40 replies to this topic

[Noth]

Volthorne, on 05 November 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

When LRMs dealt 1.8 damage, they:

• Had middle of the road clustering
  
• Hit their target from almost 90 degrees (straight down. This means there was NO COVER unless you were directly under something solid)
  
• Were actually Fire-and-forget (Maintain locks? screw that, launch as many salvos at as many people as possible ASAP)

Now, they:

• Have middle of the road clustering (unless you use TAG/NARC)
  
• Hit their target from more of a frontal angle (45-75 degrees, cover is easier to come by now)
  
• Need a lock maintained to hit anything

Please, tell me more about how LRMs are OP (I've been in Beta since June. I doubt you can say the same).


The "lights need nerfs" problem has been around for a damned long time, and the recent removal of knock-downs only impacted the problem to make it seem worse.

Actually at 1.8 you needed to maintain lock. BTW missiles still often do 90 degree turns to drop on you from above. They also have tighter clustering than they did at 1.8 even without TAG and NARC.

[Korobug]

The premades still have next to no problem against missiles. It's not the game, it's the players, the only real problem is the terrain glitches when the missiles fly through them.

[Volthorne]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Actually at 1.8 you needed to maintain lock. BTW missiles still often do 90 degree turns to drop on you from above. They also have tighter clustering than they did at 1.8 even without TAG and NARC.

I'm pretty sure 1.8 was still fire-and-forget. Anyone have old patch-notes lying around that we can read off of?

[Noth]

Volthorne, on 05 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure 1.8 was still fire-and-forget. Anyone have old patch-notes lying around that we can read off of?

I remember distinctly having to keep lock at 1.8. They were for quite awhile fire and forget, though. They had two patches that dealt with having to keep lock. One implemented the need and the second , I believe made it so you could reacquire lock and have the missile resume their course. One happened before the 2.0 damage increase (which was with the TAG and NARC patch) and the other either was in the TAG and NARC patch or the very next patch after that.

Edited by Noth, 05 November 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[EtherDragon]

So, the use, and strengths of LRMs are very different from any other weapon, which makes it hard to compare to, say an AC20.

When comparing a Guass to AC20, it's pretty strait forward - you look at range vs heat vs ammo vs heat vs total tonnage - but the in-game mechanic is the same. That is to say, that for 8 mechs to target the same enemy with their AC/20, they all have to have direct line of sight, and none of them can be blocking each-other for full potency. We all agree, any mech foolish enough to get cought alone anywhere with eight mechs with direct line of site should die in a rapid rain of AC20 shots. Still, as the silly lone enemy moves around, other mechs in the group need to reposition to maintain LOS, and fire their AC20.

But LRMs work so differently from this. Any time any single mech has LOS, seven other mechs can likely launch LRMs at them. Mechs don't block eachother, due to the LRMs flight path. (One might argue it's not 100% accurate, but I would respond, it's vastly easier to position yourself such that a friendly mech will not interfere with your LRM fire). Basically, seven mechs can stand in one spot and just keep firing over and over again.

One common argument against any change to LRMs is the use of cover. But there are issues with this argument due to the nature of cover for different weapon systems. Every other weapon from the LRM is defeated by any kind of cover - be it a small hill, another mech, or a tall building. This is simply not the case with LRMs - to defeat them you have to have specific kinds of cover - that is cover that is vertical enough to cause the missiles to strike it instead of angling down on you. Also note, other mechs do not qualify (generally) as missiles will still strike you due to their inward angle.

Others will argue that we need to know how to dodge missiles in order to deal with them. My response is this - the skill required to get out of the way of a bunch of AC20s and the skill required to get out of the way of LRMs is so disparate, that it's not a valid comparison. To get out of the way of eight AC20s, all any mech needs to do is run over a hill or around a building - even if another mech follows them - they are still now only 1v1. To get ouf of the way of eight LRM launchers the mech needs to break LOS from every other mech - if they are being chased by another mech, this is impossible - or find a specific kind of cover, with the correct vertical height to protect them and then stay right there...

What we ended up with is an (arguably overly) powerful combination of a weapon that does more damage per ton/heat/ammo than any other weapon AND ignores much of the cover that other weapons are susceptable to AND is easier to aim.

