27 replies to this topic

[Praehotec8]

I have read in many forum threads regarding the LRM debate that they are in canon supposed to be "support" weapons. I don't necessarily wish to start about about the current power of LRMs, but rather to discuss what "support weapon" means in MWO. Anyone care to address these questions?

1.) what is a support weapon in canon, and why are they classified as such. What made them useful in TT?

2.) What should a support weapon do in MWO? How should they be balanced in regards to "lethal" weapons (non-supporting weapons)?

3.) If, as many have implied, support weapons should only strip armor, but not be effective making the final blows (often), what benefit is there in taking support weapons over lethal weapons (particularly in specialized mechs such as the canon version of the catapults)? i.e. why not just grab another PPC or AC20 instead? Discuss for both premades and PUGs.

Again, I ask this not as a discussion of the current state of LRMs, but in all earnestness to better clarify the role of weapons in MWO.

[Team Leader]

Are machine guns support weapons? Because by your definition, no. And they certainly aren't anything else... Hmmmmm. LRMs are a support weapon because they are supposed to soften up a target and strip a little bit of armor before you get in to closing distance. They're not supposed to be be killing mediums in 2 volleys. They're totally capable of killing mechs though if theyre severely damaged.

[Kobold]

The only thing that made LRMs a "support" weapon was their minimum range. If you had a mech with only LRMs and nothing else, then you had a serious problem if something face hugged you. Sure you could punch or kick, but if you were in an LRM only mech (like the CPLT-A1) you had a serious problem once something got close, especially if they could out maneuver you.

Edit to add: I absolutely hate how they chose to implement machine guns in MWO, specifically because they made them junk against armor.

Edited by Kobold, 16 April 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Pygar]

You really kind of answer your own questions...they are meant to "pepper" the enemy at long range so that more solid hitting direct fire weapons can get the kill shots.

Here's what Sarna.net says about them: " Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt."

Notice how it doesn't say "LRMs are meant to WTFPWN people who don't know how to cower behind cover or bring ECM to every battle." like they have so frequently worked in MWO. (right now they feel about perfect for how they worked in tabletop...which is to say, yes they are in fact inferior to PPCs, Gauss rifles and AC/20s)

Edited by Pygar, 16 April 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[Kobold]

Pygar, on 16 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

You really kind of answer your own questions...they are meant to "pepper" the enemy at long range so that more solid hitting direct fire weapons can get the kill shots.

Here's what Sarna.net says about them: " Long Range Missiles[color=#000000] are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt."[/color]

[color=#000000]Notice how it doesn't say "LRMs are meant to WTFPWN people who don't know how to cower behind cover or bring ECM to every battle." like it they have so frequently worked in MWO.[/color]

Objection your honor. Statement unsupported by the evidence.

[Tezcatli]

I agree with team leader. Though I do think they need a speed buff. They're very slow. Even if someone is in plain view of you. They still manage to arrive just behind the target. Or the enemy is doing a peak-a-boo type of sniping, they just run for nearest cover, while this ball of missiles just sluggishly hurdles toward them. Not saying they should arc around cover or anything like that. Just that you shouldn't be able to out run missiles with average speed mechs.

To me support is about laying down additional fire on enemy targets over the heads of your allies. Or softening up their armor so someone with strong direct fire weapons can put them down quickly.

[AnnoyingCat]

FLAMERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ozric]

There is no such thing as a support weapon, least of all missiles.

[matux]

Support weapons now are anything that is not a PPC or Auto Cannon, Jump Jets are now main weapons rather than equipment.

[Khell DarkWolf]

Cannon or not,

I honestly wouldn't really call them support weapons for how heavy they are vs. the damage they can inflict.

The dynamics of how heavy they are in correlation to not even factoring in ammo is actually heavy and there are better choices currently to out do a "support" weapon.

If the damage were to be kept roughly the same as it were, you may as well reduce the launcher weights by half.

Then you might have something to work with to squeeze in an LRM as a filler support weapon in conjuction to all your other weapons. Until then, it needs a minor damage buff if it keeps its current weights.

Plus, cannon is the guideline. As much as I would want to keep it as cannon as possible. You have to remember that the mechanics of the game have to work well with the weapon system in its gaming environment. At this point, LRMs do not with its current stats.

In conclusion:

I'll neither agree nor disagree to your post OP.

By definition to what most know, a support weapon should be a cheap system that is easy to fit and mount so it can be used as a fill gap while you still have other weapons.

[Davers]

Pygar, on 16 April 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

You really kind of answer your own questions...they are meant to "pepper" the enemy at long range so that more solid hitting direct fire weapons can get the kill shots.

