86 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Durr, I'm ******** and it's late. Lemme go fix that; the DPS/ton is correct, though. I'm conflating two different debates. =) Thanks!

[Farpenoodle]

I feel one of the reasons I can do well in a TBT-3C is because it's not entirely hard to maintain a pattern of shooting off a volley, finding cover and then exposing myself just a tiny bit (think peeking over a ridge running at 106kph.) to regain the lock so the previous volley will hit WHILE shooting off another volley.

[Void Angel]

The Trebuchet seems to me to be ideally positioned to get points in this contest with LRMS (as someone else pointed out earlier.) It's substantially more agile than other lights; not only the jump jets, but also speed and maneuverability. I can tell you from personal experience as both a Hunchback and Spider pilot that a Trebuchet will torso twist far faster than a Hunchback (and you're apparently faster; a Hunch maxes out at about 92 kph.) This will indeed allow you to flank and launch against targets with vastly improved safety over a heavy or assault missile platform. I still don't think that the system is quite up to par, however, for reasons I've discussed here and elsewhere.

By the way, where'd you end up in the rankings?

Edited by Void Angel, 28 April 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[Eleshod]

Sounds like a viable strat.

1:post bogus build claiming LRM's are fine and that you're high in the tourney.
2:Other tourny players see this, switch to LRM
3:Crush next matches while everyone boats LRM's
4:??????
5:Profit

[Farpenoodle]

I ended day one 12th using nothing but LRMs. Edit: not entirely true. The 3 medlas were an important factor but most of the damage comes from LRMs.

On a side note. People seem to think I'm just getting lucky and maybe I'm getting destroyed apart from my good games. Of course I have bad games where I get careless and get destroyed but it's rare for me to end a match with under 300 damage and at least 1 kill in my 3C. My KDR in it is 2.5 with over 100 games played.

I'm not claiming it's a particularly good build but it's one I enjoy using and am comfortable in and gets me results.

Edited by Farpenoodle, 28 April 2013 - 02:59 AM.

[Skyfaller]

Void Angel, on 28 April 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

No, the damage is not fine, and no, the missile warning is not the problem.

Yes it is. A big part of the problem. If you fire LRM at me I guarantee you I can and will be in cover before the missiles hit if you shooting from farther than 400m (4secs warning is all I need). All my friends around me know the missiles arent going for them since they get no warning. See the problem now?

Quote

The problem is that the amount of damage the LRM does is so far outclassed by so many comparable weapon systems that there is little to recommend the system.

The only comparable weapon system is the SRM and LBX10. Damage spreading support weapons. You cant really, possibly, be comparing LRM to a PPC or AC5+ weapon.. apples and oranges.

Quote

You can ameliorate the problem by using teamwork and tactics, but the end result is still sub-par. People are more and more often not using anti-missile systems in their builds. Sure, if they trundle across the open without seeking cover, you can do a lot of damage to them - and anyone armed with an equivalent tonnage of PPC will do more. If they hit them all on the same spot, they might kill them; if they hit them on multiple spots, the result is similar to an LRM volley - except more total damage will have been done. The only situation where this is not the case is when some slow assault is trundling across the open long enough that your heat efficiency lets you pull ahead - and weapons aren't balanced because of their effects on some hopeless newbie who's so confused he doesn't even know what's going on, or what to do about it. Weapon balance is based on the use of a weapon by and against competent players, and in that arena it simply falls short.

... I guess you really are comparing the LRM to PPC and AC's. Apples and oranges.

Quote

Furthermore, you have to take into account the advantages and disadvantages of the system: on the plus side, it can deal full damage at very long ranges, and it can fire without line of sight using a spotter -but with somewhat reduced accuracy. On the DOWN side, it is far easier to seek cover against (hence why I listed cover as a disadvantage of the system,)

Stop right there. That is precisely why the missile warning is a problem. Before the warning was implemented the missile volleys in the air could be coming for ANYONE and usually the entire team ran for cover or just took the hits. Missile warning has removed that and allowed the target to have a ridiculously long time to avoid all damage.

