66 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

=0=(Topic Cross Linked to Poll in Feature Suggestion)=(Please Vote)=0=
in this Topic i will be Compiling the Works and Sciance of several Individuals,
all have dont tests with LRMs and each have their Own Views and Thoughts on them,
however i will be using their Science to advocate for Spread Normalization,
Thank you,

VirtualRiot, on 09 September 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

Question:
Which set of LRMs is the most effective? Four LRM 5, 2 LRM 10, 1 LRM 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis:
Since all sets of LRMs launch 20 missiles, they should be similarly effective by salvo size (ex. 1 salvo of 4 LRM 5 should be as effective as 1 salvo of 1 LRM 20). They will be dis-similar in time to kill as LRM 5 has shorter cooldown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiment:
Tested the various combinations on a GRF-2N on Frozen city against the same target @210m. All tests were preformed with Artemis IV FCS. All variables were equal apart from the LRMs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
4x LRM 5: Target destroyed in 14 seconds using 5 volleys.
2x LRM 10: Target destroyed in 20 seconds using 6 volleys
1x LRM 20: Target destroyed in 49 seconds using 11 volleys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
4x LRM 5 displayed ~350% faster kill time vs 1x LRM 20 and 143% faster kill time vs 2x LRM 10.
4x LRM 5 used 2.2 times less ammo to kill that target vs 1x LRM 20 and 1.2 times vs 2x LRM 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thoughts:
LRM 10 and 20 spread should be reduced to have a similar salvo kill time versus LRM 5.

VirtualRiot on (Lrm !science!)

Sader325, on 12 April 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

The only LRMs worth using currently are LRM 5's both clan and inner sphere.

Why? Because your LRM 10, 15, and 20s still do the same effective damage as an LRM 5 simply because the spread of the LRM's is too damn high.

What other weapon gets punished this much for getting bigger? A clan UAC20 doesn't spread its bullets all over the place just because its an UAC20, every bullet from the uac20 follows the same exact path, varience comes from a moving target.

So I suggest a simple fix for all LRMs.

Clan LRMS:

Clan LRM 10, 15, and 20 will have the same spread as an LRM 5.

Nothing else will change, reduce the spread to 5's and you have now made LRM 20's just as viable as 5's.

Inner Sphere LRMs:

Innersphere LRM's will now fire in chains of 5's (think clan UAC)

IS LRM 20 will fire 4 groups of 5 with the same exact spread as an LRM 5. The rate of the chain fire can be adjusted, but for now lets say .1 seconds between groups.


There LRMs above 5s are now viable.

---

Navid A1, on 12 April 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree with the OP.

I made a similar suggestion a month ago in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5084012

Navid A1, on 17 March 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

How about this (quick mock up, there may be mistakes):





And this is the current spread values:

Sader325 on (How To Make Lrm's Not Terrible. Yea We're Buffing Lrms)

Navid A1, on 19 August 2016 - 05:44 AM, said:

I like most changes that was introduced in the energy draw system.

While its main focus is on direct fire alpha... it makes an already bad issue even worse.

LRM5s are the king of the indirect weapons in terms of weight, efficiency, dps, accuracy... pretty much everything.
A role that should have been carried out by LRM20s and LRM15s

Currently you can fire 3 LRM5s with no consequence... with energy draw you can fire 8 of them with no consequence.
Meanwhile You can only fire 2 LRM20s or LRM15s which are heavy, ammo wasting, have massive cooldowns and are highly inaccurate.

here is a comparison:
8x LRM 5s (at 16 tons)


2x LRM 20s (at 20 tons)



The solution:
- DO NOT ANNIHILATE LRM 5s
- Normalize spread across all launchers of all sizes (LRM10 levels) and introduce a new mechanic:
example:



I know it may sound harsh to some of you.. but please take a look at how LRM20 would be if it had LRM5 level spread:
8xLRM5s fired with LRM20 cooldown to simulate 2xLRM20 with small spread:


As you can see, even if you reduce LRM20 spread to LRM5 levels you get:
8xLRM5 at 16 tons and 8 crits killing an atlas in around 30 secs
2xLRM20 at 20 tons and 10 crits killing the same atlas in around 50 secs

Seems pretty fair to me.

What do you think?

Navid A1 on (Lrms And Energy Draw)

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Seriously. This is not about whether they are Trash Tier, or OP, no skills, or different skills, etc.

It's just basic common sense.

When dealing with BALANCE, 6x LRM5 should be equal to 2x LRM15 or 3x LRM10, and slightly inferior to, 2x LRM20.

