29 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

After I finished reading through LRM changes...

LRM5 is got double whammied by increased spread and cooldown. PTS 4.2 meter spread is the same as LRM10. With 4 second CD, its DPS will become mere 1.25--making it the worst DPS weapon in the missile family, except for the SSRM2. Compare that with the live server cooldown value of 3.25 seconds and 1.54 DPS.

LRM10 is still nerfed in a way, cause although it CD has been reduced to 4.2 seconds, that's still longer than live servers, which is 4 seconds CD. Means it has 2.33 DPS in PTS instead of 2.5 in live. It's heat got noticeably reduced though, from 4.0 to 3.33.

LRM15 got a mini buff to its CD, from 4.75 in live to 4.6 in PTS but that still does take account of its big spread. It will still be as little used as before. 3.26 DPS from 3.16.

LRM20 also got buff to CD, from 5.5 on live server to 5.0 in PTS. Means its DPS will be increased to 4, from 3.64 in live. It's spread reduced from 6.2 to 5.2 meters, making it have exactly the same spread as LRM15. That's still too much spread, though certainly better than before. There is also small heat reduction, from 6 to 5.5.

Considering the fact LRMs 15s and 20s still need Artemis to be of use, this still doesn't change the fact big launchers will still be crap in the PTS. And now the LRM5 (the only "good" LRM) got hit by a big nerf. So why did PGI nerf an already situational weapon system that were far far away from the meta?

The blame lies with the way PGI made the ED system.

LRM5s in the ED can be alpha fired without penalty for up to 8 launchers. Compare that to only 3 launchers without penalty in the GH system. So in order to "balance the LRM5s", PGI is sacrificing the only "good" LRM on the altar of balancing, in order to make sense of their ED system. Cmon, man...

Edited by El Bandito, 12 September 2016 - 06:25 PM.

[Deathlike]

The Nerfhammer hits everything and never regrets doing it.

[Ultimax]

If you read the notes, this had little to nothing to do with ED and came directly from (multiple posts, over a period of time) feedback on the forums here.

There have been plenty of threads detailing why and how massed LRM 5s outperform other classes of launchers for less weight, with higher RoF and tighter spreads.

"...we have seen the feedback regarding a desire to generally improve the LRM dynamics within the PTS for testing and experimentation. We know that some normalization of the LRM class of weaponry has been a long time coming, so we examined a few methods by which we can better balance the different LRM's in relation to each other."

Edited by Ultimax, 12 September 2016 - 06:29 PM.

[FupDup]

Ultimax, on 12 September 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

-
There have been plenty of threads detailing why and how massed LRM 5s outperform other classes of launchers for less weight, with higher RoF and tighter spreads.
-

But did they ever outperform direct-fire weapons? That is the question that matters more.

Also, spamming LRM5's isn't all that great unless your mech has 6 missile hardpoints. Any fewer and you're better off with 10's most of the time.

[Zibmo]

Ultimax, on 12 September 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

"...we have seen the feedback regarding a desire to generally improve the LRM dynamics within the PTS for testing and experimentation. We know that some normalization of the LRM class of weaponry has been a long time coming, so we examined a few methods by which we can better balance the different LRM's in relation to each other."

... thereby taking a marginal system (LRM5) and rendering it relatively useless while making very small strides towards making the least practical version of a very marginal weapon system slightly more useful, while still ensuring that only noobs will regularly be killed by them.

LRMs, which were not widely used except for PQ event weekends (because aiming is hard) are now going to be even more meaningless.

What is the next most useless weapon system? Who's up for a good round of nerfing that as well?

Edited by Zibmo, 12 September 2016 - 06:39 PM.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 12 September 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

But did they ever outperform direct-fire weapons? That is the question that matters more.

Also, spamming LRM5's isn't all that great unless your mech has 6 missile hardpoints. Any fewer and you're better off with 10's most of the time.

Bandito is blaming ED. This has nothing to do with ED.

And FWIW, they don't need to outperform other weapons they just need to outperform their intended cost/reward ratio.


They are intentionally lower tier weapons, because they don't require aiming and they allow IDF.

As I've said numerous times before on the subject if we want LRMs to be buffed to compete with direct fire weapons they would need to first lose those aspects - which I am all for.

It would be nice to have another class of serious weapons to build around and give a slew of mechs more of a purpose, but it's never going to happen with their current design.

Edited by Ultimax, 12 September 2016 - 07:26 PM.

[Arkroma]

FupDup, on 12 September 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

But did they ever outperform direct-fire weapons? That is the question that matters more.

