75 replies to this topic

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 05 October 2020 - 04:13 PM, said:

But it's not balanced accordingly. LRMs are generally **** to use to people who know how to play the game, that it's obscure on exactly high levels of play. It's so much so that you admit that it's kind of trolling them.

So is my solution. No really, that's just an idea too, that solves the presented problem.

It's just pilot a walking tank, and point and shoot. The only difference is that you don't have to point harder. You are still doing exactly the same things. Hell, if you have pin-point accuracy to a component, hardly anything changes.

Depends of the implementation really. LRMs for example have somewhat proportional effect to lights because spread. Pin-point damage defeats the light, the COF would still mean that your shots will go everywhere even if it's the general direction of a light.

Now with TC 7-8 though, that will kind of nail them. But that is just like Streaks but worse at this point, because it's 7-8 tons investment on top of direct-fire weapons

I've seen them used at higher level play plenty of times. I've even used them myself against good teams in FP and did fine, especially considering the minimal amount of effort I put into playing them.

[The6thMessenger]

I agree, it's powerful in the right context, it's overwhelming at FP when everyone is coordinated. But so far, the mechanics feels lopsided.

Trolling was your words. And then the right context, so why aren't they trying to use LRMs more frequently in higher plays if it's that strong? Oh right it's situational, and it's not powerful enough that forcing that specific situation is worth it.

Think of it like a sniper build, why would you rather not build a stronger closer-ranged weapon instead of maintaining the distance? Isn't it because there are advantages that you can levy that incentivizes you to maintain said situation?

And that's the thing, maybe we're not asking the right questions about simple potency? Actually kind of got it by narrowing it to the mechanics, but reducing it to mere powerful or not isn't the right question.

[Brauer]

Brauer, on 02 October 2020 - 06:45 AM, said:

Re: the OP, in my experience when comp players use lrms it's either a troll move, or they're bringing lrms because they think lrms give them the best chance to win a match.

Reposting for 6thMessenger because 6th keeps overlooking that I said one of the primary reasons/times comp players will bring lrms is when lrms give them the best chance to win.

6th, rather than focusing in on one piece of what I shared and deciding that it is the only truth in what I told you why don't you read the whole argument and see that I said lrms are very strong in the right context and are taken by competitive players when lrms provide the best chance to win?

At the end of the day every weapon system in MWO is garbage in the wrong context. Some of them are even so bad that they're garbage in every context. LRMs are perfectly viable at the moment and can be very strong when used properly and on the correct maps.

Edited by Brauer, 06 October 2020 - 09:43 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

I did read it, but I am just weighing things against everything else. For your attempts of focusing on another points, you are also missing others that was made. My inquiry is merely of curiosity, and what would make them used even more. Lots of other people are pushing that they are weak for understandable reasons. If you are okay with it being just situational but obscure, then fine.

I don't get it, if it's powerful only in the right context and right maps, and extremely situational, and it has too much of a drawback to be used by already strong players, still I fail to see the point of nerfing it either.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 06 October 2020 - 02:16 PM.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 06 October 2020 - 02:16 PM, said:

I did read it, but I am just weighing things against everything else. For your attempts of focusing on another points, you are also missing others that was made. My inquiry is merely of curiosity, and what would make them used even more. Lots of other people are pushing that they are weak for understandable reasons. If you are okay with it being just situational but obscure, then fine.

I don't get it, if it's powerful only in the right context and right maps, and extremely situational, and it has too much of a drawback to be used by already strong players, still I fail to see the point of nerfing it either.

I wouldn't say they are obscure, especially not in qp and fp. I've had plenty of times where match after match half of the players in the game are using lrms/atms.

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 06 October 2020 - 06:06 PM, said:

I wouldn't say they are obscure, especially not in qp and fp. I've had plenty of times where match after match half of the players in the game are using lrms/atms.

But I didn't say QP and FP, I asked the comps in their environment.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 06 October 2020 - 06:09 PM, said:

But I didn't say QP and FP, I asked the comps in their environment.

