673 replies to this topic

[Destoroyah]

I think they over did it with the nerf. I agree that the patch before the hotfix noticeably upped damage and needed to be fixed and even before that the missles needed some tweaking.

I think they should improve damage too their TT values at 1 damage per LRM and 2 damage per SRM. What they really need to do is alter the grouping of the larger launchers so they spread their damage more.
Example:
LRM5 = 60% chance per missle to hit CT, probably could use a .5 cooldown reduction.
LRM10 = 50% chance to hit CT per missle, probably a .25 cooldown reduction too.
LRM15 = 35% chance to hit CT per missle.
LRM20 = 25% chance to hit CT per missle.
Artemis increases CT hit chance by 20%
Personally I think LRMs need a 25-30% speed increase if they are going to lower its damage so much.

Normal SRM spread is good as is, but artemis seems to focus too much on Center reticle grouping even though it looks like the spread should be bigger even at 250m. Think they need to keep the Artemis grouping flight path just make less missles focused in the center mass. Though Standard/artemis SRM2 could use a cooldown reduction to make it more desirable.

Edited by Destoroyah, 22 March 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Laynx]

p4r4g0n, on 22 March 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Was playing the Cat C4 with 2 X LRM15, 2 X SRM6, TAG, 1 MPL pre patch up until a few games post hot fix. Yes, I'm one of those who prefer balanced builds.

With the current damage numbers post hot fix, my conclusion is that the current configuration is not really worth using in a solo PUG situation. The actual damage achieved for the disadvantages of ammo limitations, the sacrifice of 1 energy hard point for TAG, flight duration to target, need to maintain TAG, LoS and use Artemis to maximize damage just makes using LRMs in a non-boating set up unattractive at this time.

I could replace the LRMs with SRMs which would free up the energy hard point currently used for TAG but without Hit State Rewinding at this time, the half second delay between hitting fire and the missiles launching makes SRMs tough to use. I prefer to use SRMs as a backup rather than primary weapon due to this and given the fact that the C4 has only 2 energy hard points in the CT, it will probably be better to just use some other laser heavy build.

I don't use SSRMs in missile heavy chassis, they're just too easily rendered useless by ECM. Actually, I've hardly used them at all since ECM came out.

TL; DR

Time to mothball the C4 until HSR for missiles are implemented or there are some changes to LRMs. I'll roll it out for further testing when that happens but no point using it unless I want to go 4 X LRM15 / 20.

I will agree that it is less aggressive than it was prior to the patch, and a little boost might be in order, but I dont think it is a dead weapon as some people seem to think.

As an example I tried the trebuchet trial mech and had the highest score on my team (LRM 15x2 without artemis, MedLaserx3 and a narc beacon. BTW, Who in the hell uses a narc beacon?!!)

Edited by Laynx, 22 March 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

Laynx, on 22 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

I will agree that it is less aggressive than it was prior to the patch, and a little boost might be in order, but I dont think it is a dead weapon as some people seem to think.

-snip-

Wouldn't go so far as to say it is dead, more of a go big or go home situation. Personally, with all the hoops you have to jump through to make a non-boating LRM set up do optimal damage, I'd rather just use something else.

I used the trial Treb 7M pre patch to grind out enough XP to get all basic efficiencies and found that it was quite a reasonable set up for a trial. Managed a 1:1 W/L and a .56 KDR over 56 matches and found it to be quite an interesting experiment.

[Mechrophilia]

Since both the radius and ammount of splash damage was reduced, I feel that the base damage nerf might be a little too agressive. Just off the cuff, I would guess that a 25% base damage nerf would have been a good starting point. The 40%-62% reduction in base damage might make missiles a tad too weak. We'll see.

[aniviron]

Well, thanks for addressing this. Glad to know you guys are on top of things.

I also really appreciate that you told us why you did what you did- I think a lot of community consternation could be avoided if you kept doing this. As a fan, it helps to know not just that you changed the damage values, but why you changed them to what you did, and why you didn't just remove splash entirely. I get it now, and no matter how it works out, knowing that there were good ideas put into the process helps a lot. :]

[Corvus Antaka]

I'd say if ECM was removed missiles are in an almost great place, but with ECM SSRM & LRM just suck because direct fire is just better in every situation instead. its not ever worth the risk that the enemy brought ECM. But in terms of how they work right now without ECM present, I'm finding it actually pretty good, if a little low on the LRM damage.

