791 replies to this topic

[Shalune]

Valdez Raptor, on 11 November 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Judging from various polls if LRM's were OP, all of those polls stated that LRM's were just fine as they were. So really not sure where you are getting that information from.

From the forums. Complaining about LRMs was nothing new when artemis hit, it just made them really obviously broken.

http://mwomercs.com/...-thread-merged/ (yes, there were enough LRM threads to warrant someone trying to consolidate things)
http://mwomercs.com/...pic/65533-lrms/
http://mwomercs.com/...e-fine-in-beta/
http://mwomercs.com/...sky-is-falling/

http://mwomercs.com/...ing-on-my-head/

Were the people complaining correct or in the majority? Not necessarily. But the point stands that there was nowhere near a consensus on LRMs being balanced pre-artemis patch. A lot of the arguments in this thread are taking that as an assumed fact.

[Shaddock]

If people came on here and their main argument is "I hate LRMs and only want a brawler game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the current state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

[Dorque]

Shaddock, on 11 November 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

If people came on here and their main argument is "I hate LRMs and only want a brawler game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the current state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

If people came on here and their main argument is "I love LRMs and only want a long-ranged game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the former state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

[Dren Nas]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

If people came on here and their main argument is "I love LRMs and only want a long-ranged game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the former state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

What about people with an argument of "I want a balance between weapon systems"? I suppose that's an invalid argument "since LRMs were so op before they were bugged" like people keep saying...

[Shaddock]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

If people came on here and their main argument is "I love LRMs and only want a long-ranged game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the former state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

I havent seen anyone say that yet, I want a multi-layered tactical environment where battles rely on teamwork and ebb and flow. Not just walk to center of map and hug other team.

Edited by Shaddock, 11 November 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[WolfPlayer]

Dren Nas, on 10 November 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

I want their damage output in line with othe weapons with similar slots/tonnage needs, right now they do not compete with them.

They would be way over powered if they did the same damage output as other weapons with similar slots/tonnage.
If 2 LRM 10s did the same damage as an AC20 it would be crazy, as the AC20 is so short ranged you basicly only use it if the enemy is dumb, or you strip all your other weapons off for a faster engine to catch them.

There should never be a balance where the same weight/heat/ammo for short range weapons and long range weapons do the same damage.
a medium laser should do less damage then 2 small lasers, as it has a longer range. And a single large laser should do less damage then 4 medium lasers, as it has a longer range. LRMs should do less damage as they have a longer range (plus indirect which is priceless.)

Just played a game just now where we waited, killed them as they came out into the open, and finished off the last two with lasers as we ran out of ammo (we didnt run with much ammo).
We had 3 LRM catapults, 3 assaults with an LRM20 each (two were trial atlas) and a wang and a SRM catapult.
I only got one kill, but the 3 of us LRM boats did the most damage by far, just didnt get the most killing shots. We lost the yen-lo.
It was also one of the heavest games I have played, as the only scout was an enemy cicida, all the other mechs were heave and assaults, which ment slow and easy LRM targets but also we didnt run with enough ammo.

My only problem is with extreme ranged head shots with dual gauss twice in a row while I was moving. This should not be possible really, only the lasers should have no projectile spread, the balistics should have at least a slight spread at range due to wind, gravity, barrel imperfections, enough that over 900 meters it might vary 2% so as not to all 4 hit the exact same place like robin hoods arrows splitting the first one (I saw mythbusters, and even that at 5 feet away is not possible.)

[Dorque]

That's exactly what I'm seeing here though. A lot of players are coming in saying that LRMs are worthless now and a lot of other players who frequently use LRMs are saying that they've had no problem, but are being completely ignored.

I firmly believe that while they may still need some minor tweaking LRMs are in a very good place right now, useful as a support weapon without utterly controlling the flow of a match.

If you really believe there is a problem I'd like to see you talking to the other LRM boaters saying that there isn't one, not just ignoring them to thump your "LRMs are useless" bible again and again.

[Kaijin]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

If people came on here and their main argument is "I love LRMs and only want a long-ranged game" then that is a perfectly valid but contrary opinion or desire to what I want to see. But people that come on here and pretend like the former state of LRMs are fine and ignore lots of reasons to the contrary are at best willfully ignorant of the facts.

But i don't only want a long-ranged game. I want weapons of all ranges to be effective within their ranges. LRMs are not, at present, effective.

The straw man you present of those arguing in favor of LRMs actually being useful is that we're all LRM-boaters and it's the only weapon or play-style we use. Certainly in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I don't just want LRMs to be dangerous when I'm shooting them - I want them to be dangerous when they're being shot at me, when I have no LRMs, and I'm taking a shortcut across the lake in Forest Colony to cap the enemy base.

It's something I can do very easily now because LRMs suck.

Edited by Kaijin, 11 November 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[hanitora]

People complain about everything they are too inept to deal with, with actual basis and baselessly.

