86 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

I would like them to test a faster flight speed. Getting rid of the warning is an interesting idea as well - that panic seeing missiles and not knowing who they are going for is actually really important. It casues panic in the enemy until they see the impact making them take cover and break formation - this is stuff you cant put into a spreadsheet but has a huge impact on player behaviour.

The increased flight speed has an additional benefit as well. Most people boat LRMs pretty heavy but there are builds with single missiles racks stock - that everyone hates. Why? Ever try holding a lock for your piddly single LRM10/15 whiel you have other weapons you need to bring to bear?

I tried a dragon with LRM in the CT and some other long range weapons planning to harrass at range. I would fire my LRMs but having to hold that lock often meant missing the chance to fire my other weapons at more viable targets. While you can lose lock then get it again, my overall DPS and effective damage suffered because i spent so long guiding LRMs.

With a faster flight speed people may not be able to simply get cover with ease but it might allow people to take a single LRM rack and have it be more useful with thier other weapon combinations.

These things might mean that LRMs can look worse on paper damage wise, but the effect they have on the battlefield might be increased (Indirect fire as well)

[Skyfaller]

Forget it people, he's just hell bent of whining until the LRM has the same effective damage as a PPC ...meaning the missile volley leave the launch tube and zoom to target at 2000m/s and impact doing the same damage as a PPC. Basically, a PPC with a different firing animation. Only then will the QQ cease.

Here's a fact: Missiles will not be returned to their previous high damage status. The current situation with the LRMs shows the damage is just about right. Perhaps a tad lower than it should be but not anywhere near as high as it had been for a long time.

I know from my experiences both using LRMs and from purposely allowing myself to be an LRM pincushion that the damage is just about right now. The major factor in their effectiveness is IF they hit and how often they hit. That is why the missile warning has to go: It removes a god-mode omniscient message that somewhere, out of sight, 1km away, missiles are leaving launch tubes and they're coming for you. Added ammo enables a sustained fire at a target which is no longer possible due to limited ammo and the lower damage output.. there's no need to increase damage to missiles, just give us more per ton to toss at 'em.

[Agent KI7KO]

I'd like any of the following. Not all, just one or two.

1) Flight speed increase. (Would really like)
2) Some ability to fire LRMs directly forward (proper direct fire). (Not really required)
3) The ability to be somewhat viable without a ******* TAG. (Not really required)
4) Increased missile/ton. Mathematically, 240 would be the best fit. In fact, anything that uses ammo could stand to have it's ammo/ton revised. (Would really like)


Current damage is a bit low, but i can deal with it, and i'd say keep the missile warning. AMS might need to be buffed if LRM speed is increased, depending on how things go.

[SneakyBastd]

PGI haven't fixed LRMs yet? I've not played in weeks waiting for balance fixes. Christ they can stuff things up and leave it go for awhile.
I'll be playing the awesome Kerbal Space Program for a few more weeks yet by the looks of it.

[Void Angel]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 April 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

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.

Are you seriously trying to make uninformed opinions some kind of creative virtue? Please.

As far as the situationality of weapon systems, I've covered that in my analysis, which you didn't read. Please either inform yourself, or don't post - random ignorance is not constructive to the thread.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 April 2013 - 01:01 AM.

[Void Angel]

Afoxi, on 29 April 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

I'd like any of the following. Not all, just one or two.

1) Flight speed increase. (Would really like)
2) Some ability to fire LRMs directly forward (proper direct fire). (Not really required)
3) The ability to be somewhat viable without a ******* TAG. (Not really required)
4) Increased missile/ton. Mathematically, 240 would be the best fit. In fact, anything that uses ammo could stand to have it's ammo/ton revised. (Would really like)


Current damage is a bit low, but i can deal with it, and i'd say keep the missile warning. AMS might need to be buffed if LRM speed is increased, depending on how things go.

Actually, they're doing number 1. =) It's in the latest weapon balance announcment. As far as increased ammo capacity, I'm not sure about that idea - do we really want to balance weapon systems around having to fire 2.4 times more to deal competitive damage? You get into problems with the relative mobility of weapon platforms faster that way, for example.

[Void Angel]

Skyfaller, on 29 April 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Forget it people, he's just hell bent of whining until the LRM has the same effective damage as a PPC ...meaning the missile volley leave the launch tube and zoom to target at 2000m/s and impact doing the same damage as a PPC. Basically, a PPC with a different firing animation. Only then will the QQ cease.