However, we want a weapon that is a soft-cover neutralizer. It adds movement to the game, and gives us new tactics. I think LRMs should be positioned as pinning weaponry, and armor softeners. It should be painful to ignore them, but not instantly fatal as is often the case now.

My specific idea is this...
Define - Direct Fire Mode: Works as LRMs do now
Define - Indirect Fire Mode: Increase the spread such that the number of missiles that hit are based on the range values taken from TT - at max range, only about 50% of them hit...

When you can target the enemy without assistance, (you have direct LOS) = Direct Fire Mode
When you must target the enemy with assistance, (you do not have direct LOS) = Indirect Fire Mode
When an enemy is TAG'd or NARC'd = Direct Fire Mode, regardless of if you have direct LOS.

To put this idea another way, the only time your LRM damaged is reduced is if you are firing your LRMs at something that you cannot target yourself that is not currently TAG'd or NARC'd. All other situations LRMs work exactly as they do now.

TL;DR?
Currently, IMO, the combination of focus fire on any target without direct LOS and the highest damage per ton/heat/ammo/crit-space of any other weapon in the game makes LRMs just too good, and too frustrating to fight against. Currently - the team with the most LRMs generally wins.

Rather than tweak damage (again) or ROF (again) change how LRMs behave such that when you are firing on a target that is not NARC'd or TAG'd and that you don't have a direct LOS to such that about 50% of them miss.

Last Note: We did a poll back in the day, and found that roughly 50% of players were not having fun when fighting against LRMs... that is worrisome because if people aren't having fun, they won't play. No play no pay...

Edited by EtherDragon, 05 November 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Noth]

EtherDragon, on 05 November 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

So, the use, and strengths of LRMs are very different from any other weapon, which makes it hard to compare to, say an AC20.

When comparing a Guass to AC20, it's pretty strait forward - you look at range vs heat vs ammo vs heat vs total tonnage - but the in-game mechanic is the same. That is to say, that for 8 mechs to target the same enemy with their AC/20, they all have to have direct line of sight, and none of them can be blocking each-other for full potency. We all agree, any mech foolish enough to get cought alone anywhere with eight mechs with direct line of site should die in a rapid rain of AC20 shots. Still, as the silly lone enemy moves around, other mechs in the group need to reposition to maintain LOS, and fire their AC20.

But LRMs work so differently from this. Any time any single mech has LOS, seven other mechs can likely launch LRMs at them. Mechs don't block eachother, due to the LRMs flight path. (One might argue it's not 100% accurate, but I would respond, it's vastly easier to position yourself such that a friendly mech will not interfere with your LRM fire). Basically, seven mechs can stand in one spot and just keep firing over and over again.

One common argument against any change to LRMs is the use of cover. But there are issues with this argument due to the nature of cover for different weapon systems. Every other weapon from the LRM is defeated by any kind of cover - be it a small hill, another mech, or a tall building. This is simply not the case with LRMs - to defeat them you have to have specific kinds of cover - that is cover that is vertical enough to cause the missiles to strike it instead of angling down on you. Also note, other mechs do not qualify (generally) as missiles will still strike you due to their inward angle.

Others will argue that we need to know how to dodge missiles in order to deal with them. My response is this - the skill required to get out of the way of a bunch of AC20s and the skill required to get out of the way of LRMs is so disparate, that it's not a valid comparison. To get out of the way of eight AC20s, all any mech needs to do is run over a hill or around a building - even if another mech follows them - they are still now only 1v1. To get ouf of the way of eight LRM launchers the mech needs to break LOS from every other mech - if they are being chased by another mech, this is impossible - or find a specific kind of cover, with the correct vertical height to protect them and then stay right there...

What we ended up with is an (arguably overly) powerful combination of a weapon that does more damage per ton/heat/ammo than any other weapon AND ignores much of the cover that other weapons are susceptable to AND is easier to aim.

However, we want a weapon that is a soft-cover neutralizer. It adds movement to the game, and gives us new tactics. I think LRMs should be positioned as pinning weaponry, and armor softeners. It should be painful to ignore them, but not instantly fatal as is often the case now.