There will be a huge problem if LRMs ever outperform a direct-fire weapon. LRM at its core is an "unfair" weapon based on its indirect-fire capability. This unfairness has to have a drawback and I'm not going to expand on that because "unfair" is a fundamental game design which almost every game utilises.

Like I said, if you want LRM be better in terms of DPS, the lock-on system has to get a rework done. Nothing less will change the situation of LRMs.

[FupDup]

Ultimax, on 12 September 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Bandito is blaming ED. This has nothing to do with ED.

And FWIW, they don't need to outperform other weapons they just need to outperform their intended cost/reward ratio.

They are intentionally lower tier weapons, because they don't require aiming and they allow IDF.

As I've said numerous times before on the subject if we want LRMs to be buffed to compete with direct fire weapons they would need to first lose those aspects - which I am all for.

It would be nice to have another class of serious weapons to build around and give a slew of mechs more of a purpose, but it's never going to happen with their current design.

That's not a problem with the LRM5, that's a problem with all lock-on weapons (all LRM launchers, all SSRM launchers). As such, singling out the LRM5 out of the bunch doesn't fit that line of logic.

[Nutta88]

Bigger launchers should always out perform the smaller ones... if having 2 LRM5s is better than a single LRM10, then the weapons aren't balanced. There should be a good reason to get the biggest launchers you can fit on your mech, Not as on live where is is as many of the smallest ones, There might then be a reason to have a single LRM on mechs with a single missile hard point...

[Kmieciu]

6xLRM5 Maddog was probably the only viable LRM platform, probably because it also packs 5xERML.

[El Bandito]

Nutta88, on 12 September 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

Bigger launchers should always out perform the smaller ones... if having 2 LRM5s is better than a single LRM10, then the weapons aren't balanced. There should be a good reason to get the biggest launchers you can fit on your mech, Not as on live where is is as many of the smallest ones, There might then be a reason to have a single LRM on mechs with a single missile hard point...

Currently only viable LRM launchers are the LRM5s. PGI should try to make bigger launchers better than LRM5s, not to nerf LRM5s this harshly while giving miniscule buffs to LRM15s and LRM20s, which still does not make them useful.

Maybe then we wouldn't need so many mechs with missile quirks.

Zibmo, on 12 September 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

... thereby taking a marginal system (LRM5) and rendering it relatively useless while making very small strides towards making the least practical version of a very marginal weapon system slightly more useful, while still ensuring that only noobs will regularly be killed by them.

LRMs, which were not widely used except for PQ event weekends (because aiming is hard) are now going to be even more meaningless.

Exactly this.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 September 2016 - 12:44 AM.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 12 September 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

That's not a problem with the LRM5, that's a problem with all lock-on weapons (all LRM launchers, all SSRM launchers). As such, singling out the LRM5 out of the bunch doesn't fit that line of logic.

The issue with LRM 5s was that they were very clearly outperforming other larger launchers with higher RoF/DPS and tighter spread - it's likely they were over-performing the intended target performance for LRMs.

Also as you must have noticed, most mid and pretty much all long range weapons, have had their CD's nerfed.

There is no reason for LRM 5s to maintain sub 4s CD times in that environment - because as I previously posted they are intentionally designed to be worse than direct fire weapons because they allow you to mitigate risk at the expense of your team mates and your own effectiveness.


As it is, most LRM launchers are lucky to have sub 5s CDs when Gauss is nearly 7s, all PPCs are 5s, ERLLAS are 5s (or higher in the case of CERLLAS).

Edited by Ultimax, 13 September 2016 - 04:59 AM.

[FupDup]

Ultimax, on 13 September 2016 - 04:58 AM, said:

The issue with LRM 5s was that they were very clearly outperforming other larger launchers with higher RoF/DPS and tighter spread - it's likely they were over-performing the intended target performance for LRMs.

Again, they only "overperformed" (which is debatable but I'll go with it for now) on mechs with six missile hardpoints. Using only like 3 or 4 LRM5 is pointless unless you're a light mech, in which case lol you're a light LRM boat. In those cases the LRM10 is actually the best launcher because it blends the strengths of the LRM5 with some of the extra punch of the LRM15. Best of both worlds, really.

The hexa-Lurm5 mechs have built-in risks such as:

Mad Dog: Garbage hitboxes and low armor. This thing is made of glass.

Catapult A1: The 6 LRM5 build has no backup weapons whatsoever. It is literally incapable of defending itself against mechs that get within 180m of it.