Here's a fact: Missiles will not be returned to their previous high damage status. The current situation with the LRMs shows the damage is just about right. Perhaps a tad lower than it should be but not anywhere near as high as it had been for a long time.

I know from my experiences both using LRMs and from purposely allowing myself to be an LRM pincushion that the damage is just about right now. The major factor in their effectiveness is IF they hit and how often they hit. That is why the missile warning has to go: It removes a god-mode omniscient message that somewhere, out of sight, 1km away, missiles are leaving launch tubes and they're coming for you. Added ammo enables a sustained fire at a target which is no longer possible due to limited ammo and the lower damage output.. there's no need to increase damage to missiles, just give us more per ton to toss at 'em.

"Blah, blah, I'm right despite the factual and logical arguments arrayed against me, because I say I am - and you're just a whiner who wants some unreasonable thing I made up." /credibility

Shoo.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 April 2013 - 01:06 AM.

[Farpenoodle]

I'm not particularly for or against the missile warning going away. I kinda like just throwing away a volley to get a high DPS target to hunker down. But at the same time it would make it a lot easier to hit my targets. Perhaps a module for the shooter that would hide the warning for his targets?

[Kitane]

The warning could be a function provided by AMS.

No AMS? No warning.
AMS? A warning when missiles enter 350-400m range to give 1-2s before AMS starts engaging incoming missiles.

[Asmudius Heng]

Kitane, on 30 April 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

The warning could be a function provided by AMS.

No AMS? No warning.
AMS? A warning when missiles enter 350-400m range to give 1-2s before AMS starts engaging incoming missiles.

That is actually a pretty good idea man.

Everyone else has to watch the skies for incoming.

[Razgal]

KKillian, on 27 April 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Lrms seem to be preforming as a support/supression weapon. I avoid them, they hurt, they are not OP, they still **** me.

Indeed I have them on one of my mechs as a support mech. They work pretty good as a way to soften people up for my team mates to be able to kill them.

[Farpenoodle]

Yeah the warning as a function of AMS is a pretty good idea.

[DerSpecht]

I still love my A1. This mech is fun and LRMs are fun because noone expects them anymore. Phracts and highlanders charging at you end up dead and u can scare people.

Actually the 50xLRM A1 is my most played mech atm. I usually get 2-5 Kills.

[Skyfaller]

Kitane, on 30 April 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

The warning could be a function provided by AMS.

No AMS? No warning.
AMS? A warning when missiles enter 350-400m range to give 1-2s before AMS starts engaging incoming missiles.

Farpenoodle, on 30 April 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

I'm not particularly for or against the missile warning going away. I kinda like just throwing away a volley to get a high DPS target to hunker down. But at the same time it would make it a lot easier to hit my targets. Perhaps a module for the shooter that would hide the warning for his targets?

These 2 are actually great ideas.

[Vodrin Thales]

Victor Morson, on 27 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Play something other a PUG, then re-read this and weep for your lost innocence.

What I am going to say is essentially agreeing with what both sides are saying in this thread.

I have a 732 Highlander I run with 2 aLRM 15's with tag, a gauss, and 2 MLS. Would it be more effective with 3 PPC's instead of the ML/LRM combo- almost certainly. But I hate being part of the same old, same old that everyone is running right now.

I've run the mech in 8 mans more than a few times and have been very effective. It would be much easier to do with the cookie cutter setup, but I have more fun with the LRM's right now. Even in 8 mans people frequently make mistakes once short range combat starts and they expose themselves to ranged fire. This is when the LRM's can hurt, but they are less than impressive as direct fire weapons right now.

My conclusion is that LRM's are still viable, despite needing LoS and tag for good damage, but they could definitely stand to be buffed a little.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kitane, on 30 April 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

The warning could be a function provided by AMS.

No AMS? No warning.
AMS? A warning when missiles enter 350-400m range to give 1-2s before AMS starts engaging incoming missiles.

I always thought AMS was a good warning for incoming Missiles. I personally want to urn off Betty's Missile warning.

[Void Angel]

Vodrin Thales, on 30 April 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

What I am going to say is essentially agreeing with what both sides are saying in this thread.

