791 replies to this topic

[Dren Nas]

Dorque, on 15 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I dunno, ask the guy I quoted, Nerd-san.

Insults.... juvinile.... if you're quoting someone, perhaps you should say who you're quoting or at the very least say "someone said"... look up plagarism.

I asked you because you're the one that made the statement as though it were fact, and you should be able to put some effort in defending what you said.

RG Notch, on 15 November 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Funny, when LRMS were OP as these folks liked, there was an uproar on the forums, yet now that they are "useless" I see few people up in arms. I guess some folks are somehow dealing with these "useless" weapons and didn't get used to how OP they were and miss it. I'm sure the people who want LRMs dominating the game again will blame it on players being stupid brawlers as apparently all the "smart" players want to sit back and use a lock on weapon where they can't be seen.
Balancing is never popular when you used to be OP so I get where they're coming from.

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood the argument or if you seem to think that if you keep saying we want overpowered LRMs again that it'll make it true.

In case you misunderstood let me state it another simplier way that might be easier to understand. We just want them lethal again. That's not OP. That would make them balanced. LRMs are not lethal at the moment.

If reiteration against an inaccurate argument is what you're going for, then you're justbeing counter productve for both sides of the matter.

Edited by Dren Nas, 15 November 2012 - 09:28 AM.

[RG Notch]

Dren Nas, on 15 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Insults.... juvinile.... if you're quoting someone, perhaps you should say who you're quoting or at the very least say "someone said"... look up plagarism.

I asked you because you're the one that made the statement as though it were fact, and you should be able to put some effort in defending what you said.



I'm not sure if you've misunderstood the argument or if you seem to think that if you keep saying we want overpowered LRMs again that it'll make it true.

In case you misunderstood let me state it another simplier way that might be easier to understand. We just want them lethal again. That's not OP. That would make them balanced. LRMs are not lethal at the moment.

If reiteration against an inaccurate argument is what you're going for, then you're justbeing counter productve for both sides of the matter.

And you can keep saying you don't want OP LRMS and I still won't believe it. You have stated LRMs are "useless", based on my experience and others in this thread that is not true. Thus I believe you are exaggerating how "useless" they are and trying to underplay that you want them OP again. So you can stop beating the dead horse of merely stating you don't want them OP. If you think they are "useless" now then I believe your definition of "lethal" is just as off the mark as your claims they are "useless". Now If your argument is that "useless" = non OP and "lethal" = OP then it makes sense and I disagree.
If the pro LRM faction is allowed to say they are "useless", that no one uses or fears them and anyone who doesn't think they are UP is a brawler who only wants brawling I will continue to believe they want them OP again as they were before the hotfix. Now if people will change their argument and try to be reasonable without hyperbole I might think different.

[Choombatta]

RG Notch, on 15 November 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

And you can keep saying you don't want OP LRMS and I still won't believe it. You have stated LRMs are "useless", based on my experience and others in this thread that is not true. Thus I believe you are exaggerating how "useless" they are and trying to underplay that you want them OP again. So you can stop beating the dead horse of merely stating you don't want them OP. If you think they are "useless" now then I believe your definition of "lethal" is just as off the mark as your claims they are "useless". Now If your argument is that "useless" = non OP and "lethal" = OP then it makes sense and I disagree.
If the pro LRM faction is allowed to say they are "useless", that no one uses or fears them and anyone who doesn't think they are UP is a brawler who only wants brawling I will continue to believe they want them OP again as they were before the hotfix. Now if people will change their argument and try to be reasonable without hyperbole I might think different.

Funny, but I think you are the one exaggerating how "useful" they actually are. You can keep saying you want LRMs to be balanced, but I will not believe you. You want LRMs completely removed, or neutered so bad, no one uses them ( i.e. The game is more fun now! ),
The only people who will continue to say LRMs are fine, are those who want brawling to be overpowered. They want every Mech to be forced into a 100m or less battle. Now, if you will change you argument, try to be reasonable without hyperbole I still will think you want them completely removed!

Funny how that works.
My opinion, your opinion. Difference is, I do not claim my opinion is the right one or that I somehow speak for the majority.
I just claim my opinion is my opinion.

