyway, where their LRMs are most effective. Not lobbing indirect fire from 1000m back, which accomplishes pretty much nothing. This will buff people using LRMs in a manner that is helpful to their team and nerf LRMs for people who think they can just sit in the back and beg for locks all match.

While I agree with this especially the part about being upfront fighting in the 200-300m range getting their own locks, I still don't think turning LRMs into a direct fire, lock on MRM is the way to go. For one, it kind of makes mounting MRMs alot less useful and as others have mentioned, you wouldn't be able to hold the position in the 2nd line, within direct line of sight of the enemy but still able to fire LRM's over your teammates heads.

[dwwolf]

Angel of Annihilation, on 15 January 2019 - 08:53 AM, said:

While I agree with this especially the part about being upfront fighting in the 200-300m range getting their own locks, I still don't think turning LRMs into a direct fire, lock on MRM is the way to go. For one, it kind of makes mounting MRMs alot less useful and as others have mentioned, you wouldn't be able to hold the position in the 2nd line, within direct line of sight of the enemy but still able to fire LRM's over your teammates heads.

Agreed. LRMs need their own niche.
Personally I think they are decent in their ROLE.
Which is versatile fire support.
Versatile as in easy to switch targets in range without needing to (always ) relocate.
Pure efficient damage application they are not very good at.

We do not need more ATMs or MRMs.

[Grus]

"The phrases "Praise Chris" and "Nice shot PGI!" have become memes among the top circles for a reason."

I'm gonna be devil's advocate here and say the reason they are, is because it invalidates the skill gap.

I'll explain;
If you have a 99% and a 70% going shot for shot the former is most likely to win. Now if the 70% an deal damage with out taking any in return, that completely negates all advantages the 99%er has. Thus the uproar.

[Y E O N N E]

Grus, on 15 January 2019 - 09:34 AM, said:

"The phrases "Praise Chris" and "Nice shot PGI!" have become memes among the top circles for a reason."

I'm gonna be devil's advocate here and say the reason they are, is because it invalidates the skill gap.

I'll explain;
If you have a 99% and a 70% going shot for shot the former is most likely to win. Now if the 70% an deal damage with out taking any in return, that completely negates all advantages the 99%er has. Thus the uproar.

Bingo, though that isn't really being the Devil's advocate.

Equipment should never, ever, ever be used as a bridge to a skill gap. And I'm sorry if some of you have disabilities that mean you basically can't do well with other weapons and rely on equipment to bridge the skill gap, but a game cannot maintain its integrity while maintaining such a system in support of the few at the expense if the many.