All LRM mechs of any salvo size also have to deal with the inherent weaknesses of the current mechanics such as slow missiles.

Those LRM mechs only overperform if we look at them in their own little world that is isolated from all of the dakka, PPFLD, and laser builds.

Ultimax, on 13 September 2016 - 04:58 AM, said:

Also as you must have noticed, most mid and pretty much all long range weapons, have had their CD's nerfed.

There is no reason for LRM 5s to maintain sub 4s CD times in that environment - because as I previously posted they are intentionally designed to be worse than direct fire weapons because they allow you to mitigate risk at the expense of your team mates and your own effectiveness.

As it is, most LRM launchers are lucky to have sub 5s CDs when Gauss is nearly 7s, all PPCs are 5s, ERLLAS are 5s (or higher in the case of CERLLAS).

That's an unfair comparison because most of those weapons have a big punch that (at least somewhat) justifies their reload times. For the record I think that the ERLL cooldown nerfs are going too far since their punch isn't as hard as Peeps/Gauss.

You're also still focusing on the LRM5 exclusively while giving a free pass to all of the other LRM launchers that got buffed in PTS4, with the LRM20 getting pretty big buffs.

The Lurm5 is not punchy, it's DPS-y. Long range does not and should not always mean long reload time. Reload time should be more related to upfront damage and damage delivery method (e.g. DoT, spread, etc.), as seen by some long-range guns like the AC/2 and AC/5.

Specifically, they got their spread nerfed to be equal to the LRM10. Their new cooldown time is only 0.3 seconds faster than the LRM10. Before it was a trolly weapon, and now it's pretty much been killed outright. It's practically the LRM equivalent of the IS Streak 2.

Edited by FupDup, 13 September 2016 - 10:54 AM.

[Sader325]

FU this threads not going off page one.

[East Indy]

The best points are made by Ultimatum. This isn't about Energy Draw, and it's not about competition between direct fire and lock-on spread weapons. It's a good step toward correcting a poorly scaling family of weapons.

Direct fire will be taking a hit with ED and lower heat caps, and there are plenty of global buffs that can be applied to LRMs. But in fact, 20-racks are receiving considerable boosts -- so, this is really about 5-rack trolling and somebody not wanting their cheese moved.

[davoodoo]

East Indy, on 14 September 2016 - 05:54 AM, said:

The best points are made by Ultimatum. This isn't about Energy Draw, and it's not about competition between direct fire and lock-on spread weapons. It's a good step toward correcting a poorly scaling family of weapons.

Direct fire will be taking a hit with ED and lower heat caps, and there are plenty of global buffs that can be applied to LRMs. But in fact, 20-racks are receiving considerable boosts -- so, this is really about 5-rack trolling and somebody not wanting their cheese moved.

lrm5 is still best if you can boat same amount of tubes...least tonnage and lowest cooldown...4x lrm5>1x lrm20\

If the goal was to make lrms balanced against each other then its a failure.
If the goal was to balance lrms against direct fire then its a failure
If the goal was to adjust lrms for ed without balancing them then it makes perfect sense...

Edited by davoodoo, 14 September 2016 - 09:30 AM.

[Sader325]

East Indy, on 14 September 2016 - 05:54 AM, said:

The best points are made by Ultimatum. This isn't about Energy Draw, and it's not about competition between direct fire and lock-on spread weapons. It's a good step toward correcting a poorly scaling family of weapons.

Direct fire will be taking a hit with ED and lower heat caps, and there are plenty of global buffs that can be applied to LRMs. But in fact, 20-racks are receiving considerable boosts -- so, this is really about 5-rack trolling and somebody not wanting their cheese moved.

Cheese?

This is about VIABILITY.

You think LRM 10's are good? You're wrong, I would never use them. LRM 15's are Awful, LRM 20's are awful, LRM 10's are awful. You don't get it. Nerfing LRM 5's means I will stop using LRM 5's period. The goal should have been to make LRM 10's 15's and 20's viable to the CURRENT LRM 5's. Nerfing LRM 5's is a stupid mistake.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

Again, they only "overperformed" (which is debatable but I'll go with it for now) on mechs with six missile hardpoints. Using only like 3 or 4 LRM5 is pointless unless you're a light mech, in which case lol you're a light LRM boat. In those cases the LRM10 is actually the best launcher because it blends the strengths of the LRM5 with some of the extra punch of the LRM15. Best of both worlds, really.

That's what PGI is going after, the enemy of the day is "boating".