Here's what Sarna.net says about them: " Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt."

Notice how it doesn't say "LRMs are meant to WTFPWN people who don't know how to cower behind cover or bring ECM to every battle." like they have so frequently worked in MWO. (right now they feel about perfect for how they worked in tabletop...which is to say, yes they are in fact inferior to PPCs, Gauss rifles and AC/20s)

LRMs are in a far worse place in MW:O than in TT. The ONLY thing keeping them in any way valid is the bug that makes them heavily target the CT is still in. Which is why they had their damage reduced to begin with. LRMs have so many built in weaknesses (minimum range, practically useless vs fast mechs, etc) that they should do a little more than 'soften up' an enemy when they actually hit.

[Ozric]

Khell DarkWolf, on 16 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

By definition to what most know, a support weapon should be a cheap system that is easy to fit and mount so it can be used as a fill gap while you still have other weapons.

Aye that's quite true. Your support weapons are whatever you bring to back up your main armament. On my C1, the support weapons are a pair of MLAS.

[DarkDevilDancer]

Missiles will get fixed its just not a simple thing to do they have to rewrite the algorithmic code that governs the spread pattern, then they can modify splash damage and finally return them to 1 damage each.

But face it standing 1 click away and owning people was broken, took zero skill and was frankly boring to play and play against.

[Fenris Krinkovich]

See, I was always taught that a "support weapon" was a heavier weapon assigned to infantry as a force multiplier, with the intention of either increasing the lethality of a unit or giving it further utility (suppression, countering light vehicles, etc.) Google "what is a support weapon" and you mostly get machine guns; since WW2, MG's have mostly been used by infantry as a suppression and area denial weapon, but that doesn't mean that they aren't murderous against exposed enemy. Designated Marksman Rifles are a type of support weapon because they extend the effective range of a squad and a single snipe can bring a larger force to a halt, but that doesn't mean they don't kill the enemy. LRM's are great at suppression, and indirect fire provides a small amount of uncertainty on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be effective at killing the enemy under certain circumstances (same for PPC's and Gauss, IMO). I'm not saying that lurms weren't in a weird place two patches ago, because they were, but anyone arguing that a "support weapon" should NOT be killing the enemy doesn't seem to understand what a support weapon IS.

Edited by Fenris Krinkovich, 16 April 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[Pygar]

matux, on 16 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Support weapons now are anything that is not a PPC or Auto Cannon, Jump Jets are now main weapons rather than equipment.

Been like that since 1984.

Davers, on 16 April 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

LRMs are in a far worse place in MW:O than in TT. The ONLY thing keeping them in any way valid is the bug that makes them heavily target the CT is still in. Which is why they had their damage reduced to begin with. LRMs have so many built in weaknesses (minimum range, practically useless vs fast mechs, etc) that they should do a little more than 'soften up' an enemy when they actually hit.

I have a long standing dislike of LRMs that started over 20 years ago playing TT. I think it's maybe been a little while since you tried to shoot TT LRMs at max range versus a scout mech zipping around at 120kph....end result of that scenario is you thanking the gods you have medium lasers on your mech because 2 turns later that same scout mech is standing on your shoelaces with little to no LRM damage taken.

Edited by Pygar, 16 April 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Pygar]

Here's more "support" from sarna: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Archer

Now, for those who aren't familiar with the Archer, basically the Catapult is a wanna-be Archer..but the Archer is an "unseen" so we got the Catapult instead.

Sooo, how come the description lists it as "Fire Support"? What does that mean?

[Ozric]

Pygar, on 16 April 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Here's more "support" from sarna: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Archer

Now, for those who aren't familiar with the Archer, basically the Catapult is a wanna-be Archer..but the Archer is an "unseen" so we got the Catapult instead.

Sooo, how come the description lists it as "Fire Support"? What does that mean?

That the Archer fulfills the fire support role on the battlefield.

[Tie Ma]

easiet way to balance LRMs. is to drastically reduce its effectiveness in indirect fire. while increasing its power while the user has line of sight.

[Pygar]

Ozric, on 16 April 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

That the Archer fulfills the fire support role on the battlefield.

Because it's main weapons really only lend themselves for that.

On a side note, I sooo wish we could have had the Archer instead of Catapult (or both) they are good mechs, even if I never liked flying them. But I would waaaay rather have a Warhammer or Marauder if we could have unseens- because they were PPC boats instead of LRM boats, and therefore better mechs, IMO.

[Tex1013]

Praehotec8, on 16 April 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I have read in many forum threads regarding the LRM debate that they are in canon supposed to be "support" weapons. I don't necessarily wish to start about about the current power of LRMs, but rather to discuss what "support weapon" means in MWO. Anyone care to address these questions?

