121 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Vodrin Thales, on 25 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

@Dr Monocle: There are alot of inaccuracies in your post. Current LRM damage is 1.0 per missile, and SRM damage is 2.0 per missile when splash damage is included. Also I hit with 65% of my SRM6 missiles, so most do not miss, and an SRM6 weights 3 tons and 4 with artemis so I don't know where you are getting 7 tons.

Dr Monocle, on 25 April 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

@Vodrin Thales Thanks for that I edited my post I believe I mistook the LRM 15 weight at 7 tons for the SRM 6 my mistake thank you. As for the Damage I am still correct the LRM's are at 0.7 damage per missile and SRM's are still at 1.5 damage per missile as of 4/25/13. That is still a 50% nerf that PGI did. I only would like them to increase damage for LRM's by 42% and SRM by 33% still well under the 1.5 damage for LRM and 2.5 damage for SRM was. By increasing them to what I suggest and what others on different posts suggest it will still be a 33% decrease for LRM's and a 20% for SRM's quite a considerable amount of reduction still.

Actually, not quite. Splash damage scales differently with every shot based on where the missile actually hits - a single LRM will do its .7 damage, and then deal splash damage to any other components caught in its 1.8m blast radius. This splash damage depends on how much of how close the secondary component was to the impact. So, a single LRM strikes on the left side of my center torso: the game deals .7 damage to my center torso, draws the splash damage radius from the point of impact, calculates what % of my [edit: this information was somewhat incorrect; correct version has been added:] then deals from 40% to 0% of weapon damage to any secondary components based on how far away from the impact they are (at hypothetical "zero distance," this would be 0.28/missile, scaling down to 0/missile at exactly 1.8m; it's like max weapon ranges.)

This brings us to the problem that the March 21st hotfix addressed: Missiles of all types were exhibiting extreme damage spikes, and with the improvement to Artemis especially, these spikes were producing situations where some builds were pulling down numbers in excess of 1800 damage in a match. That's as much damage as you might see on an entire team in a normal game, and was definitely excessive. It was also "regressive" in a way, because the closer together your hitboxes were, the more the splash damage would murder you ("just shoot an SRM6 at lights, and watch them explode.") PGI tried just removing the splash in internal testing, but found that, due to unexpected interactions with the current code, a high percentage of missile were hitting the Center Torso - which is a bad thing in a weapon whose damage balance is based on scattered hits across multiple components. Thus, until this guidance clustering is resolved, they implemented the current missile damage numbers as a stopgap until they could find a better solution, and asked us to evaluate the system by how it feels in actual practice, not how the numbers (which we can't accurately model without gross speculation) seem to add up.

This is all well and good, but unfortunately (because missile outcomes are hard to predict) we went from a Macross Missile Massacre to a Worf Barrage.

Edited by Void Angel, 29 April 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Vodrin Thales]

Very good summary, and this explains why my missile stats are showing substantially more damage per hit than most other players that have posted stats in this thread.

As for how SRM's and LRM's feel, I'd slay slightly less damage than ideal, but only slightly less. I don't find them to be as grossly underpowered as many others here, although I will admit that LRM damage is very anemic when used as an indirect fire weapon. LRM's still hit fairly hard though if artemis and TAG are affecting the missiles (but they could still probably benefit from a slight buff)).

[Void Angel]

It may also be that your stats include numbers from before the hotfix; This also makes it difficult to get even a rough estimate of missiles' damage in practice - which is why the devs asked us not to freak out over theorycrafting.

As far as LRMs, I spent the entire Assault v. the World tournament testing LRMs on my hybrid-armed Atlas. They're not a totally broken system, but they need substantial love over and above the missile speed buff we're told is planned.

Edited by Void Angel, 25 April 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[The Strange]

The biggest problem with missiles is that most people don't use them properly. If you think that you are just going to find a target, fire, and kill stuff, you're wrong. LRMs are, for the most part, a support weapon. Yes, they are. And even though some Mechs are fitted to carry massive amounts of them, they are still a support weapon, because those are support Mechs. Not every Mech is meant to be a front line butt kicker. Some Mechs are designed for scouting, some for brawling, some for support.

Now, if you work as a team, and fill your role, you shouldn't have an issue using missiles. Use your scouts to spot targets and maintain lock. They can also tell you when to hold fire if the target is being blocked by terrain. Use equipment like Artemis, TAG, NARC, and have your scout use their ECM to counter the enemies ECM. It works. Just launching into a PUG with your LRM boat isn't going to net you massive damage. Missiles aren't a solo weapon, they take teamwork to use effectively. And yes, they can be very effective if used properly. I have seen many matches where they were put to good use, and many more where they weren't.

[ICEFANG13]

Support mech? You mean useless mech?

