33 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Recently, I was experimenting with LRMs to see how effective they were. I concluded that the answer is, overall, "Not very."

Certainly, against slow moving targets in the open, which are also not covered by ECM, they can mess them up badly. However, against a slow moving target in the open, other weapons systems are even MORE devastating.

LRM's are simply a lower-skill weapon, and so it does make sense for them to be less effective.

However, I think that perhaps LRM's suffer from having had a bunch of different aspects of them changed simultaneously, and missed the "sweet spot" for balance.

The end result at the end of the day, when done testing LRM's, is this:
LRM's are not fun to use.

It's not simply that they are ineffective... because, sometimes, they are effective. They have a number of drawbacks that make them often totally ineffective..but this isn't the real crux of the issue.

In a PUG, LRM's are essentially just an exercise in frustration. Unless you have a direct line of sight to your target, and KNOW that he will not be able to get to cover (which basically means that he is an *****), then firing off a volley of LRM's is just a crapshoot. There's no guarantee that you aren't going to lose lock as soon as you fire the volley, and thus just waste your time and ammo. Unless your team is extremely well organized, and really focusing on holding locks, most of your LRM fire is just gonna pound the dirt.

For me, it's this repeated process of firing a volley, and losing the lock an instant after firing the LRM's off that makes it so incredibly frustrating and annoying. If you are playing with a PUG, this is generally what will happen, over and over again. It generally means that you really shouldn't bring LRM's, ever... because the chances are, they aren't going to be effective.

However, the other side of this coin, is that given LRM's essentially require very little skill compared to other weapons systems, you would need to be very careful about avoiding making them overpowered.

At various points in the past, LRM's have been overpowered, but I think that one of the major aspects to this stemmed from the firing arc.

In early beta, LRM's would basically come down from a very high arc, meaning that cover was essentially useless. You could not hide behind cover, so if someone fired on you, you were GOING to take that damage, no matter what you did.

However, they then went and changed TWO things at about the same time:
They reduced the arc (which was good) and they made missiles stop tracking half-way through the shot if lock was lost (which I think was bad). Then, the introduction of ECM just further nerfed the weapons by dramatically increasing the liklihood that you would lose lock.

Would it be a bad change to go back to the old way of missile fire, where the missiles tracked after being fired, regardless of whether a lock was lost? I know that this would certainly reduce the feeling of total uselessness that I get when I use them. Even a significant reduction in damage would be ok, if it meant you would actually be able to do SOME damage.

Given that the arc has changed, a target would still be able to get cover quite easily.. but it would mean that a mech that was totally in the open wouldn't be able to avoid a volley of ECM just because the spotter switched to another target, or because he got into an ECM bubble.

Ultimately, I don't really like using LRM's much anyway. I prefer direct fire weapons.. but at the same time, when I experimented with using them, I just found that they were no fun at all... and things that are not fun, in a game, are bad.

[Tyler Durden]

It comes down to play style preference. I really enjoy using LRMs and can use them with devastating effect in most games, PUG or team play. I think they're pretty well balanced as is.

I'm anxiously awaiting the addition of Arrow IV to the game. That will be so powerful, you'll wish I was just firing LRMs.

[Vlad Ward]

I find that many Pug LRM boats have a tendency to sit back at 500,000 km and think that missiles with a 100kph travel time are somehow not going to be evaded long before they reach their targets.

LRMs tend to be most effective around the 300-500m range, in conjunction with other direct fire weapons like PPCs. Maintaining this range requires significantly more pilot input than sitting in the back, and it allows the LRMs to deal significantly more damage (less warning, less travel time, lowered AMS effectiveness).

[Vasces Diablo]

It drives me crazy when people say "LRMs are a low skill weapon" and then follow it shortly with "unless you have line of sight and know what you're doing". (I'm paraphrasing)

Are LRMs a twitch skill weapon? No.
Do they require me to:
-move my mech into an advantageous position
-anticipate my opponents move for the 4-10 secs of flight time
-decide if its worth being exposed to fire for said period of time while holding the lock
-make these decisions in a very short time period

Yes.