But due to the cooldown and spread mechanics, if one does use LRMs, LRM5s, en masse, preferably 5-6, are the way to go. Be you in a Jenner IIC, a Mad Dog, or the Archer.

• IS LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.75s to 5.5s.
• IS LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.25s to 4.75s.
• IS LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 3.75s to 4.0s.
• Clan LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 5.0s to 6.5s.
• Clan LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.5s to 5.5s.
• Clan LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.0s to 4.5s.

Not sure offhand what the LRM5 base spread is. TBH. IS has a cooldown of 3.25 seconds, Clan, 3.5.

Heat? Supposedly one should run HOTTER using multiple 5s, but especially since Chainfire is a norm, it really doesn't seem to be much an issue, whereas I do know any mech running 2x LRM20, get toasty, rather fast. Part of that, I'm sure is the extra 2-4 tons one can save for DHS depending on build.

Anyhow, simple fact, 6x LRM5 whether Clan or IS, is resoundingly better than 2x LRM20, which is insane since you are comparing 12 tons (6 for clans) of weapons vs 20 (10 for Clan). And Artemis does little to matter.

Ideas?


LRMs. Add 100 m/s to base velocity.
Give ALL Launchers the same spread pattern (because mass, crits and slow cooldown is more than enough tax on the big launchers, already), Probably the LRM10 pattern, and a little tighter with Artemis.

Give LRMs another 100 m/s speed boost if they are homing on NARC'd or TAG'd enemies, and the hit pattern should be based on the Location the Mech is Tagged or NARC'd with the obvious changes for facing. (AKA if you are in front of a Mech that is TAG'd or NARC'd in the REAR RT, then the damage pattern should be focused around the FRONT RT as they take the shortest route to the designated area.)

Shorten Lock Time with LoS but make it more Pipper Dependant (I think it already has been tightened some that way, seems like I drop locks way easier now), increase them without LoS. Of course, NARC and TAG Would shorten the Lock again, but still be based on LoS/No LoS.

Then with LRMs being semi effective, we can stop worrying about stupid levels of quirks to achieve effectiveness, and maybe give it mild cooldown/heat gen quirks, and call it a day.

Or even Missile Lock speed/duration quirks.


*EDIT*
Found this fascinating thread on Mechspecs, too



https://www.mechspec...test-lrms.8298/

To summarize my current thoughts after 18 pages of discussion:
(mind you there are changes I would love to make, but realistically know that they won't)

1) Normalize All Launchers to LRM10 Spread, including the LRM5
2) Bring the Cooldown Closer together, but not identical.
3) Perhaps give smaller racks slightly shorter lock times
4) With Artemis, add 100 m/s velocity and tighten all size Launcher Spread to LRM5 level
5) Indirect fire without aid of NARC or TAG all Launchers use LRM15 or 20 spread to reflect general inaccuracy of unaided indirect fire
6) LoS LRM Launch in flatter trajectory, Indirect Fire in Rainbow Trajectory, and lose any Artemis Bonus unless target is actively TAG'd or NARC'd.

Would enhance the Effectiveness of LRMs in general, while punishing BADs in sloppy LRMAssaults who expect people to hold locks for them, and also enhance usefulness of Legit Spotters, to some degree.

Bishop Steiner on (Thank You ACR: For Highlighting The Inherent Flaws In The Lrm System)


here are the Current Spreads and Cooldowns,
Type,....Spread,...Cooldown,.....(Clan)
LRM5,....3.0m........3.25sec,....(3.50sec)
LRM10,..4.2m........4.00sec,....(4.50sec)
LRM15,..5.2m........4.75sec,....(5.50sec)
LRM20,..6.2m........5.50sec,....(6.50sec)

the common Consensuses is normalize all Spread to 3m-4m,
and keep the cooldown, this way all LRMs are balanced to each other,

Again this Topic is to see if the Community would like to See all LRMs as Useful,
Large Launchers at this point arnt worth taking, even for support(Ammo),

=0= (Please Vote) =0=

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Quote Fixed,
Edit2- Updated Navids Post,
Edit3- Added Bishops Topic,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 27 August 2016 - 01:59 PM.

[Hotthedd]

The simplest solution would be to borrow a mechanic from TT and have all LRMs fire in volleys of 5.

[Andi Nagasia]

Hotthedd, on 24 August 2016 - 05:06 PM, said:

The simplest solution would be to borrow a mechanic from TT and have all LRMs fire in volleys of 5.

that may work but what if you have 4M hardpoints on a mech? will they all Chain Fire?

