35 replies to this topic

[Nathan Foxbane]

OP they probably assume there is some sort of hot rack system like that built into the Atlas. Which has 10 tubes for a 20 missile launcher intentionally. It was built with special rack loading mechanism so that it could fire two salvos of 10 in less than 2 seconds. The first rack starts its reload even while the second is firing. I would assume other systems work no differently.

[Neolisk]

IV Amen, on 27 May 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

So how excactly is this going to help my Cent running with LRM launcher? Your suggestion is nerfing that build even worse.

OP is suggesting to nerf LRM. I am suggested to boost other options instead.

Zerberus, on 27 May 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

AMS would become an absolute must have on every mech, and LRMs would die out becasue even the heaviest most insane boats like an lrm 90 catapult could not get past a 2x AMS stalker /AS7-K or 2 ams mechs near each other.... meaning that even if the enitire enemy team is boating, it`s not going to matter to anyone that `s not running off alone.

If the entire team is boating, you have some 80x8 - 640 LRM missiles flying in the air. Even a 2 AMS Stalker cannot counter that. However, if another team has 4 double AMS Stalkers or similar, boaters deserve to lose this battle. Right now a team of LRM boaters wins regardless, because it's usually just one AMS per team (on average - my own observations), and that cannot do much.

Edited by Neolisk, 27 May 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Sephlock]

If they do this, they need to have a dynamic target decay feature that will allow you to keep lock longer depending upon the idiocy of your teammates.

[Zerberus]

Neolisk, on 27 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

OP is suggesting to nerf LRM. I am suggested to boost other options instead.


If the entire team is boating, you have some 80x8 - 640 LRM missiles flying in the air. Even a 2 AMS Stalker cannot counter that.

ALONE.. Any assault that goes alone deserves to die a horrible death.

Quote

However, if another team has 4 double AMS Stalkers or similar, boaters deserve to lose this battle. Right now a team of LRM boaters wins regardless, because it's usually just one AMS per team (on average - my own observations), and that cannot do much.

8 mechs w/ ams in a pack = 4x2 ams stalkers in a pack.  8 AMS = 8 AMS.

It is a few AMS in a team now BECAUSE it is useful but not OP.  Everybody gravitates towards OP weapons, 1,5 years of beta have proven this multiple times (LRMpocalypse 1 +2, Streakocalypse, ECM blackout, PPC Jumpsniper online, ....)

8x80 LRMs is also an unreasonable number, becasue almost no mech can dedicate that amount of tonnage to LRMs and actually be battlefield effective .  The LRM 90 Roflpult I referenced carries teh engine of a commando, runs 45 w/ speed tweak, and has 2 tons of armor on teh entire mech, and 5 shots before being as useful  (and fragile) as a wine glass.  You cannot assume that entire teams will play one trick jokebuilds just so a weapons system will have merit, especially in PUG where your team is completely random.   if that were the case, everybody would run 6MG spiders , becasue 48 MGs just might do actual damage.

Edited by Zerberus, 27 May 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[Neolisk]

Zerberus, on 27 May 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

8x80 LRMs is also an unreasonable number, becasue almost no mech can dedicate that amount of tonnage to LRMs and actually be battlefield effective. The LRM 90 Roflpult I referenced carries teh engine of a commando, runs 45 w/ speed tweak, and has 2 tons of armor on teh entire mech, and 5 shots before being as useful (and fragile) as a wine glass. You cannot assume that entire teams will play one trick jokebuilds just so a weapons system will have merit, especially in PUG where your team is completely random. if that were the case, everybody would run 6MG spiders , becasue 48 MGs just might do actual damage.

How about 60 LRMs per mech? I can put that easily on my Stalker and have plenty of speed, armor, ammo, 4 medium lasers etc. 60x8 = 480 missiles, enough to wipe out two mechs in one volley, and perhaps even more. 4 volleys and your enemy is dead. Oh rly? Now suppose you have 2 AMS on your team (double the average I've encountered). Would it help? Not much. Now double the value of AMS. Boating becomes less viable, as you now can counter 160 LRMs flying around you (at best, in reality this number will be less).

MG boating was never viable, AFAIK.

[MasterErrant]

the "tubes thing" isa graphics thing which they have already started to do away with. it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual game.

NO!
For the tenth time at least.