I am glad LRMs got übernerfed though. Playing without AMS is so much easier and more fun now.

[Dorque]

Kaijin, on 11 November 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

The straw man you present of those arguing in favor of LRMs actually being useful is that we're all LRM-boaters and it's the only weapon or play-style we use.

Stop putting words in my mouth and please try to recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post you quoted (hint:it was almost word-for-word a copy of Shaddock's post to demonstrate the flaws in his argument)

I'm not going to restate my points. I think that at most they need some minor tweaking.

[Shaddock]

hanitora, on 11 November 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

People complain about everything they are too inept to deal with, with actual basis and baselessly.

I am glad LRMs got übernerfed though. Playing without AMS is so much easier and more fun now.

I am at least happy when people admit they dont like LRMs and are happy they got nerfed, as opposed to others who prefer to be intellectually dishonest.

[hanitora]

Shaddock, on 11 November 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

I am at least happy when people admit they dont like LRMs and are happy they got nerfed, as opposed to others who prefer to be intellectually dishonest.

I don't dislike them, I just find it more fun to play if I don't have to worry about LRM equipped mechs shooting them at me.

[Dren Nas]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Stop putting words in my mouth and please try to recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post you quoted (hint:it was almost word-for-word a copy of Shaddock's post to demonstrate the flaws in his argument)

I'm not going to restate my points. I think that at most they need some minor tweaking.

So, we have people constantly saying "i'm taking my ams off because it is a wasted slot now" is not an indicator that LRMs are weak currently?

[Teralitha]

TAG lasers and NARCS. Teamwork.. Thats all Im sayin..... figure it out.

[Dorque]

Shaddock, on 11 November 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

I am at least happy when people admit they dont like LRMs and are happy they got nerfed, as opposed to others who prefer to be intellectually dishonest.

Yes, that's the obvious answer, isn't it?

"I know they secretly just don't like LRMs." And that is exactly why you aren't listening to anything that anyone says which goes contrary to your point.

Still waiting to hear what's wrong with the LRM boaters in this thread who say they're fine now.

Dren Nas, on 11 November 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

So, we have people constantly saying "i'm taking my ams off because it is a wasted slot now" is not an indicator that LRMs are weak currently?

It means that it is no longer necessary equipment for every Mech, and that's a GOOD thing. The fact that it WAS considered necessary for every build shows that they were too strong previously. If players are all forced to equip an "option" to protect against a specific weapon, that weapon is too strong (especially when that option increased their chance of a critical hit from all other weapons)

Edited by Dorque, 11 November 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[gavking]

I keep see thing like "lrms are worthless now" how ever Ithink lrms should just be srm put for a farther range. I guess that would be balancing them

[Shaddock]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Yes, that's the obvious answer, isn't it?

"I know they secretly just don't like LRMs." And that is exactly why you aren't listening to anything that anyone says which goes contrary to your point.

Still waiting to hear what's wrong with the LRM boaters in this thread who say they're fine now.



It means that it is no longer necessary equipment for every Mech, and that's a GOOD thing. The fact that it WAS considered necessary for every build shows that they were too strong previously. If players are all forced to equip an "option" to protect against a specific weapon, that weapon is too strong (especially when that option increased their chance of a critical hit from all other weapons)

I like how you are incapable of dealing with my arguments, so you change my argument, then argue with the changed one...

[Dren Nas]

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Yes, that's the obvious answer, isn't it?

"I know they secretly just don't like LRMs." And that is exactly why you aren't listening to anything that anyone says which goes contrary to your point.

Still waiting to hear what's wrong with the LRM boaters in this thread who say they're fine now.

I'd say that they are either exceptional players, very lucky, or lying.

Dorque, on 11 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

It means that it is no longer necessary equipment for every Mech, and that's a GOOD thing. The fact that it WAS considered necessary for every build shows that they were too strong previously. If players are all forced to equip an "option" to protect against a specific weapon, that weapon is too strong.

And the fact that EVERYONE is realizing they can take it off and just run under LRMs in the open to just pop that LRM mech doesn't scream at you "underpowered"?

Edited by Dren Nas, 11 November 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Parka]

It's kinda sad that there's all this complaining about LRMs when they're still useful on the battlefield, unlike some other weapon systems in the game. People just want their easy mode no skill iwinbuttons.

If you wanna complain about weapon system imbalances talk about machine guns and flamers. Those weapons are utterly useless and currently have no place at all in this game.

[Dren Nas]

Parka, on 11 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

It's kinda sad that there's all this complaining about LRMs when they're still useful on the battlefield, unlike some other weapon systems in the game. People just want their easy mode no skill iwinbuttons.

If you wanna complain about weapon system imbalances talk about machine guns and flamers. Those weapons are utterly useless and currently have no place at all in this game.

To be fair, flamers either need a buff, redesign, or people need to learn to use them properly. You're open to make that thread.