1.) what is a support weapon in canon, and why are they classified as such. What made them useful in TT?

2.) What should a support weapon do in MWO? How should they be balanced in regards to "lethal" weapons (non-supporting weapons)?

3.) If, as many have implied, support weapons should only strip armor, but not be effective making the final blows (often), what benefit is there in taking support weapons over lethal weapons (particularly in specialized mechs such as the canon version of the catapults)? i.e. why not just grab another PPC or AC20 instead? Discuss for both premades and PUGs.

Again, I ask this not as a discussion of the current state of LRMs, but in all earnestness to better clarify the role of weapons in MWO.

I'm a little late to the party, but here's what I'll offer for you...

In TT (tabletop), LRMs had the single greatest engagement range of any weapon in the game - this meant that they had relatively high hit odds at ranges that the longest range direct fire weapons could only hit on a boxcars (double sixes on 2d6 - in other words, really low odds)

As someone mentioned, light fast mechs got bonuses from speed, but curiously, the speed to-hit penalty tt was relatively low - it was *cover* that really made a the huge difference for lights (they could move across significant distance, which was a to-hit penalty, and then end successfully in cover, which was another decent to-hit penalty - a light caught out in the open could still be hit relatively reliably)

TT LRM's were *balanced*, by the random hit-location system, and by the fact that mechanically, usually only a percentage of the missiles fired, hit (usually between 50-75% of what you fired hit, although you could get really lucky and hit with all)

Missiles also hit in *salvos*, which futher distributed their damage (i.e. you'd fire 15 missiles, hit with 12, which got split into 2 groups of 5 and a group of 2)- which meant that LRM's were rarely *Kill* weapons, but they were inordinately good at softening up targets on your approach, which made it easier for your ac/10 or 20 or large laser salvo to make it past armor and kill weapons/equipment/mechs.

That being said, TT-wise, ALL weapons were technically *kill* weapons, because the random hit location table gave EVERY weapon a chance to get a lucky crit inside torso, or head hits, but in general practice, LRM's utility was measured by effectively reducing armor during an approach to the enemy, at which point shorter range, higher damage weapons tended to be *kill* weapons

so, when people talk about LRM's being *support* weapons, that's not *quite* true, but it ended up being more or less true in practice - in some of the examples being used above, LRM's effectively became area denial weapons, forcing those people that wanted to preserve their armor, to take LOS blocking routes to their targets, or reduce the effective speed of their approach by forcing them into cover

this is also backed up by the "minimum range" of LRM's, that made them significantly less effective once mechs made it into close range combat, where devestating weapons like ML salvos and AC20's could really shine.

Turning Battletech into a real-time simulator has always presented...issues...as far as replicating the tactical utility/limitations of various Btech weapons systems - honestly, for my own part, the single biggest problem I currently have with MWO missiles is the lack of missile salvo spread. This was a HUGE point of balance for LRM's in TT, as far as I was concerned, and allowing LRM's (and streaks) to home in on CT, and then impact like real missiles, seems to have caused some of the serious balance issues that initially plagued LRM's...and all the "fixes" since seem to be trying to keep the initially broken premise and "balancing" lrm's by introducing dmg nerfs, unnecessary splash damage, and absurdly wide-sweeping all-or-nothing ECM effects

still, I think I *get* the missile impact idea they were going for - as near as I can tell, missiles (srms, streaks AND LRM's) all seem to be real physical objects on the field - they're given flight paths, homing, etc - and their impact point *appears* to be wherever they actually impact the mech (so, I fire a volly of 20 LRM's at a mech, and at the last minute, he turns to the left, all those lrm'***** the left arm because the left arm is between where the missiles are and the CT that they're homing in on) and so this *spreads* the damage more *realisitically*...is what I think they're thinking.

But I'm not sure it's working all that well

Keep in mind, that even in TT, LRM's were a cheesy exploit weapon. Because they had long range, could be fired indirectly, and were automatically split into groups of 5, they actually exploited the random to-hit location table of Btech. Firing a batch of LRM 15's could, ostensibly, give you 3 opportunities to hit head or ct crit by random chance, whereas an ac20 did a lot more damage, but you only got to roll once on the hit location table

this was, in fact, the reasoning behind the original LB autocannons - their damage was split exactly like LRM's were, and so they suddenly had a new class of weapons that got to exploit the hit-location-table odds by rolling multiple times in an attempt to get armor bypass or head hits

so, LRM's have *always* been...a difficult weapon to balance in Btech - and I think MWO still has a ways to go in this department

hope that helps, assuming anyone read it