[Tyler Valentine]

I personally like the fact that LRMs are inefficient and imprecise. The last thing I want to see is practically everyone in a match boating LRMs, hiding behind rocks/teammates, and killing each other without ever seeing each other.

[Alex Morgaine]

assuming someone does see the vote results... Would be nice to validate lrms again as usable. Still a lot of counters but a 20 pack would be at least worth taking.

[Andi Nagasia]

Tyler Valentine, on 24 August 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

I personally like the fact that LRMs are inefficient and imprecise. The last thing I want to see is practically everyone in a match boating LRMs, hiding behind rocks/teammates, and killing each other without ever seeing each other.

perhaps but its not any good as a weapon system, when an ECM is a hard Counter to them,
mechs with lots of missile hard Points Boat LRM5s but other than that you dont really see them,
we cant say (well i like the weapon system being useless because you then you dont see it used)
wait what? all weapon systems can and should be Viable Options, not just our Personal Favorites,

[El Bandito]

I 100% agree to the proposals to buff larger launchers, as long as they do not make LRM5s weaker. We do not need another SRM2/SSRM2 in this game.

Tyler Valentine, on 24 August 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

I personally like the fact that LRMs are inefficient and imprecise. The last thing I want to see is practically everyone in a match boating LRMs, hiding behind rocks/teammates, and killing each other without ever seeing each other.

Currently big LRM launchers are too inefficient and too imprecise. Giving the big LRMs stagger-fire mechanism like what Sader proposed will make AMS still useful against them. As long as pugs mount AMS in the first place instead of whining on the forums, they should be fine.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 August 2016 - 06:12 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

El Bandito, on 24 August 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

I 100% agree to the proposals to buff larger launchers, as long as they do not make LRM5s weaker. We do not need another SRM2/SSRM2 in this game.

Currently big LRM launchers are too inefficient and too imprecise. Giving the big LRMs stagger-fire mechanism like what Sader proposed will make AMS still useful against them. As long as pugs mount AMS in the first place instead of whining on the forums, they should be fine.

id second this!

[xengk]

Consider bring back or put in place something similar?
The old Missile Swarm pattern.
It involve some level of skill to use LRM/SRM back then, it makes a difference between spreading damage everywhere or corkscrewing torso with 40 missile.

Go to 4:50 of the video

[Otto Cannon]

LRM changes are long overdue. You already pay extra weight for larger LRM racks if you don't have enough hardpoints for smaller ones, so why should larger ones also be slower and less accurate? It ruins mechs like the Archer which are supposed to have LRM20 in lore but underperform badly if you try to do the same in MWO.

I don't agree with firing volleys of five at a time though, there's a reason that an LRM20 has 20 holes in it. All PGI need to do is give all launchers the same spread and firing speed.

[627]

"Normalizing" never ended well in MWO... I mean look at pulse lasers and how long it took to make them a good weapon. I'd say the spread should be the same for all launchers. An LRM20 is supposed to do the same damage as an AC20, right?

And it is heavy, real heavy so you should get a big bang for that. It should be the surpreme LRM launcher, balanced by heat and cooldown, not by spread that makes it useless.

For Clan-LRM there should be a drawback of course, heat or cooldown increase should do the trick, or maybe even shorter range? Clans never fought with a spotter, you had to get your own targets, so maybe clans should not get indirect firing LRMs? Should at least be tested.

[Sader325]

[Sader325]

If the spread isn't 5 then it's not worth it. Even 10's are incredibly bad

[El Bandito]

Otto Cannon, on 24 August 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

I don't agree with firing volleys of five at a time though, there's a reason that an LRM20 has 20 holes in it.

Present day MRLS does not fire all the rockets at once, instead they stagger-fire.

Otto Cannon, on 24 August 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

LRM changes are long overdue. You already pay extra weight for larger LRM racks if you don't have enough hardpoints for smaller ones, so why should larger ones also be slower and less accurate? It ruins mechs like the Archer which are supposed to have LRM20 in lore but underperform badly if you try to do the same in MWO.

I don't agree with firing volleys of five at a time though, there's a reason that an LRM20 has 20 holes in it. All PGI need to do is give all launchers the same spread and firing speed.

Present day MRLS does not fire all the rockets at once, instead they stagger-fire.

Making all launchers same cooldown and spread might lead to LRM20 boating instead. Unlike AC20, an LRM20 has no range or velocity disadvantage compared to smaller caliber LRMs.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 August 2016 - 11:00 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

El Bandito, on 24 August 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

Present day MRLS does not fire all the rockets at once, instead they stagger-fire.