Whether or not I'm actually OK with boating (I am) is irrelevant. LRM 5s do not deserve special treatment if all boating is being targeted for nerfs.

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

The hexa-Lurm5 mechs have built-in risks such as:

Mad Dog: Garbage hitboxes and low armor. This thing is made of glass.

Catapult A1: The 6 LRM5 build has no backup weapons whatsoever. It is literally incapable of defending itself against mechs that get within 180m of it.

All LRM mechs of any salvo size also have to deal with the inherent weaknesses of the current mechanics such as slow missiles.

Those LRM mechs only overperform if we look at them in their own little world that is isolated from all of the dakka, PPFLD, and laser builds.

Those are mechs, not weapons systems.

The point is not "overperforming" the point is performing beyond the intended cost/benefit ratio.

A single IS LRM 5 weighs a mere 2 tons, and takes up one slot.

Clan LRM 5s? 6 of them weigh less than a CUAC 5. That's quite a bit of "DPS-y" for that tonnage, even if it's spread. (And I'd argue those 6 CLRM 5s are probably more effective than a single UAC 5 is at accomplishing anything).



We all know LRMs are not top tier competitive weapons, on the other hand they are ridiculously prevalent during all of these "weekend warrior" events that we have. If they were totally trash, that would not be the case.


The reason for that is cost/benefit ratio, they allow players with either lower skill or lower effort to achieve results they wouldn't be able to otherwise. (And when massed they have a bit of force multiplication, but I digress).

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

That's an unfair comparison because most of those weapons have a big punch that (at least somewhat) justifies their reload times. For the record I think that the ERLL cooldown nerfs are going too far since their punch isn't as hard as Peeps/Gauss.

Those weapons with big puch also have big weight costs, they require you to aim, they require you to stick your face out - so if the paradigm is to nerf long ranged combat (which I'm against) - I see no reason long ranged missiles should be exempt.


If you want them to be better, you need to argue for the points where they can realistically be improved - but that simply cannot happen with auto-aim and IDF. It cannot.

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

You're also still focusing on the LRM5 exclusively ...

This thread's title is focused on LRM 5s, that's the conversation.

FupDup, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

The Lurm5 is not punchy, it's DPS-y. Long range does not and should not always mean long reload time. Reload time should be more related to upfront damage and damage delivery method (e.g. DoT, spread, etc.), as seen by some long-range guns like the AC/2 and AC/5.

Being DPS-y is exactly why they consistently outperformed other launchers, as long as you could take them en masse.


We can't simply compare them to LRM 10s or 15s, or 20s, because LRMs just add more launchers that all share the same ammo - you are effectively puzzle piecing your way to a tube count or what basically becomes a single big gun.

They share the same range, the same ammo, the same flight speeds, only lasers come close to being this similar but even then their ranges tend to be quite different.


So in essence, it's not a zero sum game where it's LRM 5s vs. LRM 10s vs. LRM 15s vs. LRM 20s - if these were all normalized, you could build your way to an effective tube count based on available weight, crit slots and hardpoints.

Edited by Ultimax, 14 September 2016 - 11:28 AM.

[FupDup]

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

That's what PGI is going after, the enemy of the day is "boating".

Whether or not I'm actually OK with boating (I am) is irrelevant. LRM 5s do not deserve special treatment if all boating is being targeted for nerfs.

The non-5 launchers, however, did get special treatment and yet you're not up in arms about that. You want the 5 to be pathetic, but you don't care if the others get significantly stronger than they were.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Those are mechs, not weapons systems.

Mech balance and weapon balance have a lot of overlap, especially when the weapons in question are highly dependent on a specific property of the mech they're mounted on (e.g. hardpoint count).

For example, global SRM buffs made the Griffin rise up to the top of the IS mediums lineup and also made the Oxide relevant.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

The point is not "overperforming" the point is performing beyond the intended cost/benefit ratio.

A single IS LRM 5 weighs a mere 2 tons, and takes up one slot.

Clan LRM 5s? 6 of them weigh less than a CUAC 5. That's quite a bit of "DPS-y" for that tonnage, even if it's spread. (And I'd argue those 6 CLRM 5s are probably more effective than a single UAC 5 is at accomplishing anything).

If we're going to talk about cost, there's more than just raw tonnage. Tonnage is important, but not everything.

All missile and ballistic weapons have the cost of ammo, which increases both the tons and slots you need. For LRMs in particular, I'd estimate around 1 ton per LRM5, 2 tons per LRM10, ~2.5 tons per LRM15, and around 3 tons per LRM20 (assuming that you don't have big missile cooldown quirks).