LRMs are a tactics/mental skill weapon, not a twitch one.

[Roland]

Vlad Ward, on 01 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I find that many Pug LRM boats have a tendency to sit back at 500,000 km and think that missiles with a 100kph travel time are somehow not going to be evaded long before they reach their targets.

LRMs tend to be most effective around the 300-500m range, in conjunction with other direct fire weapons like PPCs. Maintaining this range requires significantly more pilot input than sitting in the back, and it allows the LRMs to deal significantly more damage (less warning, less travel time, lowered AMS effectiveness).

Yes, but at that range, LRM's are basically garbage compared to other options.

Don't get me wrong.. you're absolutely right that being in direct LOS to your target, only a few hundred meters out, makes LRM's do damage more consistently.. but it also means that direct fire mechs can just crush your face. And given that they can actually aim their weapons, they'll most likely just drill through one of your panels while your LRM's spread damage all over.

Forcing LRM's to be used as direct fire weapons kind of negates their differentiation from other weapons types.

[Vlad Ward]

Fair enough. Personally, I think they could use a damage nerf and flight speed buff overall. 100kph is just slow for a weapon. I can take my slowest assault and move it behind cover 50m away before I take a hit from an incoming LRM volley.

Artemis flight path changes might be interesting, too.

[Fut]

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

For me, it's this repeated process of firing a volley, and losing the lock an instant after firing the LRM's off that makes it so incredibly frustrating and annoying. If you are playing with a PUG, this is generally what will happen, over and over again. It generally means that you really shouldn't bring LRM's, ever... because the chances are, they aren't going to be effective.

However, the other side of this coin, is that given LRM's essentially require very little skill compared to other weapons systems, you would need to be very careful about avoiding making them overpowered.

Sounds like you were playing around with LRMs in the most basic of fashions, akin to standing still the entire match hoping that an enemy will stop in your crosshairs so you can send an AC shell his way. It's the lazy-man's way of using LRMs. No wonder it wasn't effective for you.

LRM+ARTEMIS+TAG... You put in the effort to obtain/keep LOS on your target, and keep them painted with your own TAG, and you'll not only see that it requires skill, but that it's also an effective weapon that can be fun to use.

Part of why I like LRMs is that I can be firing them off the way I described above, then send a volley off at another target further away to help my team out. It takes practice, a lot of situational awareness, and good positioning, but once you put the time in to learn all this they're a decent weapon system.

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong.. you're absolutely right that being in direct LOS to your target, only a few hundred meters out, makes LRM's do damage more consistently.. but it also means that direct fire mechs can just crush your face. And given that they can actually aim their weapons, they'll most likely just drill through one of your panels while your LRM's spread damage all over.

Exactly why it takes a considerable amount of skill to use LRMs effectively and not get torn to **** by your opponents.

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Forcing LRM's to be used as direct fire weapons kind of negates their differentiation from other weapons types.

Nothing's forced.
The fact that I can direct-fire OR indirect-fire my weapons just makes them useful in a variety of situations.

Vlad Ward, on 01 March 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Fair enough. Personally, I think they could use a damage nerf and flight speed buff overall. 100kph is just slow for a weapon. I can take my slowest assault and move it behind cover 50m away before I take a hit from an incoming LRM volley.

Artemis flight path changes might be interesting, too.

I'm all for tweaks to LRMs, but not if the tweaks are being performed because LRMs are "OverPowered".

Lowering their damage slightly, but increasing their speed would be an interesting change. I'd love to test that configuration of LRMS out, because really those things are flying way too slowly.

Edited by Fut, 01 March 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Spheroid]

LRMs are fine. Maybe you need a Trebuchet. Very good support weapons at the 200-500 meter range.

[FrDrake]

I agree that LRMs are not a low skill weapon. If you plan on doing nothing but shooting dirt any weapon in this game is low skill. To consistently get 700+ dmg out of LRMs takes a pretty high skill cap.