My specific idea is this...
Define - Direct Fire Mode: Works as LRMs do now
Define - Indirect Fire Mode: Increase the spread such that the number of missiles that hit are based on the range values taken from TT - at max range, only about 50% of them hit...

When you can target the enemy without assistance, (you have direct LOS) = Direct Fire Mode
When you must target the enemy with assistance, (you do not have direct LOS) = Indirect Fire Mode
When an enemy is TAG'd or NARC'd = Direct Fire Mode, regardless of if you have direct LOS.

TL;DR?
Currently, IMO, the combination of focus fire on any target without direct LOS and the highest damage per ton/heat/ammo of any other weapon in the game makes LRMs just too good, and too frustrating to fight against. Currently - the team with the most LRMs generally wins.

Rather than tweak damage (again) or ROF (again) change how LRMs behave such that when you are firing on a target that is not NARC'd or TAG'd and that you don't have a direct LOS to such that about 50% of them miss.

Last Note: We did a poll back in the day, and found that roughly 50% of players were not having fun when fighting against LRMs... that is worrisome because if people aren't having fun, they won't play. No play no pay...

I like this Idea a lot.

[Roughneck45]

LRMs are not OP.

Bad tactics make them OP.

It can be tough with rambo pugs on your team, because they will die horribly fast (and then make an LRMS OP thread), but with the smallest amount of coordination LRM teams are the easiest to dismantle.

Anyone remember LRMs before the damage buff? Of course not, because almost no one brought them to battle. They were a waste of tonnage. Now they are worth taking and the sky is falling? I think not.

Edited by Roughneck45, 05 November 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[Caleb Lee]

KKyojii, on 04 November 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

That works for competitive matches, but for PuBing it seems like missiles are too easy to get damage/kills. I am sure super amazing players can bypass this but, for the most part people get eaten up by missile damage.

Sorry, they aren't building this game for PUBs. Mechwarrior/Battletech has always been about strategy and teamwork. Only on Solaris or somewhere, perhaps Clan battles does 1v1 or PUG type play count. You also don't see many if any LRM only builds in the novels for Solaris for the very reasons others listed here. It's usually up close in your face type combat.

All I can say is people need to find a unit and or get on public comms and start playing as a group the way the game is designed? Don't agree with me? Fine, that's your opinion, however, almost every MMO out there with the exception of a very small handfull require teams to play through most of the content.

This is not Call of Duty and never will be. This is a military sim based on the BT universe that requires teamwork and tactics to be successfull.

[Allekatrase]

I also like that idea a lot.

[Noth]

Roughneck45, on 05 November 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

LRMs are not OP.

Bad tactics make them OP.

It can be tough with rambo pugs on your team, because they will die horribly fast (and then make an LRMS OP thread), but with the smallest amount of coordination LRM teams are the easiest to dismantle.

Anyone remember LRMs before the damage buff? Of course not, because almost no one brought them to battle. They were a waste of tonnage. Now they are worth taking and the sky is falling? I think not.

*sigh* I really wish people would read the whole thread. If a weapon system limits you to a select few strategies it is OP as it dictates the match. Other games that have this happen nerf or change what is dictating the match in order to allow more variety in the match. Variety in gameplay is crucial for a game with such little content.

Caleb Lee, on 05 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Sorry, they aren't building this game for PUBs. Mechwarrior/Battletech has always been about strategy and teamwork. Only on Solaris or somewhere, perhaps Clan battles does 1v1 or PUG type play count. You also don't see many if any LRM only builds in the novels for Solaris for the very reasons others listed here. It's usually up close in your face type combat.

All I can say is people need to find a unit and or get on public comms and start playing as a group the way the game is designed? Don't agree with me? Fine, that's your opinion, however, almost every MMO out there with the exception of a very small handfull require teams to play through most of the content.

This is not Call of Duty and never will be. This is a military sim based on the BT universe that requires teamwork and tactics to be successfull.

Actually they have flat out admitted their largest audience would be the pubbers and solo players. So they very well should be making it friendly to them

[Roughneck45]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

*sigh* I really wish people would read the whole thread. If a weapon system limits you to a select few strategies it is OP as it dictates the match. Other games that have this happen nerf or change what is dictating the match in order to allow more variety in the match. Variety in gameplay is crucial for a game with such little content.