Quote

does far less damage/ton than other comparable weapon systems, and is completely shut down by uncountered ECM - both offensively and defensively used ECM, at that. The ERPPC, by comparison, performs so much better (both overall and in the long-range weapon role) that the indirect fire capabilities of the LRM are still not enough to make the latter an attractive weapon system.

Not attractive to you perhaps. You seem hell bent on wanting the LRM to be just like a gauss rifle but with a fancy flight pattern. Its not a direct fire weapon, get over it. Any LRM heavy mech that has no TAG is a dumb mech pilot (except for the poor CatA1s.. those things really should be allowed 1 energy in the cockpit slot at least). I find the LRM quite attractive and useful even now.. I just wish it could be more effective once the unfair counter-lrm features are removed (not needed anymore).

Quote

Also, you are still arguing using the wrong numbers; LRMs do NOT do "5/6ths" of an ERPPC's damage by any means. You seem to think that it does ~8.33 damage to each component hit (if for example three locations were hit) - if this were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What actually happens is that a full salvo from an LRM20 will do 0.7 damage for each missile wherever that missile happens to hit, with additional damage done to surrounding locations based on a radius from impact. ..... You lack a certain amount of credibility when your argument does not match what the weapon system actually does.

*sigh*. I guess I do need to dumb it down for you.

0.7 dmg per missile. 20 missiles. A frontal hit strikes the CT, RT and LT with almost all the missiles in the volley. What is 20 divided by 3? 6.6 . Lets just round it up to 7 missiles. 7 missiles hit each section. At 0.7dmg each. 4.9 dmg. Add the splash damage from the other 2 sections which is roughly 50% dmg per missile. Roughly. That is an extra 0.35 dmg. The LT/RT takes splash from the CT only and CT takes from both RT/LT and CT splash. To make it simple ill just focus on the LT. LT takes 4.9dmg from the 7 missiles that hit it and the splash from the CT is 2.45 total. Added up its 7.35 dmg.

...which is roughly 5/6ths of the 10pnts damage a PPC hits you for. Roughly, on average as a PPC hit will not do 10 full damage past its max damage range. A missile oth does full damage out to absolute max range.

Quote

Certainly, you can get good damage numbers when firing into a brawl where no one is paying attention to you. You can pull down good numbers with nearly any weapon if no one pays attention to you! ....

In order to make the LRM an effective system, it needs to do at least the same DPS/ton as other long-ranged weapons, if only to account for damage spread.

The first part is true and it is not the point I was making. I can fire an LRM at a mech in the open out to 1km and it WILL hit if he doesnt get into cover (and I can keep lock). Alpine is a great example of a map where you can smack 3 to 4 volleys on someone as he moves from one cover to another if you keep your high ground and LOS and you're positioned well.

The second part I disagree. The dps per ton is already good. Like i said, ONE lrm20 does more total damage than ONE ppc. Delivery is different though. Two LRMs do more damage than 2 ppc.. three and four just make PPCs look bad in total damage. The PPC will certainly kill faster IF it can keep its damage pinpoint (which, lets be realistic here, is utterly stupid to think you can pull it off consistently at anything but near point blank range vs a moving target).

This is why I say the real issue is ammo per ton. If I had twice the ammo per ton I could sustain missile support fire on a target and take riskier shots (especially if the missile warning is removed). I can take indirect fire shots a lot more as well. However, as it is currently, I have to carefully conserve my ammo because yes, LRMs do much less damage than before so I have to shoot a lot more to compensate. If the extra ammo is given and I can compensate for it that way, both the target and I are receiving a balanced solution:

1- Target is receiving not so high damage as before and thus is not suffering the '3-volley death' they used to.
2- My LRM setup returns to being a functional long range weapon instead a of a medium range damage add-on it is mostly now.

[Joseph Mallan]

Farpenoodle, on 27 April 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Personally I don't think there's really much that can be done to make LRMs truly viable in competitive matches unless their flight speed is significantly buffed. Which would probably turn PUG games into an LRM fest. That said I don't particularly feel they need to be all that viable in competitive matches.

S'wat????

Lon Range Missiles are needed to be truly effective. competitively. Maybe not in these silly PUG only competitions, but a team that is communicating should be able to devastate an opponent that doesn't have fire support. Remember, this is a combat game. We fight each other. So the sooner we can start doing damage to the enemy the better our chances of victory become. So effective long range fire support is a must to layered combat strategies.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 29 April 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Kaldor]

They are bad. They need to be buffed. Its that simple.