I agree LRMs are in a pretty good spot right now balance wise. And part of that I think is that the skill cap on them can be quite high, starting even in the mechlab. Any dedicated support player knows to pack his own TAG, knows that positioning is at least half the battle, and has a "feel" for how long a lock will be held based on previous experience.

It just takes a certain kind of person to like LRMs just like any other weapon.

[Mazzyplz]

lrm are bad for 1 person, good when 3 or 4 of your team mates have them.
if they don't work for you alone drop with another boat...
they become extremely effective, their effectiveness increases exponentially


don't ask for a buff before trying it in a group, cause you'll see it doesn't need one

[Roland]

Quote

You put in the effort to obtain/keep LOS on your target, and keep them painted with your own TAG, and you'll not only see that it requires skill, but that it's also an effective weapon that can be fun to use.

Yes, but this eliminates their use as an indirect fire weapon, which kind of removes one of the interesting aspects of this game.

If I've got LOS to my target, why bother with LRM's at all? I can just shoot him with PPC's and Gauss, crush his face, and then duck down behind cover.

Using LRM's directly is generally a losing proposition... Generally, when I'm using PPC's and Gauss, I have no fear of missiles in a direct confrontation. If I can see the shooter, I'm hitting him with every shot, and just breaking contact so his missiles slam the ground next to me. The only time he's really a threat is if I do a boneheaded thing and wander into the open.

If he's close to me, then it's still generally a losing proposition for him, since I'm firing focused damage at specific sections of his mech, while he's spreading his lrm fire all over mine.

But hey, if folks actually find LRM's fun to use, that's ok then I guess. Personally, I found them generally inferior to direct fire weapons.

Edited by Roland, 01 March 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Kylere]

Everyone whining that LRMS are a weapon that does not need skill is one of the truly and remarkably dense SOB's who run across open fields.

[Blue Hymn]

Lrms require some tactical positioning and decent upgrades to make it truly shine. Adding an Artemis upgrade helps increase lock-on rate as well as missile accuracy -- meaning that more missiles land on target.
Also, a tag-equipment helps ensure a target can be targeted, cutting through the ecm interference while also ensuring even more missiles land on target -- since it's basically guiding the missiles towards it anyways. The point is, that even with all these upgrades and targeting gear to help ensure a good missile lock and missile concentration, it won't do much if you don't position yourself properly.

Putting yourself in a location where you can provide flanking fire - or have a good line of sight towards a group of enemies is essential to be a good support class mech for your team. Making sure to reposition yourself whenever you're spotted or fired at and whatnot ensures that the enemy will try and focus their attention more on you, than at your teammates.

[Moromillas]

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

LRM's are not fun to use.

(responding to the highlighted portion of your long *** post.)

Oh, that's odd. For me, seeing those missiles fly is the highlight of my day. Didn't think anyone would find that boring.

[FrDrake]

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Yes, but this eliminates their use as an indirect fire weapon, which kind of removes one of the interesting aspects of this game.

If I've got LOS to my target, why bother with LRM's at all? I can just shoot him with PPC's and Gauss, crush his face, and then duck down behind cover.

Using LRM's directly is generally a losing proposition... Generally, when I'm using PPC's and Gauss, I have no fear of missiles in a direct confrontation. If I can see the shooter, I'm hitting him with every shot, and just breaking contact so his missiles slam the ground next to me. The only time he's really a threat is if I do a boneheaded thing and wander into the open.

If he's close to me, then it's still generally a losing proposition for him, since I'm firing focused damage at specific sections of his mech, while he's spreading his lrm fire all over mine.

LRMs are a support weapon, which can be used as a primary if you have to. You're trying to make every mech a primary brawling mech. Next time you're brawling and you start getting pelted by LRMx60 every 5 seconds tell me which one really killed you in the end.

[Vasces Diablo]

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Yes, but this eliminates their use as an indirect fire weapon, which kind of removes one of the interesting aspects of this game.

If I've got LOS to my target, why bother with LRM's at all? I can just shoot him with PPC's and Gauss, crush his face, and then duck down behind cover.