Present day MRLS does not fire all the rockets at once, instead they stagger-fire.

Making all launchers same cooldown and spread might lead to LRM20 boating instead. Unlike AC20, an LRM20 has no range or velocity disadvantage compared to smaller caliber LRMs.

Yeah, but LRM20s are already less tonnage/critslot efficient than LRM5s (10 tons with 5 slots as opposed to 8 tons and 4 slots).

LRMs need thicker, blacker smoketrails though.

[Navid A1]

Thank you for bringing this up Andi

I've also added this to the post you linked:

Please take a look at how LRM20 would be if it had LRM5 level spread:
8xLRM5s fired with LRM20 cooldown to simulate 2xLRM20 with small spread:


As you can see, even if you reduce LRM20 spread to LRM5 levels you get:
8xLRM5 at 16 tons and 8 crits killing an atlas in around 30 secs
2xLRM20 at 20 tons and 10 crits killing the same atlas in around 50 secs

Seems pretty fair for LRM20s to have LRM5 level spread.

Edited by Navid A1, 24 August 2016 - 11:14 PM.

[DeRazer]

I remember doing some tests a while back which seemed to indicate that LRM20s didnt' even fire 20 missiles. Basically I fired them, screen capped, and picked them out in the pic.

Not once in dozens of test fires could I ever pick out 20 missiles. 17/18 most of the time - that's a 10-15% damage drop right there.

I posted on it once...

[El Bandito]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 August 2016 - 11:04 PM, said:

Yeah, but LRM20s are already less tonnage/critslot efficient than LRM5s (10 tons with 5 slots as opposed to 8 tons and 4 slots).

On the other hand, LRM20 is more Artemis friendly than LRM5, and requires only one missile slot. If you make the spread and cooldown same across the board then LRM5s will get shafted, since ARLM20 = 11 tons with 6 slots requiring only 1 missile slot vs. 4xALRM5 = 12 tons and 8 slots and require 4 missiles slots. In that case, why not just pick ARLM20 everytime since it is way more efficient? IMO, there should be slight cooldown increase, larger the caliber is.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 August 2016 - 11:44 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

El Bandito, on 24 August 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

On the other hand, LRM20 is more Artemis friendly than LRM5, and requires only one missile slot. If you make the spread and cooldown same across the board then LRM5s will get shafted, since ARLM20 = 11 tons with 6 slots requiring only 1 missile slot vs. 4xALRM5 = 12 tons and 8 slots and require 4 missiles slots. In that case, why not just pick ARLM20 everytime since it is way more efficient? IMO, there should be slight cooldown increase, larger the caliber is.

Well, Artemis isn't necessary and it only affects LRMs with direct LoS.
Multiple small LRM launchers have the advantage of better flexibility.
Let's you control the amount of missiles you're using at the time, you can chain-fire them if needed (due to high heat or whatnot) and gives you the ability to not waste too many missiles if you're using them on a highly-damaged mech, so if a mech is at a cherry red CT, there's no reason to alpha-fire all of your missiles, instead you can launch 1 or 2 LRM5s at it and kill it, saving missiles.

I also want the swirly missile flight trajectories and thicker smoke trails!

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 24 August 2016 - 11:48 PM.

[Chagatay]

El Bandito, on 24 August 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

On the other hand, LRM20 is more Artemis friendly than LRM5, and requires only one missile slot. If you make the spread and cooldown same across the board then LRM5s will get shafted, since ARLM20 = 11 tons with 6 slots requiring only 1 missile slot vs. 4xALRM5 = 12 tons and 8 slots and require 4 missiles slots. In that case, why not just pick ARLM20 everytime since it is way more efficient? IMO, there should be slight cooldown increase, larger the caliber is.

Would LRM5s get the shaft with normalization? Not really. IMHO if you are wanting to use Artemis and lots and lots of missiles, you will probably naturally* gravitate towards bigger launchers which makes sense because you probably are in a heavy or assault and want to field lots of weapons. With energy draw coming maybe you want just a pair of LRM20s (probably the biggest LRM volley you can get with no penalty) and some lasers/SRM for up close action. This is now possible because you have free missile hardpoints and you don't care about the wasted tonnage on the bigger launchers.

However, conversely if you are a light/medium mech maybe you don't need that fancy Artemis system you can go with weight/slot efficient LRM5s or 10s with lasers maybe TAG or NARC on the side.


*Unlike now, where larger launchers are avoided like the plague.

Edited by Chagatay, 25 August 2016 - 01:24 AM.