Put them at canon damage, which is 1, and see how it plays out.

Do the same with SRMs. Put them at canon, which is 2.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I was really surprised. I'd been running an LRM 15 x 2, LRM 20, Lrg Laser x 2 Highlander. And was barely breaking 500 damage as a max. And most games was 300 and below.

Switched to AC/20, PPC x 2, Streak x 2...in my first game and I admittedly sucked, I broke 350 damage with ease.

It's so silly to even compare LRM's to anything, they blow.

[Belphagor]

Before changing 3 things at once so they flop back on the too powerful side again- how about just bumping flight speed and nothing else and see how that changes things.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Belphagor, on 29 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Before changing 3 things at once so they flop back on the too powerful side again- how about just bumping flight speed and nothing else and see how that changes things.

Problem there is, if that doesn't work, they won't immediately change something else.

Instead they will let it sit for 2 months, then eventually do something else...hopefully.

I'd be ok with small changes if we had been doing them from the get go. But now we have 8-10 patches till release.

And they do not seem to be able to make changes every patch.

[Skyfaller]

Yep thats because they would have to make changes to the code that ties in to a lot of other things.

Instead, if they simply double ammo per ton and disable the missile warning system... both things which I doubt are linked to damage calcs in-game... they would fix the LRM.

It doesn't hurt to try. *hint devs*

[Void Angel]

Skyfaller, on 29 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yes it is. A big part of the problem. If you fire LRM at me I guarantee you I can and will be in cover before the missiles hit if you shooting from farther than 400m (4secs warning is all I need). All my friends around me know the missiles arent going for them since they get no warning. See the problem now?

The only comparable weapon system is the SRM and LBX10. Damage spreading support weapons. You cant really, possibly, be comparing LRM to a PPC or AC5+ weapon.. apples and oranges.

... I guess you really are comparing the LRM to PPC and AC's. Apples and oranges.

Just... wow. An LB-X autocannon is a dedicated short-range weapon system. It is not comparable to the LRM except that it happens to spread out damage (using an entirely different mechanic than the LRM.) This is not the comparison being made, nor is comparing long-range weapons to long-range weapons "apples and oranges." As for the hypothetical benefits of removing the missile warning... People know they're not getting hit by PPCs aimed at someone else, too. They still seek cover from incoming fire.

Skyfaller, on 29 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Not attractive to you perhaps. You seem hell bent on wanting the LRM to be just like a gauss rifle but with a fancy flight pattern. Its not a direct fire weapon, get over it. Any LRM heavy mech that has no TAG is a dumb mech pilot (except for the poor CatA1s.. those things really should be allowed 1 energy in the cockpit slot at least). I find the LRM quite attractive and useful even now.. I just wish it could be more effective once the unfair counter-lrm features are removed (not needed anymore).

Straw man arguments are also called "lying." Further, your argument on this point makes little sense: if LRMs are effective now with counter-measures in place, why do the countermeasures need to be removed? If, on the other hand, the countermeasures are "unfair," doesn't the system need to be upgraded to deal with them? It's no good to reply that the countermeasures are "optional;" they're not being used now, which is another problem with your argument.

Skyfaller, on 29 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

*sigh*. I guess I do need to dumb it down for you.

0.7 dmg per missile. 20 missiles. A frontal hit strikes the CT, RT and LT with almost all the missiles in the volley. What is 20 divided by 3? 6.6 . Lets just round it up to 7 missiles. 7 missiles hit each section. At 0.7dmg each. 4.9 dmg. Add the splash damage from the other 2 sections which is roughly 50% dmg per missile. Roughly. That is an extra 0.35 dmg. The LT/RT takes splash from the CT only and CT takes from both RT/LT and CT splash. To make it simple ill just focus on the LT. LT takes 4.9dmg from the 7 missiles that hit it and the splash from the CT is 2.45 total. Added up its 7.35 dmg.

...which is roughly 5/6ths of the 10pnts damage a PPC hits you for.