You are joking right?

Ya know what, they should have a floating wall in front of my mech, because gauss rifles and ppc's make me stay behind cover. I should be able to spawn a moat too, for when those pesky brawlers get in my face and start shooting me.......



All weapons, in all games, dictate how the fight is going to happen. Terrain and positioning is the counter to that. LRMs have the easiest and most obvious weaknesses to exploit.

Edited by Roughneck45, 05 November 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Caleb Lee]

EtherDragon, on 05 November 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

My specific idea is this...
Define - Direct Fire Mode: Works as LRMs do now
Define - Indirect Fire Mode: Increase the spread such that the number of missiles that hit are based on the range values taken from TT - at max range, only about 50% of them hit...

When you can target the enemy without assistance, (you have direct LOS) = Direct Fire Mode
When you must target the enemy with assistance, (you do not have direct LOS) = Indirect Fire Mode
When an enemy is TAG'd or NARC'd = Direct Fire Mode, regardless of if you have direct LOS.

I would second this only if they boost TAG and NARC. I do agree that perfect firing solutions without direct LOS and no TAG/NARC are a little ridicoulous and not cannon in the least.

I also feel that TAG/NARC have too short a delay for the tonnage and overall effect they have. To balance the above, they should actually tighten the accuracy and flight path of the LRMs if a target has been marked with TAG/NARC. If the devs fixed this and implemented something like the above I would feel better about the current balance.

Do I think LRMs are overpowered? No. Do I think current targetting is a little OP, yes. I also feel TAG/NARC are way underpowered at this point in time. I would even support no firing solution if there's not a direct LOS if they buffed TAG/NARC.

That would make scouts viable and have a more realistic (Battletech) role and justify them closing in when knockdown is re-implemented.

[Noth]

Roughneck45, on 05 November 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

You are joking right?

Ya know what, they should have a floating wall in front of my mech, because gauss rifles and ppc's make me stay behind cover.

I should be able to spawn a moat too, for when those pesky brawlers get in my face and start shooting me.

How about you dictate the tactics, and advance with cover into their minimum range and rip them to shreds. Then they can come to the forums and complain that tactics are OP.

All weapons, in all games, dictate how the fight is going to happen. Terrain and positioning is the counter to that. Learn to use it.

Again read the flipping thread. No where do I say I want LRMs useless. I want them to not force specific tactics and dictate the battlefield. I want them to be a weapon that make you want to use cover but not force you to use it. Something that can soften up targets and be threat without being near instant death just because you stepped out of cover to actually fight that light that is targeting you.

If I wanted them useless I'd say I wanted them back at 1.5 damage and it's spread back to the point a a good 20-30% of the missiles missed a stationary target. Instead all I've said was a decrease to 1.8 damage and approved of a change in how the LRMs would function.

BTW the fact that you can only advance in cover is them dictating the tactics you are using, thus you aren't dictating anything.

Edited by Noth, 05 November 2012 - 01:32 PM.

[Caleb Lee]

Oh, to also help balance the non-LOS with something from canon. I think LRM pilots should be able to pull up the main map, target and fire their weapons on a specific coordinate.

I.E. They don't have LOS on a mech and a targeting solution but they 'think' or know the pilot is behind a hill. They can then pull up the map, target a salvo to go to that spot on the map. Granted it'd have a decent spread and likelyhood of hitting a mech is low but they could still try/attempt it if they want.

There are numerous examples of this in the novels where pilots would pre-program strikes against an opponent(s) sometimes to very good effect.

[Roughneck45]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I want them to be a weapon that make you want to use cover but not force you to use it.

AKA useless.

You keep claiming you dont want them to be useless, and then you say you dont want to feel like you have to take cover from them. What is the point of the weapon if it cannot kill you through an open field of fire?

Once again, all weapons force you to use specefic tactics, in every game, ever. LRMs should be no different.

They were pathetic before the buff, and now they are useable. At best, they are a noob punishing weapon by themselves, and with a good scout they can be used to full effect.

If they made any changes, put taller cover in the maps, or fix the clipping issue with them.

Edited by Roughneck45, 05 November 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[Noth]

Roughneck45, on 05 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

AKA useless.