[Zerberus]

Neolisk, on 27 May 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

How about 60 LRMs per mech? I can put that easily on my Stalker and have plenty of speed, armor, ammo, 4 medium lasers etc. 60x8 = 480 missiles, enough to wipe out two mechs in one volley, and perhaps even more. 4 volleys and your enemy is dead. Oh rly? Now suppose you have 2 AMS on your team (double the average I've encountered). Would it help? Not much. Now double the value of AMS. Boating becomes less viable, as you now can counter 160 LRMs flying around you (at best, in reality this number will be less).

I`m not sure if you`re misunderstanding me on purpose or not.... But your argunermt about AMS power is inconsistent, buffing it to down 40 LRM as you previously suggested is not doubling it`s effectiveness, but more than quadrupling it. In this case the following actually holds water: 4x as effective = 4x more likely to be mounted = 4x more likely to be seen. Re: the number you saee now, i see more , at least 3 / match,. usually more like 5, so we`ll meet in teh middle at 2.. times the 4x frequency = 8 ams /team. 8 teammates in a pack = 320 LRMs mean nothing. How is that not OP?

And you continue to assume that entire teams will be boating LRMs, despite 8x60lrm stalkers never ever being a viable lance configuration and forgetting that not everybody owns or even wants one, or even any form of assault mech for that matter.

This disregards the mechs that can mount 2 AMS completely, which will then also rise in prevalence, just like mechs with JJS and 6ppc stalkers were played more and more duuring JS online.

Bottom line: you are trying to argue countering a ridiculously rare if not statistically impossible oure LRM boat team with a clearly OP AMS, with no regard towards lights, medums, or heavies and their role in the game. Who`s tagging your targets if your entire team is cuddled at the base lobbing LRMs at everythign that pops up fo r.5 seconds, only to watch their clouds of LRMs get cut down by multiple AMS? The one stalker that took 3ML + TAG instead of 4 ML?? I seriously doubt it... at least not for more than a few seconds because he will get cut to ribbons by the other team`s weapons, which I guarantee you will not be LRMs.

And you are now arguing from a different (more reasonable but IMO still OP) buff value of approximately 20LRMs /AMS (double effectiveness).

Quote

MG boating was never viable, AFAIK.

Not ON ONE mech, but you are applying a double standard, A team of 8 boats to support your "Buff AMS" vs a single mech do detract from the counter argument. That is a fail.

48 MGs are MASSIVELY OP, even at current damage values. 48 MGs = the direct spider equivalent of 8xlrm 60 stalkers.

We`ll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Zerberus, 27 May 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Neolisk, on 27 May 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

How about 60 LRMs per mech? I can put that easily on my Stalker and have plenty of speed, armor, ammo, 4 medium lasers etc. 60x8 = 480 missiles, enough to wipe out two mechs in one volley, and perhaps even more. 4 volleys and your enemy is dead. Oh rly? Now suppose you have 2 AMS on your team (double the average I've encountered). Would it help? Not much. Now double the value of AMS. Boating becomes less viable, as you now can counter 160 LRMs flying around you (at best, in reality this number will be less).

MG boating was never viable, AFAIK.

You misunderstand this thread and do not apparently know what the tubes mean. What OP is suggesting is to kill off those boats and make LRM a real weapon again. Largest amount for STK-3H would be LRM50 (2xLRM20 arms and 2xLRM5 torso). That would be a boat and a deadly one. Other STK would be LRM30 to be effective (+ 1 NARC for the STK-5M). Of course with these changes the LRM damage has to come alot higher. But when LRM damage is higher and the "ultraboats" out of business, you can actually do some damage with 1 LRM10 launcher in a medium mech. At the moment it is dead weight.

So only effective real boats would be STK-3H (LRM50) and CPLT-C4 (LRM40). Other would be LRM30 or less. Correct me if I'm wrong. The point in all this is to give LRM launchers a purpose on lighter chassis with mixed weaponry.

[Neolisk]

IV Amen, on 27 May 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

So only effective real boats would be STK-3H (LRM50) and CPLT-C4 (LRM40).

I know what tubes are. And I am against of nerfing LRMs. Increasing cooldown based on tubes is a bad decision. However, this decision came up from OP because... drums... he thinks LRMs are OP and need to be nerfed somewhat (however you put it). I kind of trying to follow the idea, but trying to avoid LRM nerfing directly, hence my AMS suggestion. Back on topic: are you okay with AMS giving you a very subtle 20% damage reduction against such a boat (well, sort of)? I say it needs to be 50% at least. And I have not heard any valid argument against that yet.

