55 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

Not another Lrm thread?!

This has been gone over so much it is bordering on the absurd.

Lrm's are only affective if you don't know how to play because you are new etc. Once you learn how to deal with them they are not even a nuisance. If your in the higher elo tiers you very rarely see Lrms and only if the user is extremely adept with them are they even remotely annoying.



Before ecm:

Lrm's went through a major balancing phase.
They started at 1.0 and went up to 1.9 and then back down and slowly raised incrementally to 1.8. During this time lrm flight characteristics were also buffed and nerfed nearly weekly. Especially after the GOD's rain artemis patch.
It was found that below 1.8 they didn't deal enough damage to be even slightly considered competitive.

(For you TT guys remember that mech armor values have been doubled so the lrms damage is actually .9)



I think a lot of the issues we are having with lrms is ECM and boating.

Throughout closed beta before ecm there was no magic lrm protection field. That meant there was a lot more lrms then now and players learned how and were to move around the board and everyone carried AMS. It was very fluid and tactical.

Once ecm was introduced the need to use tactics and strategies to avoid lrms vanished literally overnight.

Lrm's have not gotten stronger.

All that's happened is that as ecm is being balanced it is in turn bringing role warfare back into balance and the long range game is returning. (Lrm's, and sniper builds).

This wouldn't be a issue if it had happened soon after ecm was introduced. But since it took so long any new players lack the skills (tactics-strategies) learned before ecm and many older players have gotten rusty.

All this has combined to create omg lrms are op.




The only valid crying about lrms that I can even remotely see being based in reality is when referring to the stalker lrm boats.

BUT YOU DO NOT BALANCE A WEAPON SYSTEM AROUND BOATERS. IT BREAKS THE WEAPON FOR ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS.

If the mech is found to be op because it can boat a million lrm launchers then you as for the boat to be balanced not the weapon.

[Aeolus Drift]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

Not another Lrm thread?!

This has been gone over so much it is bordering on the absurd.

Lrm's are only affective if you don't know how to play because you are new etc. Once you learn how to deal with them they are not even a nuisance. If your in the higher elo tiers you very rarely see Lrms and only if the user is extremely adept with them are they even remotely annoying.



Before ecm:

Lrm's went through a major balancing phase.
They started at 1.0 and went up to 1.9 and then back down and slowly raised incrementally to 1.8. During this time lrm flight characteristics were also buffed and nerfed nearly weekly. Especially after the GOD's rain artemis patch.
It was found that below 1.8 they didn't deal enough damage to be even slightly considered competitive.

(For you TT guys remember that mech armor values have been doubled so the lrms damage is actually .9)



I think a lot of the issues we are having with lrms is ECM and boating.

Throughout closed beta before ecm there was no magic lrm protection field. That meant there was a lot more lrms then now and players learned how and were to move around the board and everyone carried AMS. It was very fluid and tactical.

Once ecm was introduced the need to use tactics and strategies to avoid lrms vanished literally overnight.

Lrm's have not gotten stronger.

All that's happened is that as ecm is being balanced it is in turn bringing role warfare back into balance and the long range game is returning. (Lrm's, and sniper builds).

This wouldn't be a issue if it had happened soon after ecm was introduced. But since it took so long any new players lack the skills (tactics-strategies) learned before ecm and many older players have gotten rusty.

All this has combined to create omg lrms are op.




The only valid crying about lrms that I can even remotely see being based in reality is when referring to the stalker lrm boats.

BUT YOU DO NOT BALANCE A WEAPON SYSTEM AROUND BOATERS. IT BREAKS THE WEAPON FOR ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS.

If the mech is found to be op because it can boat a million lrm launchers then you as for the boat to be balanced not the weapon.