[RG Notch]

Choombatta, on 15 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Funny, but I think you are the one exaggerating how "useful" they actually are. You can keep saying you want LRMs to be balanced, but I will not believe you. You want LRMs completely removed, or neutered so bad, no one uses them ( i.e. The game is more fun now! ),
The only people who will continue to say LRMs are fine, are those who want brawling to be overpowered. They want every Mech to be forced into a 100m or less battle. Now, if you will change you argument, try to be reasonable without hyperbole I still will think you want them completely removed!

Funny how that works.
My opinion, your opinion. Difference is, I do not claim my opinion is the right one or that I somehow speak for the majority.
I just claim my opinion is my opinion.

And I said otherwise? Oh again I forgot that doesn't fit the agenda.The funny part is again, where is the outrage from players? I mean I know there's a dozen or so folks in this thread who are all bent out of shape but it hardly seems like a rage on the forums. Oh yeah everyone wants LRMS gone apparently.

[Joseph Mallan]

vaakuum, on 15 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

As i see the only problem is this:



This is not a supporting mech, as the video shows..... and players dont want too much, just what this video shows: good position + a lot of lrms shotted in one (which is expensive to buy btw) + clear hit (no cover for the enemy) + no any dodge (lrm'***** almost in line without turning) = fast kill.

Thank You Devs for a perfect example of how Fire Support can be used to "actually kill the enemy." I want to be Fire Support that involve me raining destruction on you while you try to close and kill me.

[Choombatta]

RG Notch, on 15 November 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

. You have stated LRMs are "useless", based on my experience and others in this thread that is not true. Thus I believe you are exaggerating how "useless" they are and trying to underplay that you want them OP again.

Yes, you did say otherwise.

So, you and others in this thread said that is not true.
I, and others in this thread have said it is true.

You then claim to know exactly why we say this...................arrogant much?
My point is, all of your arguments can also be used by the opposing side, since they are nothing but opinions.

Some players think LRMs are fine.
Some players think LRMs are underpowered.
Some players actually still think LRMs are still overpowered.

All 3 opinions have as much validity as the other 2.
Now, if your only defense is to keep stating the same thing over and over, and attack anyone who disagrees with you.............

State your opinion, why you feel that way, and maybe try to understand why the other side feels the way they do.

[Keisuke Nagisa]

I think the problem with lrms are the team size limits. Its really hard to coordinate lrm fire outside of a team and with a limit of 4 people its not very effective to bring lrms as your whole 4 man team will be dedicated to lrm with no defense.

[Wispsy]

Choombatta, on 15 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Funny, but I think you are the one exaggerating how "useful" they actually are. You can keep saying you want LRMs to be balanced, but I will not believe you. You want LRMs completely removed, or neutered so bad, no one uses them ( i.e. The game is more fun now! ),
The only people who will continue to say LRMs are fine, are those who want brawling to be overpowered. They want every Mech to be forced into a 100m or less battle. Now, if you will change you argument, try to be reasonable without hyperbole I still will think you want them completely removed!

Funny how that works.
My opinion, your opinion. Difference is, I do not claim my opinion is the right one or that I somehow speak for the majority.
I just claim my opinion is my opinion.

I use lrms and they are very useful. I do not believe you have followed any of the suggestions here on this thread on how to improve your lrm playing. Instead you just want a damage buff. Once you have learnt the mechanics behind lrms and how to use them effectively then feel free to come back and argue that they are too weak. If you are just going to play badly and cry they do not work and ignore all advice at improving then people will respond in kind, with l2p stop looking for an easy button.

[197mmCannon]

Someone brought up giving artemis a bonus if the firing mech has LOS to his locked target.

Don't know what bonus would be fair but not OP but I like the idea.

Wispsy, on 15 November 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I use lrms and they are very useful. I do not believe you have followed any of the suggestions here on this thread on how to improve your lrm playing. Instead you just want a damage buff. Once you have learnt the mechanics behind lrms and how to use them effectively then feel free to come back and argue that they are too weak. If you are just going to play badly and cry they do not work and ignore all advice at improving then people will respond in kind, with l2p stop looking for an easy button.