I use the words, "support mech" too, but when I say that, I mean a mech that has high power, but low survivability, when people who hate LRMs and think they are good (yeah right, look around you in games), I translate that to useless.

I have an LRM-60 Catapult, but it lacks close range weaponry. I have a lot of dangerous DPS, and area control, but lack the ability to protect myself and need teammates.

That sounds a lot better than.

I have an LRM-60 Catapult, but it lacks close range weaponry. I have almost no damage, and therefore people ignore my fire, and simply snipe back or just kill my teammate, I lack the ability to protect myself and need teammates.

Damn I want a support mech too!

[Void Angel]

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

The biggest problem with missiles is that most people don't use them properly. If you think that you are just going to find a target, fire, and kill stuff, you're wrong. LRMs are, for the most part, a support weapon. Yes, they are. And even though some Mechs are fitted to carry massive amounts of them, they are still a support weapon, because those are support Mechs. Not every Mech is meant to be a front line butt kicker. Some Mechs are designed for scouting, some for brawling, some for support.

Now, if you work as a team, and fill your role, you shouldn't have an issue using missiles. Use your scouts to spot targets and maintain lock. They can also tell you when to hold fire if the target is being blocked by terrain. Use equipment like Artemis, TAG, NARC, and have your scout use their ECM to counter the enemies ECM. It works. Just launching into a PUG with your LRM boat isn't going to net you massive damage. Missiles aren't a solo weapon, they take teamwork to use effectively. And yes, they can be very effective if used properly. I have seen many matches where they were put to good use, and many more where they weren't.

At first, I thought you might be confusing MWO with WoW - as are other people I've talked to who use the term "support weapon" to mean "largely ineffective weapon that softens my target for me so that I can get kills." However, you seem to be saying that you believe that LRMs actually do decent damage, needing only skill and teamwork to perform adequately for their tonnage.

In other words, you do not understand.

LRM damage is inarguably sub-par, as has already been explained in this thread; it's got 5 pages of replies for a reason, and you seem to have missed some important points that were brought up early on. LRMs are simply outclassed on the battlefield, even if you hit with every single salvo. Start here, and find out what all the complaining is actually about.

[Garth Erlam]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...d-to-gaussppcs/ Read this. If I had the usual Gauss+PPC build I coulda won that match with less than half damage. LRMs are obsolete. I only use it cause I like being hip and stupid.

I could have done it with a small laser.

[Deathlike]

Garth Erlam, on 25 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I could have done it with a small laser.

/facepalm

[ICEFANG13]

Garth Erlam, on 25 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I could have done it with a small laser.

Some people aren't light mechs (+Cicada) like us Garth, they need those heavy weapons.

[The Strange]

Void Angel, on 25 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

At first, I thought you might be confusing MWO with WoW - as are other people I've talked to who use the term "support weapon" to mean "largely ineffective weapon that softens my target for me so that I can get kills." However, you seem to be saying that you believe that LRMs actually do decent damage, needing only skill and teamwork to perform adequately for their tonnage.

In other words, you do not understand.

LRM damage is inarguably sub-par, as has already been explained in this thread; it's got 5 pages of replies for a reason, and you seem to have missed some important points that were brought up early on. LRMs are simply outclassed on the battlefield, even if you hit with every single salvo. Start here, and find out what all the complaining is actually about.

I read the topic, I understand why people like you think they are underpowered weapons. I just don't agree with you, at all.

"largely ineffective weapon that softens my target for me so that I can get kills."

That explains your point of view perfectly. You are one of those people who think getting kills all by yourself is what a game like this is about. And that is fine, I am not saying you aren't entitled to that opinion. In that frame of mind, you are probably correct, LRMs don't do enough damage.

I am one of those people who feel that a game like this is about teamwork and everyone doing their part to win the match, regardless of whether they are the one who gets the kill shot, does the most damage, etc. We look at the game differently. I don't see a problem with LRMs, as I have seen how well they can work, even as they are now, when the people using them know what they are doing. It's ok that you want to be the "kill shot" guy. You aren't a support role payer.

Comparing damage on LRMs against dual AC20s, or 4 to 6 PPCs is fine if you are looking for the highest possible damage output, but that isn't what LRMs are for. They are a different type of weapon, for a different type of warfare. As long as people keep thinking they are supposed to be a primary direct fire brawling weapon, they will be disappointed with the damage.

[ICEFANG13]

Brawling?

Long Range Missile?

No I don't think those go together. A 6 PPC Stalker can get multiple kills alone, I've killed 5 mechs coring them from behind in the engagement (light backstab), and I shouldn't do that? My teammates did no damage to those targets that mattered. A game where its 1v2, the 1 should just give up, because he can't get kills alone?

