30 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

OK, first off, I will make the disclaimer: I like LRMs. I like them as an idea, and I want to make them work. But with the number of threads, misinformation and ignorance among very new players out there, I'm getting concerned that once again, we're going to see another wildly over-reactive balance patch on them.

We've seen LRMs go from overpowered to worthless like a ping pong ball since the closed beta started a year ago. Right now, they've fallen into the worse half of a niche, with ECM blocking their ability to lock (I think that's a bit much), a requirement of LOS to get effective damage and tracking out of them and a need to pierce ECM with TAG to use them independently.

With so many other drawbacks also on them - including a huge minimum range, a low-arc for indirect fire (most shots hit hills/buildings), massively exploding ammunition, etc. LRMs are BORDERING on useless right now. I have to really work to sell the idea of a fast moving medium with LRMs as the only viable option in a serious game for LRMs, because at least it can withdraw to the lines when Ravens jam it. I won't even mention that at least a quarter of your ammo, minimum, is likely to go into the sides of walls or the dirt because of lock loss or, again, the poor indirect arc.

Now I hear they're reducing LRM damage even more. Seriously? If not for the high damage outputs, in particular in the "high risk" zone of under 750m (for the full TAG+Artemis effect), they would be entirely the most worthless weapon in the game.

Again, LRMs are already in the trash pile for almost every major unit playing this game. They are a BARELY justifiable niche weapon as they stand. If anything, they need buffs against ECM and to be left entirely alone in every other way; if not for the close range jamming, or limited range of TAG, I would still endorse these on heavier 'mechs. But as it stands I can't. And if you go through with a huge damage reduction, even worse, I will even have to give up on them as a fast moving platform.

-

I know a lot of you PUGs get iced by LRMs rapidly and immediately go to scream OP without bothering to look at any of the logistics, or hard counters to them. That's why they seem so good, because quite frankly you aren't looking at all the downsides or thinking about how to exploit them. LRMs can be incredibly powerful one moment and go to entirely useless in seconds. They can't out range much of the direct firepower (ER Large, ER PPC, Gauss), and spotters are an unreliable and flaky method of obtaining indirect locks at best, even when you have very good scout pilots and are working with them.

Long story short: Good units don't use LRMs much because LRMs are currently awful weapons if you have even a moderate grasp of the game. The last thing they need is a nerf based around the inexperienced cries of those that don't understand how they work.

[Nightcrept]

Your referring to splash damage.

If Lrm's are using splash damage then yes lrm's are getting nerfed again. The majority of players do not think lrms are currently op as you can clearly see in polls and discussion threads.

But you have a vocal group of players who hate all types of missiles. They mostly seem to be elitists who feel that missiles allow players to be their equal when they shouldn't be. (because missile players can't aim as well with direct fire they claim.)


So for them missiles could be completely removed and it would be great.

[focuspark]

IMO LRM need to be faster and less accurate. They also need to spread out more and only track indirect targets if NARC and/or TAG is in effect. Artemis should only improve accuracy, not grouping. LRM should ignore ECM when LOS is available.

Today LRM are either complete crap in the face of ECM or uber when it isn't present. This makes them both the best and the worst weapons in the game. That's not balance, that's broken and it needs to be fixed.

[Corvus Antaka]

mech3 lrms!

[Pando]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

IMO LRM need to be faster and less accurate. They also need to spread out more and only track indirect targets if NARC and/or TAG is in effect. Artemis should only improve accuracy, not grouping. LRM should ignore ECM when LOS is available.

Today LRM are either complete crap in the face of ECM or uber when it isn't present. This makes them both the best and the worst weapons in the game. That's not balance, that's broken and it needs to be fixed.

I agree

[WVAnonymous]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

IMO LRM need to be faster and less accurate. They also need to spread out more and only track indirect targets if NARC and/or TAG is in effect. Artemis should only improve accuracy, not grouping. LRM should ignore ECM when LOS is available.

Today LRM are either complete crap in the face of ECM or uber when it isn't present. This makes them both the best and the worst weapons in the game. That's not balance, that's broken and it needs to be fixed.

I don't know if it's broken. A coin toss is balanced in a way. An LRM boat will either be able to "lay waste with impunity" or "die an embarrassing death" depending on the enemy composition. An LRM boat with its own TAG may be able to get a little flex on that, but to OPs point, that's very hard unless you are fast.

[Corvus Antaka]

WVAnonymous, on 18 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I don't know if it's broken. A coin toss is balanced in a way. An LRM boat will either be able to "lay waste with impunity" or "die an embarrassing death" depending on the enemy composition. An LRM boat with its own TAG may be able to get a little flex on that, but to OPs point, that's very hard unless you are fast.