I have a 732 Highlander I run with 2 aLRM 15's with tag, a gauss, and 2 MLS. Would it be more effective with 3 PPC's instead of the ML/LRM combo- almost certainly. But I hate being part of the same old, same old that everyone is running right now.

I've run the mech in 8 mans more than a few times and have been very effective. It would be much easier to do with the cookie cutter setup, but I have more fun with the LRM's right now. Even in 8 mans people frequently make mistakes once short range combat starts and they expose themselves to ranged fire. This is when the LRM's can hurt, but they are less than impressive as direct fire weapons right now.

My conclusion is that LRM's are still viable, despite needing LoS and tag for good damage, but they could definitely stand to be buffed a little.

The difficulty is that each side's position excludes the other side's - that's why there are (roughly) two sides. But you're right that LRMs are not totally broken - you can still pull down moderately decent damage numbers. But the fact that using ERPPCs is easier means that it's a better weapon at most (if not all) levels of skill.

I suspect that part of the reason different people are so divided about LRMs is related to Elo. Since (relatively) high LRM damage depends on your enemies leaving cover and not harassing you close-in, the effectiveness of LRMs is probably more affected by enemy behavior than direct-fire weapons - since people ALWAYS have to expose themselves to fight with lasers, autocannons, etc. This means that players fighting in different Elo brackets may well see different results, and why an analysis of the numbers, now that we've had time to test the system, cannot be arbitrarily discarded. Especially since Elo is not available to us as a stat.

[Corvus Antaka]

lets be real here.

LRM 15 - 7 tons + 4 tons for ammo - 11 tons.

or ERPPC, 7 tons, and 4 tons for heatsinks.

no one in their right mind uses LRMS with the meagre dmg they do right now. I have yet to run into an LRM boat that killed me since the hotfix.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 30 April 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Void Angel]

I've actually talked with some LRM boats who still say they get "decent" numbers - but I also find that many people don't understand what those numbers mean. If you get 600 damage in a match with your LRM boat, and I get 600 damage with my ERPPC poptart (I actually don't own one, but let's pretend,) your 600 damage is not as good as my 600 damage - not even close. It's not even close because it's so spread around on multiple locations, while mine is much more focused. In short, pinpoint damage kills much more effectively than spread damage - because math. Now, I'm familiar with the argument that your LRMs are setting me up for kills with my ERPPCs. To an extent this is true, but there's a major flaw with that reasoning - because what synergizes with my ERPPC better than your LRM launcher is another ERPPC. In order to be truly balanced, the LRM needs to do actually more damage than direct-fire long-range systems.

This is true even considering the indirect-fire capability of the LRM. Assume you've got a teammate with TAG, voice chat with your spotter, and no interference - optimal conditions for indirect fire. As long as you're not doing damage that is at least comparable to an ERPPC or similar weapon by tonnage, you are still holding the short end of the stick. Why? Because even though you're able to keep up a hearty pounding from safety, if you were in direct contact with the enemy, they would have to split damage to kill you. If they don't split damage and focus fire, you're golden! Pound away with superior dps and pinpoint damage. If they do split their fire, that's just so much damage that they didn't throw at whoever else is using direct-fire weapons - so you've actually enhanced the combat longevity of your teammates as well as doing superior damage.

Note that this is only a comparison between long-range weapon systems. Due to a glorious and happy circumstance I like to call the Brawler Backlash, people are finally getting tired of their 90-ton poptarts and bringing dedicated brawlers to the fight as well. This is leading to many up-close, personal, graphic, and extremely satisfying demonstrations of the fact that using all snipers is only a truly viable tactic when both teams are doing it. However, for those 'mechs who are still performing a long-range role, the previous comparison still applies in spades - in fact, it makes LRMs even less attractive in direct proportion to the increased number of brawlers in a match.

[CECILOFS]

I agree that LRMs need to be buffed. They don't do enough damage in their current state, but I know its only temporary.

It seems to be a matter of expectations. The people arguing emotionally say that LRMs are fine because they expect them to be "softening up" weapons. I don't know where you got that idea, but when I think of missiles I think of a tactical strike on a vulnerable target that is decisive and devastating.

Personally I expect that if I dedicate almost an entire 85t Stalker or 65t Catapult to launching LRMs that I should deal some decent damage. If you insist on putting so many limitations on them, then they need to do more damage to compensate.

As of right now the damage/ton is too low.