[The Strange]

ICEFANG13, on 25 April 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Brawling?

Long Range Missile?

No I don't think those go together. A 6 PPC Stalker can get multiple kills alone, I've killed 5 mechs coring them from behind in the engagement (light backstab), and I shouldn't do that? My teammates did no damage to those targets that mattered. A game where its 1v2, the 1 should just give up, because he can't get kills alone?

What? That has nothing to do with what I posted man. Like, at all.

[ICEFANG13]

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I read the topic, I understand why people like you think they are underpowered weapons. I just don't agree with you, at all.

"largely ineffective weapon that softens my target for me so that I can get kills."

That explains your point of view perfectly. You are one of those people who think getting kills all by yourself is what a game like this is about. And that is fine, I am not saying you aren't entitled to that opinion. In that frame of mind, you are probably correct, LRMs don't do enough damage.

I am one of those people who feel that a game like this is about teamwork and everyone doing their part to win the match, regardless of whether they are the one who gets the kill shot, does the most damage, etc. We look at the game differently. I don't see a problem with LRMs, as I have seen how well they can work, even as they are now, when the people using them know what they are doing. It's ok that you want to be the "kill shot" guy. You aren't a support role payer.

Comparing damage on LRMs against dual AC20s, or 4 to 6 PPCs is fine if you are looking for the highest possible damage output, but that isn't what LRMs are for. They are a different type of weapon, for a different type of warfare. As long as people keep thinking they are supposed to be a primary direct fire brawling weapon, they will be disappointed with the damage.

Every game is about getting kills yourself or helping the team get kills. LRMs will always be worse at this power level at helping over some direct fire.

[TOGSolid]

ICEFANG13, on 25 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Some people aren't light mechs (+Cicada) like us Garth, they need those heavy weapons.

I think you're taking Garth's post a smidge too seriously.

Edited by TOGSolid, 25 April 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Keifomofutu]

TOGSolid, on 25 April 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

I think you're taking Garth's post a smidge too seriously.

The fact that he actually suggested using a small laser was a good hint. I saw a red laser yesterday and I thought it was a special kind of tag.

[Void Angel]

Where can I begin...?

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I read the topic, I understand why people like you think they are underpowered weapons. I just don't agree with you, at all.

"People like me?" Oh wait, there's more:

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

"largely ineffective weapon that softens my target for me so that I can get kills."

That explains your point of view perfectly. You are one of those people who think getting kills all by yourself is what a game like this is about. And that is fine, I am not saying you aren't entitled to that opinion. In that frame of mind, you are probably correct, LRMs don't do enough damage.

This is a straw man fallacy. You're quoting my criticsim of an underlying idea in some other people's viewpoints - and then accusing me of holding the view I criticized. Not going to work. My original draft of that quote read "... so I can get kills while the team loses [emphasis added,]" but I felt that might be perceived as personally hostile. In point of fact "people like me" have written newbie guides and tactical treatises aimed at fostering teamwork as a baseline of PuG behavior. I guess you didn't read those threads. No crime in that - it's not like it's homework, or anything. But the nature of your straw man (coupled with a personal attack) demonstrates that you don't know anything about me as a player - which is how you embarrassed yourself just now.

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I am one of those people who feel that a game like this is about teamwork and everyone doing their part to win the match, regardless of whether they are the one who gets the kill shot, does the most damage, etc. We look at the game differently. I don't see a problem with LRMs, as I have seen how well they can work, even as they are now, when the people using them know what they are doing. It's ok that you want to be the "kill shot" guy. You aren't a support role payer.

Yes, yes; it's about teamwork, and love, and puppies - and whether or not my "support weapon" does enough damage per ton of hardware in order for me to hold up my part of the team is the centerpiece of the debate which seems to be flying right by you. Let me be clear: the effectiveness of LRMs depend on the effectiveness of LRMs - not how smart a team player you are, while someone who disagrees is an unskilled, ignorant "kill shot guy."

The Strange, on 25 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Comparing damage on LRMs against dual AC20s, or 4 to 6 PPCs is fine if you are looking for the highest possible damage output, but that isn't what LRMs are for. They are a different type of weapon, for a different type of warfare. As long as people keep thinking they are supposed to be a primary direct fire brawling weapon, they will be disappointed with the damage.

We're not comparing LRMs to short-ranged weapons, or to random numbers of PPC, or even the highest possible damage output. We're comparing them on a ton-for-ton basis to other weapons which perform the same role: long-range combat. Yes, they can be used in indirect fire; yes, this requires a good knowledge of the terrain, or teammates to spot for you. We Know. The problem is that even when all the rounds are hitting, the LRM underperforms. There are no "different types of warfare" in MWO. It's ALL BattleMech warfare, and while LRMs do require different tactics to use properly, so do all other weapons, from small lasers to autocannons. The trouble is, to put it in your framework, that the LRM is not an adequate tool compared to other weapons to allow everyone to do their part to win the match. LRMs didn't "work well when the people who used them knew what they were doing." You have never seen that. What you evidently HAVE seen is your team outperforming the enemy team when LRMs were involved. That's not the same thing, and your anecdotal stories do not trump or even compare with the factual arguments presented here and elsewhere.