Are you going to make buffs only apply to comp and lobbies?

[The6thMessenger]

Personally, I can't. I'm just figuring out what Comps didn't like about LRMs, Brauer said that it's the skill-gap. I proposed of lowering the required skill for everything else, which would just work within their criteria, but they didn't liked it.

I would go for mechanics rework instead, and I would like to restrict IDF to NARC and TAG when given a choice, this will allow opportunities to buff the LRMs without making them too powerful. That being said, homing mechanic is exactly the problem so I don't know how to make homing weapons non-homing weapons.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 06 October 2020 - 06:22 PM, said:

Personally, I can't. I'm just figuring out what Comps didn't like about LRMs, Brauer said that it's the skill-gap. I proposed of lowering the required skill for everything else, which would just work within their criteria, but they didn't liked it.

I would go for mechanics rework instead, and I would like to restrict IDF to NARC and TAG when given a choice, this will allow opportunities to buff the LRMs without making them too powerful. That being said, homing mechanic is exactly the problem so I don't know how to make homing weapons non-homing weapons.

IDK buddy LRMs are pretty common in quite a few divisions in comp. You probably start seeing teams using them in only very selective ways at about the Div B level iirc, when considering we've had divisions going all the way down to E lately, that means you see lrms a fair bit. There are plenty of other weapon systems that are rarely taken because they are trash tier (CSPLs, LGRs, RAC5s, etc) but you seem to be focused solely on LRMs despite how incredibly strong they can be when used properly.

I wouldn't have a problem with restricting IDF lrms to NARCed and/or TAGed targets only. I don't think they'd deserve much of a buff when in direct fire for that though because direct fire LRMs are very powerful right now.

[The6thMessenger]

Though LRMs are best used in direct-fire, there are better choices out there such as PPCs, ACs, and Lasers that don't need additional literal hoops to go through. LRMs' point is that they can switch between DF and IDF, so I assume that IDF is what made you use it on the least-covered maps you pointed out. If direct-fire LRMs are powerful, why aren't they the staple right? It's always the lasers, the acs, the gauss, the PPCs.

I have some thoughts on those weapons too, I am just preoccupied with LRMs -- and in fact, homing weapons in general with respect to Comp mainly because, well it is something that people like you aren't delighted because its low skill.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 October 2020 - 12:53 AM.

[D A T A]

We don't use LRMs cause we disrespect them.
Jesus christ an auto-aim weapon? In comp??!!!

The fact itself that LRMs are so strong, and that they can actually be used in comp is already humiliating enough: there should be no place at all in high tiers for an auto aim weapon

[The pessimistic optimist]

D A T A, on 07 October 2020 - 12:13 AM, said:

We don't use LRMs cause we disrespect them.
Jesus christ an auto-aim weapon? In comp??!!!

The fact itself that LRMs are so strong, and that they can actually be used in comp is already humiliating enough: there should be no place at all in high tiers for an auto aim weapon

No I use everything I am not being forced to play the way the you thing other should that is just dumb. If you don't use something because my E peen sad

Edited by SirSmokes, 07 October 2020 - 02:26 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

D A T A, on 07 October 2020 - 12:13 AM, said:

We don't use LRMs cause we disrespect them.
Jesus christ an auto-aim weapon? In comp??!!!

The fact itself that LRMs are so strong, and that they can actually be used in comp is already humiliating enough: there should be no place at all in high tiers for an auto aim weapon

I can't tell if you're serious.

[The pessimistic optimist]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 02:28 AM, said:

I can't tell if you're serious.