Kindly spare me the condescending insults until you can understand the math I've quoted to you; your numbers are wrong. LRM splash damage is variable depending on where the missile strikes - it does not simply pick two other hit locations to damage. It calculates how much splash damage is applied by determining how far away from the point of impact a secondary location lies, and then applying a modifier (0.4 to 0.0) which scales based on that distance. Note that this number cannot be "roughly 50% This is why small 'mechs were getting smoked by SRM and LRM fire - their hit boxes are much closer together. Also note that this interaction is literally impossible to predict by the sort of pen-and-paper theorycrafting that we can do on the forums - which is why I've repeatedly made use of numbers provided by other players' testing of real-world results. Numbers which you have ignored. Currently LRMs are doing about 0.939 -0.950 damage per missile. If LRMs were doing an average of 1.05 damage per missile, we'd probably not be having this conversation. Where did you get your numbers, anyway? Other than the 0.7 damage per missile, it seems like you just... made them up.

Not that your theorycrafting is correct even with your own numbers. It's not just that you don't understand how splash damage works. You rounded up after assuming that "almost" all the missiles in your fantasy LRM20 volley hit - yielding a total of twenty-one missiles from a 20-shot launcher. Where can I find this weapon? Does it magic itself extra ammunition as well?

Skyfaller, on 29 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

The second part I disagree. The dps per ton is already good. Like i said, ONE lrm20 does more total damage than ONE ppc. Delivery is different though. Two LRMs do more damage than 2 ppc.. three and four just make PPCs look bad in total damage. The PPC will certainly kill faster IF it can keep its damage pinpoint (which, lets be realistic here, is utterly stupid to think you can pull it off consistently at anything but near point blank range vs a moving target).

Your maths betray you, young Skyfaller. At real-world damage numbers which are not made up, the LRM's DPS/tonnage is lower than nearly all other long-range weapon systems. This makes it an empirically worse choice, because it spreads damage. If Weapon A does 20 damage/second to one location/shot at a given range, and Weapon B does 10 damage/second at that range spread over about three components of the target, Weapon A is much more likely to score a kill, or inflict so much damage that the target must engage cautiously to avoid destruction. Even if Weapon A only hits the same location one third of the time (thus spreading its damage like Weapon B,) it still performs at worst equally to weapon B. This is why the LB-10X has more cockpit shaking impact than an AC20, and enhanced crit-seeking; and it's still not a terribly popular weapon system. Currently, Weapon B, the LRM, does LESS damage per ton than Weapon A (excluding Gauss Rifles which are a special case, and the forgotten autocannon no one uses.)

In order to adequately perform its role, the LRM really needs to be more damaging. Your opinion on this matter is based on wrong data. This means that your opinion is wrong. Period. End of story. You have no business being snidely condescending when holding forth on a weapon system you do not understand.

[Void Angel]

Belphagor, on 29 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Before changing 3 things at once so they flop back on the too powerful side again- how about just bumping flight speed and nothing else and see how that changes things.

Well, they actually changed one thing in response to player testing and empirical data - now they're just buffing the flight time in their current round of testing, according to their announcements. This is quite proper, and valid testing can't be done until the clustering issue is fixed anyway (too many missiles hitting CT.) But, since we'll have to re-evaluate damage anyway once the clustering is resolved, it couldn't hurt to give us a bit of help in the mean time - you don't want to spend too much time nickle-and-diming changes, but the current hotfix was a stopgap measure, too.

[Chemie]

a medium with LRM is really all about kill stealing. LRMs are good for that and that helps get you the kills. Same for assists....which is why you got OK rank.

[Rebas Kradd]

LRM's have one very important advantage that everyone has overlooked. Yes, they're slightly underpowered and not comparable to direct-fire weapons in a pure numbers comparison, BUT...they can do damage without line of sight. That's something lasers and ballistics can't claim. No point being a heavier weapon if you can't even hit the guy, or if you must expose yourself to do so.

If you're using LRM's from 900m away where any Atlas with a destroyed leg can duck into cover before they arrive, no wonder you think they're useless. If you're waiting, like I am, until they're <400m away and already engaged with another 'Mech so they won't power down...well, you're probably not in agreement with the OP at all.