So: no one is confusing LRMs, of all things, with "direct-fire brawling weapons." The very claim that we are doing so is insulting. Nor will talking about using teamwork to guide rounds (which we already do) change the actual performance of the weapon system when the rounds are landing. Finally, and especially, it is not acceptable to substitute insults for argument, or to misrepresent other people's statments in a debate. It's no good to put on your tin halo and "innocently" opine, "Oh, but LRMs would be ever so much more effective if you weren't too ignorant to know how to use them!" The insult has been detected, and it is not ok.

You cannot continually misrepresent the opposing viewpoint, and yet credibly claim to understand it.

Edited by Void Angel, 26 April 2013 - 12:24 AM.

[Void Angel]

Garth Erlam, on 25 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I could have done it with a small laser.

ICEFANG13, on 25 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Some people aren't light mechs (+Cicada) like us Garth, they need those heavy weapons.

What are you talking about? My Spider us currently using two Medium and one Large Laser - though I'm thinking of going back to the ERPPC. =)

Edited by Void Angel, 26 April 2013 - 12:27 AM.

[Panimu]

Panimu, on 24 April 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Well I may as well do my own stats for completeness. Based on LRM20 alone:

Matches - 236
Fired - 148,005
Hit - 44,681
Accuracy - 30.19%
Damage - 46,210


Calc 1
If I fire 148,005 times in 236 matches this means I fire an average of 627 times in a match.
a) If this is 627 rack fires I would need to carry an average of 69 tons of ammo (627 / 9)
If this is 627 missile fires I would need to carry an average of 3.5 tons of ammo (627 / 180)

I feel this proves shots fired and hit is by missile, not rack

Calc 2
If I hit 44,681 times doing 46,210 damage than the average damage per missile is 1.03
Further this means
a) An LRM20 does a maximum of 20.6 damage (1.03 * 20)
An LRM20 does an average of 6.22 damage (20.6 * 0.3019%) taking into account my personal accuracy

These results are meaningless for damage as they have been taken from stats over too long a period. i.e. LRM damage has been modified in the time frame of these stats.

Enjoy.. ?

Not seeing anyone else do this so last night I played a few games on an LRM20 catapult to get some up to date stats (please don't judge me on these, I had to play on my crappy 10FPS laptop which I don't normally do!)

Numbers are previous, current and difference:

Matches - 236/240/4
Fired - 148005/151865/3860
Hit - 44681/45766/1085
Accuracy - 30.19%/30.14/28.11%
Damage - 46210/47236/1026

So to redo Calc 2, I hit 1085 times for 1026 damage meaning 1 missile did 0.95 damage.

Enjoy..?

TOGSolid, on 25 April 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

I think you're taking Garth's post a smidge too seriously.

I think you're taking ICEFANG13's post a smidge too seriously.

[Panimu]

To return to the Original Post a bit I decided to play 5 games in an LRM boat and post the result. All this morning, all with no games omitted. I usually play with my guild but for the purpose of these games I played solo.

Game1: Win, 2 kills, damage lead
Game2: Lose, 0 kills, damage lead for team
Game3: Win, 3 kills, damage lead for team
Game4: Lose, 0 kills, 2nd damage pos for team
Game5: Win, 4 kills, 2nd damage pos for team

Spoiler

You can also come and watch games 3 and 5 on my YouTube channel if you wish. The 2nd one is probably the better watch.
Game 3:

Game 5:


I'm not trying to particularly prove or change anyone's mind with this type of limited evidence. I just thought it might be of interest or amusement..

Edited by Panimu, 28 April 2013 - 03:37 AM.

[Alpha087]

LHKE2012, on 20 April 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

We were out classed by weight, 5 assaults to 2, and they had the advantage with lights, 3 to 2. But because I could keep a track on people, the team took down 2 assualts and 3 lights, while I took down the remainder. You will note that I had the high score for the match and for overall damage, so no “stolen” kills. Missiles are not broken, but they are not as effective as they were. So adjust tactics, and work closer with your team.

It would help if you posted your actual full build. But either way, missiles -are- broken.. If that damage was done purely with LRMs then I don't want to think about how many you had to fire to get to that point.

At the absolute least, LRMs need a slightly faster travel time, considering how easy it is to have them miss, especially if the enemy has ECM (which they almost always do).