You keep claiming you dont want them to be useless, and then you say you dont want to feel like you have to take cover from them. What is the point of the weapon if it cannot kill you through an open field of fire?

Once again, all weapons force you to use specefic tactics, in every game, ever.

Uh, what? I'm saying that you still want to use cover, but they won't just flat out destroy you if you decide to move from your cover.

None of the current ACs force me to use a specific tactic. I've used cover against them, rushed them, stayed at range from them, use small changes in elevation to throw off their aim or force a shot to a spot they don't want. A nice variety. Guass is the same way. Lasers you can do the same as the ACs along with learning t spread the damage so that that 5 damage becomes 1 damage or less over your parts. No other weapon dictates that I can't leave cover without dieing. No other weapon can have 7 people launch 100s of massive damage missile volleys onto me without them even seeing me

I use LRMs, I don't want them useless, I just don't want them dictating the battlefield as much as they do. They are too powerful in that aspect. If you think 1.8 damage would make them useless, then you have no idea what youa re talking about. That's a whopping 4 damage less from a LRM20.

[Roughneck45]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I use LRMs, I don't want them useless, I just don't want them dictating the battlefield as much as they do. They are too powerful in that aspect. If you think 1.8 damage would make them useless, then you have no idea what youa re talking about. That's a whopping 4 damage less from a LRM20.

Its been a long day at work, and if ive come across as an *** im sorry about that.

They could tweak the damage a bit. Id be ok with that.

I think we just disagree about the degree of which they dictate the battle.

[EtherDragon]

Roughneck - comparing the LRM to any other weapon that is protected by cover is inaccurate. In my earlier post, I state that LRMs treat cover differently than every other weapon that exists. LRMs are blocked by only specific kinds of cover (cover steep enough to block their angled down-path) where-as GUASS is blocked by any kind of cover - even a friendly mech.

A gruadual hill blocks a Guass 100%, no matter who is TAGing me, if it is between me and you. But that same hill does nothing against LRMs. I have to do more than just break LOS. So a comparison between standing in the open against Gauss and standing in the open vs LRM isn't viable.

This disparity is driving an explosive wedge into the skill-gap between being able to find any old cover, and knowing how to find nearly vertical cover (and positioning yourself to take advantage of it.) This disparity also positions the possibility that there might be LRMs as Red Alert Threat Number One, dominating everyone's thoughts.

We don't want them to be useless - we want their usefulness to be in-line with other weapons of similar weight, tonnage, ammo, heat, and range. No-one has ever said that, in an 8v1 situation the 8 shouldn't have an advantage. But with LRMs the advantage that the 8 have is much greater than the advantage they have with any other weapon.

[Volthorne]

I think the actual problem here is: there are no proper "anti-LRM" maps. By this, I mean all 4 maps we have as of right now have open areas that are perfect for LRM platforms to maximize thier potency (conversely, this makes it easier to snipe them too). We don't have any maps that are specifically detrimental to the usage of LRMs (caverns, Metropolises, mountains&valleys, etc), which may be throwing the data a bit. I expect that as soon as we get some of these maps, LRM usage will decrease in favour of shorter range weaponry, and when longer range direct-fire weapons are brought to balanced conditions, it will stabilize LRM platform usage at acceptable levels.

[Bobzilla]

I feel the gameplay revolves around lrms, and it makes sense that artillary rules the battlefield in my mind.

What if when using a spotter for lrms you can only see what the spotter sees to get a lock? I'm thinking there would be a button that you would use on a target that would show a complete clone of the spotters screen (none of yours) and then in that screen you would start to get a lock, taking a certain amount of time (no aiming needed). It would kill the boaters situational awareness so it could be snuck up on easier and not know where it's own team is heading. At the very least it would force the boater to choose; do lots of constant damage but not see whats going on around him, or do some damage and take a 'break' to look around then go back and get a new lock. If the target is in your los it locks on as it currently does.
A skilled pilot will be able to find that balance so not just any noob and rule the battlefield. I'm guessing in team play it will cause a need for boaters to have an escourt to watch its back. So you could have the constant rain but it would take 3 mechs, a spotter, an escourt and the boat.