Having a minimum range is a form of cost. This applies more to the IS than Clans, but having even just a little damage instead of zero damage within 180m is still a big deal.

They also generate some heat. Not all that much unless in big numbers (like our 6-LRM5 boogeyman), but still worth noting. Certainly much more than the UAC/5 example.

Lastly, even hardpoint counts are an opportunity cost most of the time. On battlemechs, each variant "usually" has the same total number of hardpoints. So for example, you might get a Jenner with 6E or one with 4E and 2M. In order to get enough missile hardpoints to boat, this often involves giving up energy and/or ballistic hardpoints. Some weapons are dependent on high hardpoint counts, like the Small Laser or Machine Gun.

Having a low velocity is a cost that means you're much less likely to hit people who are near cover.

Spread is a cost.

The lock-on mechanic itself is a bit of a cost since if you lose the lock, then the missiles will usually not hit the target.


It's more like 3 LRM5 vs. 1 UAC/5 when all things are considered. Even then, I don't think I have to point out which of those weapon types is the more common and more powerful one on the live server.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

We all know LRMs are not top tier competitive weapons, on the other hand they are ridiculously prevalent during all of these "weekend warrior" events that we have. If they were totally trash, that would not be the case.


The reason for that is cost/benefit ratio, they allow players with either lower skill or lower effort to achieve results they wouldn't be able to otherwise. (And when massed they have a bit of force multiplication, but I digress).

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Those weapons with big puch also have big weight costs, they require you to aim, they require you to stick your face out - so if the paradigm is to nerf long ranged combat (which I'm against) - I see no reason long ranged missiles should be exempt.

Peeps and Gauss are both common and top-tier in both the live and PTS servers, so there is some actual context to their nerfs. It's not just all forms of long-range.

LRMs aren't even that "long" of range most of the time due to velocity and needing to keep the lock. The sweet spot is around 500m or so. After that point they become increasingly unreliable.

On the topic of LRM exemption. the 10/15/20 did just get exempted as I have to keep saying. They didn't just get exempted either, they got buffed.

The derpy lock-on mechanic also requires face time unless somebody either spots or UAV's for you.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

If you want them to be better, you need to argue for the points where they can realistically be improved - but that simply cannot happen with auto-aim and IDF. It cannot.

You've probably already seen me post Alistair Winter's big LRM picture several times already. I wage forum campaigns for reforming the lock-on mechanics more than anyone else here.

At the end of the day I know not to ask for the LRM5 to have its stats stronger than the current live server before any mechanics are changed. What I really want here is to simply not nerf them because they're not a problem right now. In other words, just leave them as-is for the time being.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

This thread's title is focused on LRM 5s, that's the conversation.

The reason I'm dragging other launchers into the conversation is because I see a few inconsistencies in the anti-5 arguments you're using, because some of those arguments are actually generalized anti-LRM rather than anti-LRM5.

Ultimax, on 14 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Being DPS-y is exactly why they consistently outperformed other launchers, as long as you could take them en masse.

We can't simply compare them to LRM 10s or 15s, or 20s, because LRMs just add more launchers that all share the same ammo - you are effectively puzzle piecing your way to a tube count or what basically becomes a single big gun.

They share the same range, the same ammo, the same flight speeds, only lasers come close to being this similar but even then their ranges tend to be quite different.

So in essence, it's not a zero sum game where it's LRM 5s vs. LRM 10s vs. LRM 15s vs. LRM 20s - if these were all normalized, you could build your way to an effective tube count based on available weight, crit slots and hardpoints.

Assuming full normalization, the "effective tube count" will almost always focus on the biggest launcher since it requires the fewest hardpoints. With Artemis, using a small number of big launchers means you don't pay as many tons or slots as having multiple smaller launchers.

The point of messing with other variables like cooldown or spread is to account for the unchangables like hardpoints and Artemis costs.

In general, I have the ideal that people should have to make a choice between either high efficiency or high brute force, but not both. I don't think that people should get to have their cake and eat it too by having the most brute force also be the most efficient.

[FupDup]

East Indy, on 14 September 2016 - 05:54 AM, said:

Direct fire will be taking a hit with ED and lower heat caps, and there are plenty of global buffs that can be applied to LRMs. But in fact, 20-racks are receiving considerable boosts -- so, this is really about 5-rack trolling and somebody not wanting their cheese moved.

From seeing your posts over the years, you seem to think that every single effective build in the game is cheese in your eyes. Even a number of not so effective ones are cheese to you.