Zerberus, on 27 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

8 teammates in a pack = 320 LRMs mean nothing. How is that not OP.

This is absolutely okay, if you ask me. I've never seen more than 2 AMS carriers on one team. If you are seeing 4-5, you have good luck, because on a 100 matches played I have not seen more than 2. My argument is that 1 average Stalker (1 AMS) should be able to completely (read 100%) counter an average LRM Stalker (LRM40). If it does, a cheese LRM80 Stalker will be completely countered by a cheese Stalker with 2 AMS (if you can call it that). If you don't agree, you have the right to, I am will keep holding on to my thoughts.

I essentially made a statement that AMS is useless as it stands now. I've seen an LRM80 boat, in the open field, which beats my 1AMS Stalker to pieces, and I cannot do anything about it, from 800m. Use cover? Try that on Alpine, Tourmaline or Canyon in an Assault mech.

I say - let's double AMS efficiency for now and see if it ends up in everyone carrying it. I'd bet it won't. Unfortunately, we will never see this happen, so our talk is more or less without purpose, except self gratification (if it brings you any).

48 MG is absolute garbage, believe it or not, mostly because of the distance you can fire it. So you need to get close, meaning 8 mechs will be juggling around your team mate to beat it (having 20% hit rate - dealing 1DPS each), while being pounded by other 7 mechs, and being an easy target for them. LRM, on the other hand allows you to beat an open field Assault mech from a huge distance with no chance of getting backfire.

8 PPC boats against 8 LRM boats - that could be fair - I'd like to see it happen (if anybody is willing to volunteer). But not 8 MG boats definitely. And not 8 flamer boats for the same reason.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Neolisk, on 27 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I know what tubes are. And I am against of nerfing LRMs. Increasing cooldown based on tubes is a bad decision. However, this decision came up from OP because... drums... he thinks LRMs are OP and need to be nerfed somewhat (however you put it). I kind of trying to follow the idea, but trying to avoid LRM nerfing directly, hence my AMS suggestion.

Like I said that "nerf" would not allow for example STK-5S to be an LRM80 boat (or it would but it would be a disaster due to penalties), do you have a problem with that? That "nerf" would require serious damage buff to LRM, are you against that? I want LRM10 to be useful by itself and not boated. Right now it is useless. You'd have to seriously boat LRM atm then to have any impact whatsoever. OP's suggestion would prevent bloat-boats and would give single LRM10 launcher a purpose. But only with a damage buff.

Quote

Back on topic: are you okay with AMS giving you a very subtle 20% damage reduction against such a boat (well, sort of)? I say it needs to be 50% at least. And I have not heard any valid argument against that yet.

I am not against an AMS buff either. But that is not related to the real subject which you completely dismiss as a nerf.

[Zerberus]

Neolisk, on 27 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

This is absolutely okay, if you ask me. I've never seen more than 2 AMS carriers on one team. If you are seeing 4-5, you have good luck, because on a 100 matches played I have not seen more than 2.

WIth all due respect, what you call luck I think may have more to do with the possibility of me being in a more competitive ELO bracket due to a few thousand more matches played (Closed Beta vs started in March, unless this is an Alt account) .

As a general rule that has held true since the dawn of closed beta, the more competitive the teams get, the fewer LRMs you see overall, simply because there are so many ways to counter them and truly competitive players know exactly how to do so. I `m not pro by any means, but when I drop in 8 mans I see at the most 2 or 3 racks /team, and they are used almost purely for suppressive fire (I.e. for the "incoming missile" panic and seek cover reaction). LRm 5s are the most common in that situation, simpley because they allow you to scare teh enemy and /or detect them due to the AMS tracers.

Only in random groups (dropping as a 4 man or less) do I see any notable amount of LRMs, primarily because that`S where you find people that are, well, "green" enough to regularly get hit by them.. And there I see fewer AMS as well, agreed, but still at least 2 or 3 /team /round, and very rarely do I encounter a true LRM "Boat".

And that is most likely where the disconnect between us lies.

Quote

LRM, on the other hand allows you to beat an open field Assault mech from a huge distance with no chance of getting backfire.

Once again, this assumes a spotter, otherwise the LRM boat has to spot himself, which is essentially suicide. But a spotter is 1 LRM boat less.

4ppcs will do a much better job, causing 80DMg and allowing you to retreat in less time than it takes teh LRMs to get to you, (aim, fire 4secs, fire, retreat vs. lock, fire, hold lock for 8 secs, retreat) and at greater range. Don`need ammo, either.