Using LRM's directly is generally a losing proposition... Generally, when I'm using PPC's and Gauss, I have no fear of missiles in a direct confrontation. If I can see the shooter, I'm hitting him with every shot, and just breaking contact so his missiles slam the ground next to me. The only time he's really a threat is if I do a boneheaded thing and wander into the open.

If he's close to me, then it's still generally a losing proposition for him, since I'm firing focused damage at specific sections of his mech, while he's spreading his lrm fire all over mine.

But hey, if folks actually find LRM's fun to use, that's ok then I guess. Personally, I found them generally inferior to direct fire weapons.

Indirect fire requires coordination and team work to be effective.

Again. LRMs are a tactics/mental skill weapon, just not a twitch skills weapon.

[FrDrake]

Moromillas, on 01 March 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

(responding to the highlighted portion of your long *** post.)

Oh, that's odd. For me, seeing those missiles fly is the highlight of my day. Didn't think anyone would find that boring.

Back before there was legendary I chose catapault as my mech because I as well am a support player. Seeing my flights of missiles that I know will hit with 80% accuracy gives me just as much joy as the dude with 6xPPC lining up on a shut down mech.

[Spheroid]

Roland, on 01 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Yes, but this eliminates their use as an indirect fire weapon, which kind of removes one of the interesting aspects of this game.

If I've got LOS to my target, why bother with LRM's at all? I can just shoot him with PPC's and Gauss, crush his face, and then duck down behind cover.

Using LRM's directly is generally a losing proposition... Generally, when I'm using PPC's and Gauss, I have no fear of missiles in a direct confrontation. If I can see the shooter, I'm hitting him with every shot, and just breaking contact so his missiles slam the ground next to me. The only time he's really a threat is if I do a boneheaded thing and wander into the open.

If he's close to me, then it's still generally a losing proposition for him, since I'm firing focused damage at specific sections of his mech, while he's spreading his lrm fire all over mine.

But hey, if folks actually find LRM's fun to use, that's ok then I guess. Personally, I found them generally inferior to direct fire weapons.

Gauss and PPC don't hit all the time. If you are bringing LRM most likely you are behind the main assault line and hopefully moving laterally or evasively. You will not be the primary target the enemy is picking, giving you time to launch quite a few deadly salvos. What is your LRM mech? What maps have you been playing?

[Roland]

FrDrake, on 01 March 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

LRMs are a support weapon, which can be used as a primary if you have to. You're trying to make every mech a primary brawling mech. Next time you're brawling and you start getting pelted by LRMx60 every 5 seconds tell me which one really killed you in the end.

I'm actually trying to make them into NOT a brawling weapon. As it stands, they don't really function well as an indirect fire weapon, especially in a Pug, since locks can be inconsistent.

Folks are suggesting that they should be used at shorter ranges, with direct LOS. That seems to be turning them into more of a brawling weapon.. and one which it's not really well designed for. I mean, at short range, it's not really going to take much effort to just get inside your minimum range and negate all your LRM damage anyway.

But again, perhaps the indirect firing mechanism is just not something that's going to really be useful in the game, and trying to leverage it was the cause of my feeling that LRM's were useless... But even so, it seems as though direct fire weapons are going to be more consistently useful, if LRM's are intended to be used with a direct LOS to a target.

[Agent of Change]

I love lrm's i run a boat about 25% of the time, it gives me warm fuzzies to play support.

Here is what I would do to improve LRM's place in the game:

• Increase flight speed by a quarter to a third of what it is - faster missiles allow you to play with other option s in a more viable way and makes "dumb firing" a better option
  
• Reduce damage on individual missiles - If they move faster you can more reliably hit your targets, dumb fire is an option, I/e missile for missile you'll be more effective.
  
• Increase Fire rate in proportion to damage reduction - all other weapons had their damage "increased" via RoF make missiles a little faster, do less individually but able to put out more.
  
• Increase Lock time for indirect fire (No LoS) - maintina current lock times for LoS but for indirect increase the locktime by half to a full second.

Everything else stays the same, would be more or less the same weapon but may create better situations and make it viable on "mixed weapon" platforms