I think the majority of the players who have played this game during the beginning of open beta have quelled down their "LRM's are blatantly OP" rage threads. Indeed the reduction of ECM strength in the last month, due to net-code improvements, additional ECM counters, and the introduction of Alpine into the map rotation have alleviated some of the hard countering of LRM usage by ECM. With that however, we are coming back to the drawing board about how do we balance the weapon itself. The actual problem with using LRMs in general isn't its damage output (though I do agree to an extent it is absurd), its that it carries terrible inconsistency. Sure it can do terrifying amounts of damage per volley, but there are so many things you can do to hard counter it, most of which you and many others have mentioned. And since the missiles are slower then even most light mechs, dumb-firing at enemy 'mechs without a radar lock (due to range or ECM) will likely result in them casually dodging your missiles like you would dodge pigeon drops in the park. However if you have come to that point in a match, your C1 catapult might be just better off charging in with the medium lasers. Because of this we end up with is a weapon that is abusively strong against inexperienced players who have not developed the coping mechanisms in order to deal with them, but can be rendered largely irrelevant against a player who knows how to make them a non-issue, and therefore becomes a liability rather than an asset in competitive play, where they have been phased out in long range engagements by balistics and PPC. which while having lower potential damage per volley, have a much higher consistency overall.

[blinkin]

2 seperate posts with well reasoned analysis and no insults. all within the same thread. WTF is going on?

[Nightcrept]

Interceptor12, on 14 March 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

[size=4]
I think the majority of the players who have played this game during the beginning of open beta have quelled down their "LRM's are blatantly OP" rage threads. Indeed the reduction of ECM strength in the last month, due to net-code improvements, additional ECM counters, and the introduction of Alpine into the map rotation have alleviated some of the hard countering of LRM usage by ECM. With that however, we are coming back to the drawing board about how do we balance the weapon itself. The actual problem with using LRMs in general isn't its damage output (though I do agree to an extent it is absurd), its that it carries terrible inconsistency. Sure it can do terrifying amounts of damage per volley, but there are so many things you can do to hard counter it, most of which you and many others have mentioned. And since the missiles are slower then even most light mechs, dumb-firing at enemy 'mechs without a radar lock (due to range or ECM) will likely result in them casually dodging your missiles like you would dodge pigeon drops in the park. However if you have come to that point in a match, your C1 catapult might be just better off charging in with the medium lasers. Because of this we end up with is a weapon that is abusively strong against inexperienced players who have not developed the coping mechanisms in order to deal with them, but can be rendered largely irrelevant against a player who knows how to make them a non-issue, and therefore becomes a liability rather than an asset in competitive play, where they have been phased out in long range engagements by balistics and PPC. which while having lower potential damage per volley, have a much higher consistency overall.

For the most part I agree.

The problem is how to change them so that they are both competitive at higher levels without making them God's hammer for lower elo tiers.

We have in the past tried everything from increasing speed, flight angles and decreasing damage to the artemis God's Lrm hammer patch.

I play lrms and have since I started and I have no answer myself as to how to accomplish it.

[Calamus]

I have no problems with LRM's. I don't even have any problems with boaters. People should be talking about the real imbalance issues like certain light mechs I could mention.

[Maurdakar]

LRM's are maximum damage for minimum effort. That pretty much sums them up. I don't like them but they definitely have a place in the battlefield, just hopefully not an all powerful one.

[Aeolus Drift]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

For the most part I agree.

The problem is how to change them so that they are both competitive at higher levels without making them God's hammer for lower elo tiers.

We have in the past tried everything from increasing speed, flight angles and decreasing damage to the artemis God's Lrm hammer patch.

I play lrms and have since I started and I have no answer myself as to how to accomplish it.

Out of curiosity were you a part of the closed beta? I may have missed the adjustments to the LRM speeds when i took a break from the beta until it went into open. would you happen to know how fast they used to be?

[StalaggtIKE]

Right now I feel that LRM are spot on. However with the possible incoming nerfs to ECM, LRM complaints are only going to increase. The goal is to come up with a compromise that allows LRM to remain competitive while maintaining a balance between risk vs reward.