I know how to use LRMs and I'll get between 200 and 400 damage games on average.

Except I spend 100k replacing missiles after the match...

Edited by Daemian, 15 November 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[Mavairo]

Daemian, on 15 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Someone brought up giving artemis a bonus if the firing mech has LOS to his locked target.

Don't know what bonus would be fair but not OP but I like the idea.



I know how to use LRMs and I'll get between 200 and 400 damage games on average.

Except I spend 100k replacing missiles after the match...

How on earth are you spending that much? I spend no where near that amount on my LRM carrying cat and get the same if not better results on average.

Edited by Mavairo, 15 November 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Umbra8]

LRM's are a waste of tonnage at the moment. May be an issue with hit detection as some people report much lower damage for the number of volleys they put out than 1.7/missile. That or accuracy is even lower than expected.

[Wispsy]

Daemian, on 15 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Someone brought up giving artemis a bonus if the firing mech has LOS to his locked target.

Don't know what bonus would be fair but not OP but I like the idea.



I know how to use LRMs and I'll get between 200 and 400 damage games on average.

Except I spend 100k replacing missiles after the match...

The cost is too much now imo, but they were trying to balance the weapons with cost, keeping them used less by making them more expensive instead of bringing them into line. Now that lrms are balanced with other weapons in game the cost should be lowered again. I still make money with mine but I have premium bonus and I have yet to test this but I believe a few losses and deaths in a row will net me a loss.

[Choombatta]

Wispsy, on 15 November 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

I use lrms and they are very useful. I do not believe you have followed any of the suggestions here on this thread on how to improve your lrm playing. Instead you just want a damage buff. Once you have learnt the mechanics behind lrms and how to use them effectively then feel free to come back and argue that they are too weak. If you are just going to play badly and cry they do not work and ignore all advice at improving then people will respond in kind, with l2p stop looking for an easy button.

Wow! Just Wow!
Currently, I do not even use LRMs on any of my Mechs. I am not wanting a damage buff to help my play style.
Currently, I do not even worry about LRMs at all. They are a non-issue, since I can completely avoid them, even in my 44KPH Atlas.

What I find funny, is apparently you think I am ignoring all suggestions to make LRMs more useful, while neglecting to admit that all suggestions to help avoid LRMs pre-nerf where ignored also.

As for learning the mechanics of LRMs............I love how you can read my mind =)
I know exactly how LRMs work. What have I stated to make you claim otherwise?

[MWHawke]

Umbra8, on 15 November 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

LRM's are a waste of tonnage at the moment. May be an issue with hit detection as some people report much lower damage for the number of volleys they put out than 1.7/missile. That or accuracy is even lower than expected.

I still think it's accuracy..

[RG Notch]

Choombatta, on 15 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Yes, you did say otherwise.

So, you and others in this thread said that is not true.
I, and others in this thread have said it is true.

You then claim to know exactly why we say this...................arrogant much?
My point is, all of your arguments can also be used by the opposing side, since they are nothing but opinions.

Some players think LRMs are fine.
Some players think LRMs are underpowered.
Some players actually still think LRMs are still overpowered.

All 3 opinions have as much validity as the other 2.
Now, if your only defense is to keep stating the same thing over and over, and attack anyone who disagrees with you.............

State your opinion, why you feel that way, and maybe try to understand why the other side feels the way they do.

But I do understand why the other side feels who they do. They went from Gods on the battlefield to just ordinary players. Who wouldn't be upset? And who wouldn't realize that asking for the power of the Gods back would not go over well? So of course one would argue that they merely want them to be "competitive" or "lethal" which I gather means OP.
My opinion is simply that LRMs were over nerfed and need some buffing. But I refuse to listen to the hyperbole that they are "useless". None of the pro LRM faction has seemed to back off this statement, that leads me to believe they feel anything less than OP is useless. If you think that hyperbole helps your argument you are wrong. I have asked people to recalibrate and step back from the "useless" statements but all I get is the same crap that they don't want the OP. If that's true than state they aren't "useless" and maybe there is room for discussion.
Your opinion is equally as valid as mine, but if you expect your opinion to be treated seriously I would suggest dropping the hyperbole. If you truly feel they are "useless" then I stick to my belief you merely want to rule the battlefield again.