LRM damage does seem kinda low sometimes, but that might be due to what we are used to from before. remove ECM, and rework it to have 1 minor affect. rework radar, bring back pre-ecm gameplay with current missiles - I'd love to see the current weapon balance without ECM and then redo radar properly.

[Fiona Marshe]

FEEDBACK:

After playing last night, the damage does feel a little light. My end-match damage is slightly lower than two weeks ago (I've been using the same general CPLT-C1 configuration since Closed Beta).

I feel that LRM at 0.8 and SRM at 1.6 should fix this (average two extra components hit = LRM ~1.4 and SRM ~2.8 each).

Personally, due to the warhead sizes, I think the splash size should be reversed, but that would bias the damage too much towards SRMs at the same time again.

[Helbourne]

Boy this thread has taken off. I failed to read a post noting that in TT LRMs do 1 point of damage per missile in 5 point clusters. So if you get hit by a LRM 20 you rolled four 5 point damage cluster hits on the location table. If you got hit with say 12 missles, you would roll two 5 point cluster and then the remaining 2 points in a single culster hit. On a good roll of the missle hit chart and you got all 20 missiles to hit, you just smacked the mech with basically 4 medium lasers. Chances are not all 4 would hit the same location, but it was average to have 2 or 3 different locations.

Now SRMs (Streaks or not) did 2 points of damage per missle, no cluster hits. You checked for each missle where they hit.

So LRMs can and should cluster up more than SRMs, and I would expect SRMs to have a greater spread than LRMs. I would hope that the devs are working hard on figuring out missle spread. Once they can nail that down, then they should be able to get the damage for them worked out. Until then we are just keep calm. I do not really envy the devs.

[Spades Kincaid]

Yes missles needed toning down. Both short and long, though I'm only addressing LRM's here. Especially one-shot head splashing. But not this far.

Currently, I'm far better support to a teamate by driving the K2 next to them, than I can hope to be in the C4. If the 'Support Mech' can't provide comparable support to having another mech next to you, then it loses it's place on the battlefield. That's partly attributable to map design. Cover is abundant on most. So the ability to bring effective support to bear on two widely dispersed fights (what would be a unique attribute for LRM support mechs) is a rare thing.

------------

Offered suggestions for solution to balance LRM performance and damage:

I think two things need to be addressed first. Before proper damage evaluating can be done.

First, LRM's need a noticably faster flight speed and perhaps adjusted turning radius to make them effective on all but the fastest light mechs and harder to reactively avoid. That's actually a critical change to how effectively they function.

Speed them up, watch the results, then see if they still need a slight dmg bump back up. I think they would, but one step at a time.



Second, flight formation and splash seems a big problem muddling the damage balance as well.

Since getting the desired working model for flight patterns that spread damage but reliably impact seems problematic, a different take on splash seems the better way to solve it. Why make it distance from impact and scaling reliant at all? I think some of the simulation aspect needs to be set aside in favor of gameplay at least for now. Until that more difficult issue of the flight mechanics and target hitting can be worked out, if it can.

Why not simply make it a flat % applied as splash? 50% of LRM damage to the component impacted. 50% split to any 'nearby' components. Model 'nearby' in whatever manner works best for balance. (Just as example percentages)

ie - LRM impacts on:

The LT -- 50% LT and 25% each to CT and LA.
or 50% LT and 16.6% each to CT, LA and LL.

The CT -- 50% CT, 25% each to the LT and RT.
or 50% CT, 12.5% each to RT, LT, RL and LL.

The RA -- 50% RA, 25% to the RT.

The LL -- 50% LL, 25% to LT (or 12.5% to LT and RL)

-Impacts to the arms or legs only do half the splash dmg. Makes sense to me, limb impacts being more diffused splash by open space around them than body ones generally. It also keeps this workable without arms excessively applying splash to just the side torso. Think of it as a 25% splash dmg cap per component.