They have recently received a couple of changes within the last couple of patches. The changes include:

• A tighter and uniform Artemis flight pattern
  
• Artemis requiring los in order to function

Together, these two changes allows a LRM user to cause focused damage to a target. A LRM user can score efficient kills, as long as the user has los with his intended target. This requires him to take a risk; the intended target or his allies would see the LRM user and can return fire (lasers, ballistics or LRM). This achieves a balance between risk vs reward, which is ultimately the goal.

The Problem
Currently missiles come in 180 to the ton. This exessive ammo allows for one to spam missiles from behind cover. When fired indirectly the missile will blanketing their intended target. This spreaded damage will not result in a kill without a lot of missiles. The problem therefore is the excessive amount of missiles granted per tonnage that allows for LRM spam. For an inexperienced player this constant barrage of missile fire can feel entrapping with no way out.

The Fix
The goal is balance risk vs reward. If a pilot takes a larger risk, he has the potential of a larger reward. I propose the following changes:

• Decrease ammo count per tonnage (ex 180/ton -> 130/ton)
  
• Only if necessary, a slight nerf in damage (ex 1.8 -> 1.7)

This results in less missiles to spam. This coerces the LRM user to actively make a decision, either to be agressive and take risks or passively function as a support player. As support he will not have enough missiles to blanket the enemy to death. If he wants to actively eliminate players efficiently, he would have to invest in Artemis as well as maintain los to his intended target. By doing so, risks retaliation from the enemy. This maintains a balance of risk vs reward.

Math Breakdown
This compares a LRM user of today compared to one after my proposed changes:

Keep in mind that typically all missiles in a full volley do not make it to their target so the potential damage is going to be typically less. That being said, I think is would be a fair trade-off in limiting the dominance presented by LRM spam.

Note: 130 is just a number I pulled out of an Atlas' ***. So don't get too caught up on the number. But seriously, I feel tweaking ammo count could be key into finding a compromise.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 14 March 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Nightcrept]

Interceptor12, on 14 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Out of curiosity were you a part of the closed beta? I may have missed the adjustments to the LRM speeds when i took a break from the beta until it went into open. would you happen to know how fast they used to be?

Yes I was. The problem is that while they did adjust speed, flight patterns and missile grouping quite a bit we don't have access to the CB patch notes anymore to see the exact numbers. All we can see is the last few tweeks at the end.

[Nightcrept]

StalaggtIKE, on 14 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Right now I feel that LRM are spot on. However with the possible incoming nerfs to ECM, LRM complaints are only going to increase. The goal is to come up with a compromise that allows LRM to remain competitive while maintaining a balance between risk vs reward.

They have recently received a couple of changes within the last couple of patches. The changes include:

• A tighter and uniform Artemis flight pattern
  
• Artemis requiring los in order to function

Together, these two changes allows a LRM user to cause focused damage to a target. A LRM user can score efficient kills, as long as the user has los with his intended target. This requires him to take a risk; the intended target or his allies would see the LRM user and can return fire (lasers, ballistics or LRM). This achieves a balance between risk vs reward, which is ultimately the goal.


The Problem
Currently missiles come in 180 to the ton. This exessive ammo allows for one to spam missiles from behind cover. When fired indirectly the missile will blanketing their intended target. This spreaded damage will not result in a kill without a lot of missiles. The problem therefore is the excessive amount of missiles granted per tonnage that allows for LRM spam. For an inexperienced player this constant barrage of missile fire can feel entrapping with no way out.

The Fix
The goal is balance risk vs reward. If a pilot takes a larger risk, he has the potential of a larger reward. I propose the following changes:

• Decrease ammo count per tonnage (ex 180/ton -> 130/ton)
  
• Only if necessary, a slight nerf in damage (ex 1.8 -> 1.7)

This results in less missiles to spam. This coerces the LRM user to actively make a decision, either to be agressive and take risks or passively function as a support player. As support he will not have enough missiles to blanket the enemy to death. If he wants to actively eliminate players efficiently, he would have to invest in Artemis as well as maintain los to his intended target. By doing so, risks retaliation from the enemy. This maintains a balance of risk vs reward.