Still a dumb point play the game the way I think it should be played because E peen. This is one of the sad things about Mechwarrior Online's small community size. If more people were playing they could maybe do stuff like have special comp leagues. Maybe have a PPC and Gauss only league ect

Edited by SirSmokes, 07 October 2020 - 02:43 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

SirSmokes, on 07 October 2020 - 02:33 AM, said:

Still a dumb point play the game the way I think it should be played because E peen. This is one of the sad things about Mechwarrior Online's small community size. If more people were playing they could maybe do stuff like have special comp leagues. Maybe have a PPC and Gauss only league ect

To be fair, it's Comp. They can be as elitist in their e-peen competition, because it's their environment. If they were forcing it on everyone else though, that is a problem.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 October 2020 - 04:26 AM.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 12:04 AM, said:

Though LRMs are best used in direct-fire, there are better choices out there such as PPCs, ACs, and Lasers that don't need additional literal hoops to go through. LRMs' point is that they can switch between DF and IDF, so I assume that IDF is what made you use it on the least-covered maps you pointed out. If direct-fire LRMs are powerful, why aren't they the staple right? It's always the lasers, the acs, the gauss, the PPCs.

I have some thoughts on those weapons too, I am just preoccupied with LRMs -- and in fact, homing weapons in general with respect to Comp mainly because, well it is something that people like you aren't delighted because its low skill.

Our use of lrms on alpine against EON didn't depend on IDF. It was basically just a headlong rush that abused the sustained dps of lrms and mpls against long range traders. If we wanted to rely on IDF we'd bring a NARC mech.

[The pessimistic optimist]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 02:59 AM, said:

To be fair, it's Comp. They can be as elitist in their e-peen competition, because it's their environment. If they were forcing it on everyone else though, that is a problem.

OK yes I give you that but don't be mad at people for trying to use the full tool kit the games give people right

Edited by SirSmokes, 07 October 2020 - 08:50 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Brauer, on 07 October 2020 - 07:07 AM, said:

Our use of lrms on alpine against EON didn't depend on IDF. It was basically just a headlong rush that abused the sustained dps of lrms and mpls against long range traders. If we wanted to rely on IDF we'd bring a NARC mech.

Fair enough.

Although wouldn't an AC do it better? Or you needed the cockpit shake?

SirSmokes, on 07 October 2020 - 08:50 AM, said:

OK yes I give you that but don't be mad at people for trying to use the full tool kit the games give people right

I'm not, and i'm more concerned that they aren't.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 October 2020 - 03:37 PM.

[mr bear]

So... LRMs and Comp were mentioned...
My team does bring bring LRMs to Comp Play. We did for TOC S2 which just ended.
So since OP was asking.

1. I personally envision LRMs as a Mortar (Indirect Fire Platform). It relies on locks but can be useful in keeping the opponent's head down when moving into position or to weaken them when they are moving in to engage us.
2. Does it work in Comp play?
- it varies. A Corsair 7A will knock out pretty much enough LRMs to render your LRM boat useless. Against a team that does not expect LRMs and on a good map (good line of sight/not as much dense cover) it can be quite useful.
3. We ran LRMs in the lower division. (Div E). My understanding usually for LRMs is that higher division players prefer more pin point weapons as well.. they players can aim better and do more damage and the precision means they can take out components etc to take down enemy mechs faster.
4. My personal opinion is that if you want to take LRMs in Comp play.. go 100% LRMs. aka. Build a dedicated drop deck that has NARC/TAG with massive launchers, enough to overwhelm any and all AMS. But again.. the issue with that is once the enemy hits your line you're pretty much dead.

I suppose to answer the original question. Teams can and have already run LRMs in Comp. The only thing that makes us run LRMs is because we had a strategy in mind with them.

[General Solo]

mr bear, on 07 October 2020 - 03:55 PM, said:

4. My personal opinion is that if you want to take LRMs in Comp play.. go 100% LRMs. aka. Build a dedicated drop deck that has NARC/TAG with massive launchers, enough to overwhelm any and all AMS. But again.. the issue with that is once the enemy hits your line you're pretty much dead.

I was thinking about this and think its better to in fact split up your Lerm mechs, so if one gets rushed the other lerm mechs can cover.

If the targets narced all lerm mechs can hit it weather they are split up or grouped up

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 07 October 2020 - 04:18 PM.