-Since Front armor really means front -and- sides, arm or leg splash always applies to frontal armor values. Even a limb impact from a missle launched directly behind the mech is more reasonably going to splash the side armor than the direct back plates.

-Leave the Head off Splash dmg table. LRM's aren't for headshotting. Or cap it separately at a small % from CT impacts.

-Also alleviates front to back splashing. Or vice-versa.

While it may be less realistic, an LRM hitting your mech's foot isn't going to splash the CT in reality, it makes much more balanced and easy to adjust dmg modeling. Don't want to hear how your Raven's nose wouldn't splash damage to it's side because it protrudes so far. In terms of gameplay, splash is really just an alternative form of dispersion being used to mimic missle salvo spread.

LRM's that hit will behave the same way striking an Atlas as a Commando.

And I think it models the broad, indirect fire, armor-stripping purpose to LRM's more simply and effectively. That's what is desired. Whether it visually/mechanically looks like they are spreading impact or not. Using that type of dmg model it wouldn't actually matter as much if half the LRM's impacted the CT and half the LT....or if they all clustered on the CT. The dmg results would be much more similar and spread out. A look at how it might play out:

All impact CT - 50% CT
25% LT
25% RT

(or with leg splash)

50% CT
12.5% LT
12.5% RT
12.5% LL
12.5% RL

CT+ LT impact - 37.5% CT
37.5% LT
12.5% RT
12.5% LA

(or with leg splash)

33.3% CT
31.25% LT
14.55% LL
8.3% LA
6.25% RT
6.25% RL

Including legs in the splash of either side or center torso impacts (or both) could add to the dispersion. Think of the splash more as 'hip joint' dmg if that helps credibility. Or it can be uneven splash distribution. A CT impact doing 50% CT, 15% to each side torso and 10% to each leg (the hips). Whatever works, this is all just example to the premise.

But no matter if you include the legs or not - a full on dual LRM-15's impact on the CT isn't going to behave like an AC20 one. Assuming a 1 dmg value matching TT... It might do a bit more total dmg, on the rare occassion there's no AMS and no missles miss. But it won't ever do more directed dmg than the AC20 even if every single missle impacts the CT. And that's what I think most want.

You can do it without complicating things and overdiluting -total- dmg done with separate diminishing splash radius values. Just a flat LRM missle dmg value, then apply it based on component impacted.

And hey, it might just work out perfectly with the TT dmg of 1. That would be nice huh?

Fix those two factors of LRM performance, watch the results, and then decide what if any adjustments the dmg itself needs.

If you read all of that I salute you.

[WidowMaker91]

reducing the lrm damage is ok... but now reduce the ECM effectiveness

[Iron Wyvern]

Well, since Alpine Peaks encouraged LRM floods, and I HATE the ridiculous amount of damage 'splat cats' do I welcome this change. !

[ICEFANG13]

Willie Sauerland, on 22 March 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I must be doing

something wrong then.

I got close to 750 damage

with my A1 today

sporting nothing but LRMs.

I didn't even use Artemis...

To do this, you'd have to fire for about 2 minutes constantly. Although its true there is missile splash, there is also missile avoiding. I think an LRM boat with 6 5s should be able to get a couple of kills if you could fire for 2 minutes straight.

750 damage=1071 missiles (1080, equal ammo amount)/30=36X3.09 (fast fire LRM-5s, I assume you have) 111.24 seconds. That's crazy. We want mechs to die if they herp derp for extended periods in the open.

This is also far from a balanced mech that you seem to want. LRM-5s are also the 2nd most efficient in terms of potential damage to ammo (they fire fastest and tightest, 1st is LRM-5s with Artemis). I mean this is really the best you can do for damage with a non-LOLOLOL-100 LRM Stalker (or other more realistic variant). Almost every LRM boat carries LRM-30+, but when you consider how much ammo and tons that is, and how much ammo you used. At this point, LRM boats will continue to live, and balanced builds will not have LRMs on them other than to cause panic.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 22 March 2013 - 08:21 PM.

[Forestal]

Willie Sauerland, on 22 March 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Sure, I solo PUG. But more often than not, I'm in a 4 or 8 man. So, tell me more about who you think I am. I'm interested. Otherwise, deal with it.