Math Breakdown
This compares a LRM user of today compared to one after my proposed changes:

Keep in mind that typically all missiles in a full volley do not make it to their target so the potential damage is going to be typically less. That being said, I think is would be a fair trade-off in limiting the dominance presented by LRM spam.

Note: 130 is just a number I pulled out of an Atlas' ***. So don't get too caught up on the number. But seriously, I feel tweaking ammo count could be key into finding a compromise.

I understand your point. And while I think your example would work some for the lower tiers and new players. It would only serve to exacerbate the problem with lrms for the better players and competitive groups.

That is the problem that interceptor mentioned.

Lrms are deadly to new and or stupid players. But for veteran and team play they are almost useless.

So how do you make them all around viable?
Remember the current implementation was a trial and error .1 adjustment per patch for months before ecm balance.
The only buffs since ecm has been the new swirly flight configuration.

[0X2A]

I'd be fine with nerfing their damage so long as they significantly upped the travel speed. Only reason I have LRM 15's on my C1 is to destroy slow Atlai.

ERPPCs for the win.

Edited by 0X2A, 14 March 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Nightcrept]

Remember the best lrm pilots generally only hit 40% of the time.

That means even under your current example that gives them an expected dmg total of 648.

Under your modified totals it would be 468.


And none of this is taking into consideration ecm and or ams.


That is why most competitive players prefer to take the guaranteed damage of a laser or ballistic weapon.

0X2A, on 14 March 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I'd be fine with nerfing their damage so long as they significantly upped the travel speed. Only reason I have LRM 15's on my C1 is to destroy slow Atlai.

ERPPCs for the win.

I'm a brawling lrm mech pilot myself. I get in there with my group at about 200-300 meters. But i run a fatlas with 3xLL's and 2Xlrm-20's plus arti and Bap.

[Corvus Antaka]

LRMS are not OP if the enemy has ECM. if they dont, LRMS are marginally more effect. Overall though LRMS seem fine to me, hit rates seem to be around 30-40% tops, and the issue is not damage but how well LRMS track, virtually gaurenteeing hits on anything moving less than 115 KPH without jumpjets.

curbing LRM tracking & turning, letting us aim & dumbfire LRMS and giving mechs mobility choices to evade LRMS when caught in the open would be preferrable to nurfing their damage.

[0X2A]

LRMs are UNINTENTIONALLY OP:
Found this thread a few minute ago
http://mwomercs.com/...results-inside/

[Skyfaller]

Maurdakar, on 14 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

LRM's are maximum damage for minimum effort. That pretty much sums them up. I don't like them but they definitely have a place in the battlefield, just hopefully not an all powerful one.

See this is the common mindset of LRM whiners.

Yet, if you think about it...

It is true because it provides maximum damage because the targeted player took minimum effort to use cover.

Fact: Lasers & Projectiles use LOS and do not require a lock time nor do they have a warning that 'someone has just shot at you!' message.

Fact: LRM lock requires the player to put the aimsight inside the lock-box. That.. is exactly the same thing LOS lasers/gun users need to do.

Difference? The precision aiming needed at long range (because at medium and short range you certainly dont need much effort to aim at any part of a gigantic mech) with guns and lasers is not present in LRMS... but then again, guns and lasers do not have to consider time-to-target of their weapons...more specifically, 'if i shoot now would he be able to run into cover and waste my missiles?'

As time and time again it is proven in this game, that last question is answered by the starting comment in this post: It provides maximum damage for minimum effort.. for the person that got shot put no effort to consider cover and gets pummeled because of it.

I've run a very LRM heavy stalker. So heavy its engine barely let me get to 25kph. Quad LRM20s and supporting weaponry. I have never had any trouble with LRM's being fired at me because I stay close to cover and duck to it when missiles fly my way. Nor do I stay in the rear of the team...if anything Im always moving slowly forward like a mighty LRM-spawning turtle. At best I remain 400m behind my assaults and heavies as they advance. Granted not all the time but usually I remain that close to them. Why? Because I know if Im in the very front with them the enemy will not engage.