[Catalinasgrace]

vaakuum, on 15 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

As i see the only problem is this:



This is not a supporting mech, as the video shows..... and players dont want too much, just what this video shows: good position + a lot of lrms shotted in one (which is expensive to buy btw) + clear hit (no cover for the enemy) + no any dodge (lrm'***** almost in line without turning) = fast kill.

Watching that I would like to know where on earth people are getting the Cat is a support/surpress mech at all? Is it in the lore or what?

[Dimento Graven]

I believe that the reasons LRMs were nerfed so hard, so viciously, and so immediately was because Paul, and a few other programmers got their butts beat hard by an LRM team.

Not only did they lose hard, they kept losing hard, and finally decided that it was time to punish the LRM users.

There's no other explanation that can explain how and why, every other major OP bug took WEEEEEEEKS before they were fixed, yet LRMs were 'fixed' in less than 48 hours.

Hell, I tried it out today. Saved up 16mil for a D-DC, loaded 3 LRM 15's on it, with Artemis, and first match has wolf packed by light 'mechs that continuously ran into my legs and would stay underneath my ability to aim and fire at them (much less see them down there), did 300+ damage, no kills, lost match, I lost 20k from repairs and reload.

Second match, fought until my base was captured, I wasn't destroyed, but we did lose, and I did 600 points of damage, and NO KILLS (even had a no armed, dark red torso'd commando take a full 45 salvo, and all I did was 'destroy components' but no kill). I lost 40k on that after repair and reload without even having been destroyed or criticlly damaged.

Again, it is my belief that LRM boats are being punished because Paul and his friends think they shouldn't have to worry about LRMs or should be allowed to walk across an open field and not have to worry about anything but gauss and PPCs.

[Wispsy]

Choombatta, on 15 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Wow! Just Wow!
Currently, I do not even use LRMs on any of my Mechs. I am not wanting a damage buff to help my play style.
Currently, I do not even worry about LRMs at all. They are a non-issue, since I can completely avoid them, even in my 44KPH Atlas.

Damage will change nothing about this? If you are skilled enough to avoid them then they did no damage to you pre artemis, during artemis or now. Changing them in any way other then significantly reducing flighttime to that similar to a ballistic will have no effect, you can still avoid them. I could argue they were a useless non issue during the artemis patch. THEY DID NOT HIT ME.

Was not balanced or fun tho.....
Before that, a single lrm boat dominated the match. Now they need to use teamwork or tactics or the support tools given to lrms to dominate the match....They are still strong. The damage reduction was not huge, the spread and hitting is most peoples issues and that is what tag and artemis are designed to do. If people were to use them (as previously they did not need either to wreck people in seconds) and if you are playing with friends encourage one of them to use one, then you will see their usefulness rise significantly. No more missing lights, no more spreading all over the mech.

If you fire without los (if they are in los then why not tag them) or from long ranges without proper team support, then they miss a lot more and spread over the mech more. Oh no this encourages smart or team play?!
A large number of trials have lrms. I ignore them too, they are often just fired on cd until out of missiles at any and every square they see. it is just how I ignore gauss shots from most trial atlas, most of the time they cannot aim and they have pathetic amounts of ammo and I will stroll out in the open water with my 48kph atlas laughing at 3 trial mechs at 400-700m all shooting at me ineffectually with gauss as i tear them apart.....gauss should be buffed because the damage is too focused making it too hard to hit people with?! no...

[MWHawke]

Wolven, on 15 November 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Yes, shutdown breaks locks. That's working as intended.

Sad thing is it also missed atlas's which are standing still.. Must be a poor quality missile chip..

[wanderer]

Dimento Graven, on 15 November 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

There's no other explanation that can explain how and why, every other major OP bug took WEEEEEEEKS before they were fixed, yet LRMs were 'fixed' in less than 48 hours.

Wasn't even a fix. It was reverting LRMs to old (though quite stable) code. The flaw is they went back one set of code too far.

Although it has echos of the collision system being taken out, followed shortly by the Goons posting a video where they literally bowled Paul over repeatedly, over and over and over again pre-patch...