LOL-- No, YOU will learn to deal with specialization or boating, especially when 12 x 12 matches and Community Warfare gets implemented... LMAO, it's like you don't realize there are light/medium mechs which HAVE to specialize in 1 or 2 tactics/strategies.

But even then, you can still be the "balanced builds for balanced game" bong-smoker you are...or maybe beg to pay for a "Arena/Deathmatch" Game Mode?

Edited by Forestal, 22 March 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Forestal, on 22 March 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

And I have always wondered why TAG, which serves no other purpose than to provide LRM-lock, has a range of 750m when LRMS have a range of 1000m-- though TAG is something of a counter for ECM, so any TAG tweaking should be aligned with ECM tweaking.

TAG would also spot for Arrow IV and is badly needed for that unless targeting the ground.
Course, if they just added Arrow IV and the CPLT-C3, all the Cat fans would rejoice.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Thontor, on 21 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

you realize you are talking to yourself...

also... streaks are SRMs...

and if you don't believe it... check the game files yourself...

I meant to quote YOU, lol. But they were indeed nerfed despite not being listed with the others.(SRMs and STRs are NOT the same thing)

Hope the ECM is next. Either gut it, or buff the BAP up as a counter.(As my ancient thread says)

Edited by Bluten, 22 March 2013 - 10:00 PM.

[iminbagdad]

I've been playing with LRMs and think the are ok damage wise but I'm thinking an increase to speed would be nice. Flight time is a bit to long would like to see it decrease by 25% ish

[Hobgoblin I]

After playing many matches and getting a "feel" for this, I believe the hotfix has basically made missle hardpoints useless. While doing this low a damage total there is no range where a laser or ballistic weapon isn't a better option.

[Mjolnir]

Using LRMs at present feels like crap, sir, and the numbers I'm putting out say the same.

I've been a long time LRM boat - hell, if you had the Longbow in the game, I'd be running one of those - and this just isn't fun.

I enjoyed LRMing with skill, taking on people in the 300 - 180m range. This? This feels like I'm throwing wet noodles at people.

For the tonnage of the weapon, for the tonnage of the ammo, for all the many downsides of having LRMs (ECM, cover, AMS, etc, etc, etc)? It's just not worth it.

Fix it, please. If you're so prepared to knee jerk LRMs, why are fixes to the Raven and to ECM taking so long?

[Red squirrel]

Thanks for the comprehensive post Paul!

I'll now go back to play some more "Spreadsheet Warrior" and spread rage across the forums while WMO is patching

[Karenai]

Ashvins, on 22 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

So all of you claiming that LRM's are nerfed to the point of un-usability, Remember in TT a LRM 20 would do anywhere between 12-20 damage with the damage being spread over 3-4 locations rolled randomly. At current a LRM does 14 damage to a single location with up to an additional 8 being done to every location within 1.8 meters of the initial hit location. Best case being 2 additional locations on most mechs so call it up to 30 damage from a weapon meant to do 12-20.

Otherwise quit complaining about how nerfed your lrm's are and realize they are still buffed compared to TT rules. Previously LRM were so OP I had quit playing unless i had the just as OP ECM to negate them. Now they are as close to TT as I have seen since I started playing MWO.

You Sir are not running LRM boats. LRM almost never all hit the target, unless the target is an Awesome standing still looking at you.
For running mechs only about 60% to 10% hit the target, for scouts most of the time less then 10% hit, if any at all, IF you can keep the lock for the whole flying time and the target does not run into cover or use AMS.
(overall accurancy is around 25% for me for example and that was WITH the broken aoe splash hitting mechs even when the LRM did hit the ground)

Back to topic. Tried LRM boating with a spotter, because he wanted to show me that they are not broken.
With ECM Raven using TAG and shooting 2700 LRM (depleating my ammo) with DDC+Large Laser on cooldown. = 500-700 damage.
And the spotter did more damage then I did most of the time.
Right now Ballistic>Lasers>PPC>>>>>SRM>>LRM>>MG

Edited by Karenai, 23 March 2013 - 01:55 AM.