I'm still getting plenty of kills with my LRM25, and I'm in a Stalker.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 April 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

LRM's have one very important advantage that everyone has overlooked. Yes, they're slightly underpowered and not comparable to direct-fire weapons in a pure numbers comparison, BUT...they can do damage without line of sight. That's something lasers and ballistics can't claim. No point being a heavier weapon if you can't even hit the guy, or if you must expose yourself to do so.

If you're using LRM's from 900m away where any Atlas with a destroyed leg can duck into cover before they arrive, no wonder you think they're useless. If you're waiting, like I am, until they're <400m away and already engaged with another 'Mech so they won't power down...well, you're probably not in agreement with the OP at all.

I'm still getting plenty of kills with my LRM25, and I'm in a Stalker.

Getting kills is not an effective measure of how good a weapon is.

In fact, kills really don't mean jack. I hate that anyone cares about their K/D ratio.

And I really have to disagree that some how because you can fire indirectly, that it some how makes everything ok.

Indirect Fire via LRM's is BAD the hit rate is terrible. The only reason to use it is to try and scare someone into hiding. Anyone who is worth their snot does not worry about 25 indirectly fired LRM's.

[Void Angel]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

LRM's have one very important advantage that everyone has overlooked. Yes, they're slightly underpowered and not comparable to direct-fire weapons in a pure numbers comparison, BUT...they can do damage without line of sight. That's something lasers and ballistics can't claim. No point being a heavier weapon if you can't even hit the guy, or if you must expose yourself to do so.

If you're using LRM's from 900m away where any Atlas with a destroyed leg can duck into cover before they arrive, no wonder you think they're useless. If you're waiting, like I am, until they're <400m away and already engaged with another 'Mech so they won't power down...well, you're probably not in agreement with the OP at all.

I'm still getting plenty of kills with my LRM25, and I'm in a Stalker.

So there's no point in bringing an ERPPC because you have to expose yourself to use it? I shall inform the majority of my teammates and my opponents on your behalf.

Actually, I've treated that same point multiple times discussing LRMs. The short version: The advantage of indirect fire is not sufficient to offset the drawbacks, both of using indirect fire and of the weapon itself.

The Long version? Go read the thread. It's obvious you haven't done more than skim the title, because you don't even know what the OP's point is. Maybe you should come back when you understand the discussion, which is a basic requirement of being qualified to hold an opinion.

Edited by Void Angel, 29 April 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Umbra8]

The DPS of missiles right now has an LRM20 doing comparable or less damage than a PPC with considerably more drawbacks (missile warning, explosive ammo, travel time, very effective countermeasures and a worse minimum range). A PPC has the tonnage of and cit allotment of an LRM 15 (I don't include ammo just as I don't include the additional heat sinks required for the PPC). Tonnage is the number one determinant of loadout when I'm in the mechlab, and right now missile systems are the worst choice for free tonnage in designing a mech. This has a disproportionate effect on medium chassis mechs as they used to rely heavily on the high risk/high dps/low tonnage of SRMS to give them skirmishing punch against larger mech classes that can mount the heavier autocannons or PPC's.

Yes, currently they are a poor choice where any alternative is available. Hopefully PGI will recognise this and adjust LRMs and SRMs accordingly.

[Rebas Kradd]

Void Angel, on 29 April 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

So there's no point in bringing an ERPPC because you have to expose yourself to use it? I shall inform the majority of my teammates and my opponents on your behalf.

Actually, I've treated that same point multiple times discussing LRMs. The short version: The advantage of indirect fire is not sufficient to offset the drawbacks, both of using indirect fire and of the weapon itself.

The Long version? Go read the thread. It's obvious you haven't done more than skim the title, because you don't even know what the OP's point is. Maybe you should come back when you understand the discussion, which is a basic requirement of being qualified to hold an opinion.

You're right, I skimmed. Nor do I mind that I did. In fact, in all likelihood, since I kinda like making tangential replies and wandering thoughts, I will likely blissfully repeat this kind of post far into the future. Hope you're all right with that.

LRM's are fine. Suggesting a cost-benefit analysis of them is a little fruitless when you consider that weapons are supposed to be situational in this game.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 April 2013 - 08:06 PM.