I'd go with broken because the minute you play only 8 mans LRM boats go extinct and peek-a-boo/wack-a-mole/ECM huddle/Brawl rush becomes the defacto gameplay of any organized 8 man squad.

[Receptivex]

The only thing I don't like about Lrm's right now is when art and tag are present they have such a grouping that when you go into public matches you see it all the time you just get meteored to death. I was in a match last night and all you saw in the sky was lrm's and they looked like a bunch of meteors falling on targets. The accuracy needs to be changed cause when they all hit the same spot and can effectively take someone out in a matter of seconds there is a problem.

[focuspark]

WVAnonymous, on 18 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I don't know if it's broken. A coin toss is balanced in a way. An LRM boat will either be able to "lay waste with impunity" or "die an embarrassing death" depending on the enemy composition. An LRM boat with its own TAG may be able to get a little flex on that, but to OPs point, that's very hard unless you are fast.

It's broken because it's not a coin toss, it's a means by which ECM is OP and a necessary component of any team. It's my conviction that no single component or mechanic should be absolutely required to have a decent chance of winning a match. Today, wins are far more determined by the presence of ECM than by skill. Teams without ECM are decimated in short order by LRM and SSRM broken mechanics.

ECM completely nullifies those broken mechanics, but instead of solving the imbalance the developers have chosen an arms race which is perhaps more realistic but **** poor game design. I keep hoping the equation isn't complete and the devs will eventually reveal some missing component that will make me go "ah - makes total sense" but the more time that passes the less faith I have in a positive outcome.

Today it's too simple to know the outcome a match from the start based purely on weapon / component loadout. The team without ECM will be decimated by LRM + SSRM fire. The team with ECM completely negates LRM and SSRM mechanics - so it comes down to a simple luck of the draw on how your team gets matched up and have very little to do with actual skill.

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone pilots anything except a RVN-3L, COM-2D, or D-DC these days.

[M4rtyr]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

It's broken because it's not a coin toss, it's a means by which ECM is OP and a necessary component of any team. It's my conviction that no single component or mechanic should be absolutely required to have a decent chance of winning a match. Today, wins are far more determined by the presence of ECM than by skill. Teams without ECM are decimated in short order by LRM and SSRM broken mechanics.

ECM completely nullifies those broken mechanics, but instead of solving the imbalance the developers have chosen an arms race which is perhaps more realistic but **** poor game design. I keep hoping the equation isn't complete and the devs will eventually reveal some missing component that will make me go "ah - makes total sense" but the more time that passes the less faith I have in a positive outcome.

Today it's too simple to know the outcome a match from the start based purely on weapon / component loadout. The team without ECM will be decimated by LRM + SSRM fire. The team with ECM completely negates LRM and SSRM mechanics - so it comes down to a simple luck of the draw on how your team gets matched up and have very little to do with actual skill.

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone pilots anything except a RVN-3L, COM-2D, or D-DC these days.

Sadly, I think this does certainly show the truth of the matter.

[WVAnonymous]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone pilots anything except a RVN-3L, COM-2D, or D-DC these days.

Because they're all really boring.

[focuspark]

WVAnonymous, on 18 March 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Because they're all really boring.

Which is a sad, sad statement. Basically what you're saying is the only reason you'd even try another mech is because you're bored of the OP mechs. Which in turns means the devs do not know how to balance themselves out of a wet paper bag.

[MasterErrant]

LRMs are not bordering on useless. they are useless. Three tons of ammo with mostly clean steady locks. and LOS half the time equals 22-41 damage. thats 4 games with an artemis equipped Treb5j

it's not just LRM/s\.s lasers fore "Soft" conrinuous beams that must be held steady on targer so in fact the are doing "Cluster damage LB10Xs fire at such low velocity and high spread that you have to be at PBrange to have them be effective. and lets not forget the LB is one of the most expensive weapons in the game. ppc's and SRM are the only weapons that work and that favours Boats and

lets not for get Light mechs so fast and so overpowered that...Well why would any of the houses build anything else. in efive out of eight drops today I observed groups of two to three 35 ton mechs wipe out multiple heave and and assault. unlikely in basttle improbable in reality and lame in game play. I want to play mechwarrion not flea mosquito warrior.

[WVAnonymous]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Which is a sad, sad statement. Basically what you're saying is the only reason you'd even try another mech is because you're bored of the OP mechs. Which in turns means the devs do not know how to balance themselves out of a wet paper bag.