Funny thing is, when LRMs fly at them from max range they DO stay in cover and hide. When im with the pack they rush in like a bunch of stupid lemmings to the slaughter...their own.

I think this is the group that whines so much. That an LRM boat inflicts very high damage on them while they 'brawl' with another mech. Sad thing is, if I were to load PPC's on that same super heavy stalker they would die twice as fast (and do when I equip it so).

[Ralgas]

0X2A, on 14 March 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

LRMs are UNINTENTIONALLY OP:
Found this thread a few minute ago
http://mwomercs.com/...results-inside/

note the fix for this will only effect some mechs, mostly hunch size or smaller and those with proportionately small hitboxes (think a dragons R/L torso)

Edited by Ralgas, 14 March 2013 - 08:16 PM.

[Koshirou]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Remember the best lrm pilots generally only hit 40% of the time.

And none of this is taking into consideration ecm and or ams.

Yes it is. The weapon stats do not produce a "this is how often you would have hit if it wasn't for ECM" statistic. They produce a "this is how often you hit" statistic.

Edited by Koshirou, 15 March 2013 - 01:46 AM.

[Koshirou]

Skyfaller, on 14 March 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Fact: LRM lock requires the player to put the aimsight inside the lock-box. That.. is exactly the same thing LOS lasers/gun users need to do.

Nope.

Quote

but then again, guns and lasers do not have to consider time-to-target of their weapons...more specifically, 'if i shoot now would he be able to run into cover and waste my missiles?'

Errr... yes, they do in fact. Of course the issue is not running to cover, but simply stepping to the side since direct fire weapons don't track.

Have you ever used any weapons except LRMs? Because it sure sounds as if you haven't...

Quote

I've run a very LRM heavy stalker. So heavy its engine barely let me get to 25kph.

Okay, I'll cut it short here. Either you play in an environment where people don't know how to take advantage of this ridiculously stupid build, or you made it all up. In any case, it's not relevant to the play experience anybody I know has.

[T Hawk]

LRMs and ECM are both op.

It doesn't matter if you can avoid being hit, you shouldn't die to a single volley even if you make a mistake. There's times you're being chased by a group of lights and if someone decides to throw some LRM at you it is very possible you miss the chance to dodge because you are in the process of trying to escape. One hit in that situation and it's over. Shouldn't be like that, not even for lights. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not the point is it is NOT FUN.

ECM well, it's +1 ECM = win atm, don't know what to say. ECM is op combined with Streaks and it is also too strong in general, too many features and like I said if your team has +1 ECM user you're gonna win 90% of the time.

[Nightcrept]

0X2A, on 14 March 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

LRMs are UNINTENTIONALLY OP:
Found this thread a few minute ago
http://mwomercs.com/...results-inside/

That isn't what that posts findings indicate at all.
The findings indicate that some of the mechs aren't properly balanced against the splash damage effect. The mechs are balanced against lrms.

It's a bit complex and many people are getting very confused as to why the devs are like.."meh".

The game has been balanced with the bug in place. So lrms are having he effect in game they are supposed to have but for the wrong reasons.

T Hawk, on 15 March 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

LRMs and ECM are both op.

It doesn't matter if you can avoid being hit, you shouldn't die to a single volley even if you make a mistake. There's times you're being chased by a group of lights and if someone decides to throw some LRM at you it is very possible you miss the chance to dodge because you are in the process of trying to escape. One hit in that situation and it's over. Shouldn't be like that, not even for lights. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not the point is it is NOT FUN.

ECM well, it's +1 ECM = win atm, don't know what to say. ECM is op combined with Streaks and it is also too strong in general, too many features and like I said if your team has +1 ECM user you're gonna win 90% of the time.

Most players do not agree that lrms are op currently. If we did as you say and reduce their damage to not kill lights as quickly the effect against larger mechs would be proportionally worse. Lrms would be useless.