I'm an old, old mechwarrior. I had my favorites before ECM was introduced. I own a RVN-3L, a COM-2D, and an ATL-D-DC, but really, I'd just rather run Jenners and Catapults.

If I started now with a new account and a cadet bonus, maybe I'd enjoy Ravens. Maybe Elo will protect me from OP builds by dropping me low enough to play with all the others who don't know better.

But I empathize with you. If you don't have a solid Zen indifference to the outcome of the game, this would all be very frustrating.

[Rebas Kradd]

focuspark, on 18 March 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Which is a sad, sad statement. Basically what you're saying is the only reason you'd even try another mech is because you're bored of the OP mechs. Which in turns means the devs do not know how to balance themselves out of a wet paper bag.

The very fact that there are four distinct, viable combat roles in this game says that the game is actually quite well balanced. True imbalance would be only one 'Mech/weapon being usable. What you seem to be calling "balanced" is every 'Mech and weapon having equal viability, which is not how it will ever be, and shouldn't.

[M4rtyr]

Rebas Kradd, on 18 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

The very fact that there are four distinct, viable combat roles in this game says that the game is actually quite well balanced. True imbalance would be only one 'Mech/weapon being usable. What you seem to be calling "balanced" is every 'Mech and weapon having equal viability, which is not how it will ever be, and shouldn't.

Ahh the wonderful 'shouldn't be balanced'... Not wasting my time with that.

However I'm curious to know what 4 roles you see. I see brawlers and long range (sniper/LRM). Ravens are brawlers not scouts for instance and there is no real reason to use a scout like the Spider because gameplay/roles don't really give reason for it. There are huge holes in tactics and roles as things are because there simply aren't any mechanics that force it.

[PaintedWolf]

M4rtyr, on 18 March 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Ahh the wonderful 'shouldn't be balanced'... Not wasting my time with that.

However I'm curious to know what 4 roles you see. I see brawlers and long range (sniper/LRM). Ravens are brawlers not scouts for instance and there is no real reason to use a scout like the Spider because gameplay/roles don't really give reason for it. There are huge holes in tactics and roles as things are because there simply aren't any mechanics that force it.

Holy crap you're still going. So we got a list piling up of things you don't like on this game/claims you make. So far we got:

1- Double Armor

2- Weapon Convergence

3- SRMs

4- Heat Mechanics

5- "Ravens are for brawling, not scouting"

In the words of my Capellan Allies, that is some out-of-the-box, blue sky thinking!

Oh yeah and boats and LRMs. Am I missing anything?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 18 March 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[M4rtyr]

Capellan? You do know that the Kuritan dragon under your name right.

Anyway, keep blabing on with no reason at all wolf.

[PaintedWolf]

M4rtyr, on 18 March 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Capellan? You do know that the Kuritan dragon under your name right.

Anyway, keep blabing on with no reason at all wolf.

Oh yeah I take my Battletech House Faction loyalties so seriously.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Nightcrept, on 18 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Your referring to splash damage.

If Lrm's are using splash damage then yes lrm's are getting nerfed again. The majority of players do not think lrms are currently op as you can clearly see in polls and discussion threads.

But you have a vocal group of players who hate all types of missiles. They mostly seem to be elitists who feel that missiles allow players to be their equal when they shouldn't be. (because missile players can't aim as well with direct fire they claim.)


So for them missiles could be completely removed and it would be great.

I have no idea where you get any of your wildly generalising and unfounded statements from.

Sir, I have been tracking discussion about missiles and I've seen no overwhelming sentiment that they wish missiles removed entirely. Rather, many of them are dedicated LRM users and SRM users that support PGI making steps to resolve something they admitted was an unintended result, and these users agree that the damage values are not reasonable or fair.

So what if damage is going to see a nerf. LRMs will continue to play an area denying effect on the game, they will still dish out the pain to the foolish mech in the open. SRM6 will still deal gauss rifle damage on a full hit. I totally support the idea of LRM support fire, and SRM/SSRM blanket damage weaponry, and myself continue to use them, but as it stands the game is NOT balanced around them. A pair of SRM6 should NOT blow all the components off a Commando and kill it. Sure it's satisfying and I've LOL'd when it happened, but given the COM armour that this is not supposed to happen.

Perhaps it's comforting to believe that those who hold a view contrary to yours are inferior, since they are now "elitists", based on the assumption these elitists claim that LRM users rely solely upon their guided weaponry to fight, and would otherwise be unable to hit their target.

What an absurd claim on your part.