You really are ridiculoiusly overinflating the amount of LRMs on the battlefield by assuming that everybody drives an LRM60 stalker or cat. The weapons system is nowherer near OP enough to warrant that.

Edited by Zerberus, 28 May 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

OP +1

nice idea: although SRMs are actual no concern: you should add for future that a SRM count as 2.5 LRM and a Streak as 2 SRMs.

It will not kill varity it will only increase carefull chasis selection...

[Neolisk]

Zerberus, on 28 May 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

WIth all due respect, what you call luck I think may have more to do with the possibility of me being in a more competitive ELO bracket due to a few thousand more matches played (Closed Beta vs started in March, unless this is an Alt account) .

I just wrote a big reply to you and IV Amen, but then MWO forum died on me and I lost everything. Basically, you got it right. I play 2 hours per week on average, which would most likely never get me into competitive play. My statistics however is what you described in a "green" match, more or less.

IV Amen, on 27 May 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

I want LRM10 to be useful by itself and not boated. Right now it is useless.

LRM5-10 is used as a scare tactics, and some cockpit shake. I cannot emphasise more on how well it works - enemy starts to look for cover and all that...

Edited by Neolisk, 28 May 2013 - 05:54 AM.

[Kitane]

I do not suggest a flat nerf to LRMs, I am looking for a way to buff them without making ultraboats devastating. My suggestion is a soft cap that would nerf the effectiveness of heavy LRM boats that greatly exceed their original LRM loadouts. That would create a room for a significant buff to LRMs without breaking the game.

Let's see it on pretty pictures. I used 4.5s as base recycle rate:


Any tampering with missile damage or flight path or flight speed or accuracy ultimately translates into "effective damage per missile", its effect on all LRMs will be identical and irrelevant for balance between medium, heavy and assault LRM mechs.

This graph shows the current damage scaling and also scaling with a 50% damage buff to missile damage, which is what I feel LRMs need to be viable (as a start). However when you look at DPS done by buffed missiles on assault ultraboats (60-80 missiles), you will see the damage is simply too high for a weapon that can be fired indirectly, it's AC/2 Jager boat with no heat issues and indirect fire.

That's too much even when considering damage spread, lenght of a flight and inaccuracy issues.

Now look at scaling with my suggestion:




This graph shows scaling for mechs with 20,30 and 40 tubes with a delay caused by multi-volley launches set to 0.5s per volley. As you can see on the graph, diminishing returns above stock tube limits would discourage LRM stacking as inefficient and while mechs sticking to their stock tube limit would enjoy 50% buff to their LRM damage, ultraboats would receive maybe 20%, maybe 30% increase.

The scaling ratio isn't fixed either. The graph demonstrates cooldown scaling with

cooldown = stock cooldown + (stock cooldown * missiles/tubes) * 1.0

Changing 1.0 at the end would increase or decrease soft cap loss of effectivity.

[Kitane]

Strum Wealh, on 27 May 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Also, it should be noted that the number of launch tupes will vary by loadout.

It already does this on the Highlanders (and, presumably, any 'Mechs to be released after them), and IIRC is planned to be back-ported to all 'Mechs.

As an example:

(originally from the post here by Daumantas Galland)

So, counting on the number of tubes being static, and building a balancing system on a system that we already know is on its way out, is not a safe proposition...

I was aware of that. I mentioned in the first post that not doing this would be one of requirements for this change. And it's obvious that PGI is not likely to give up whatever they have done so far.

However I am dead certain that LRMs will always be a problematic system, because there's a huge gap between LRM capabilities of mechs like Catapults and mechs like Stalker.

85t LRM support boat is fielding twice as much firepower as 65t boat. That scaling is off when compared to direct fire weapons.

Whatever will be the ultimate solution, it must address this gap. And because we are unable to change tonnage and the hardpoint system is final, the only thing that can be changed is the mechanic of LRM launcher. Adjusting missile performance is not going to fix this, because it isn't the problem. Or rather it has its own set of problems but neither of them is relevant to medium/heavy vs assault ultraboat balance.

Be it my idea or some kind of heat scale that would make ultraboats struggle with heat, or a volley mode changed into ripple fire that would put hard restriction on x missiles/second from each physical launcher, there are more ways to solve this.

But until they find a way to restrict LRM stacking on assault mechs, LRMs will remain broken and impossible to balance.

Edited by Kitane, 28 May 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Kitane, on 28 May 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

I was aware of that. I mentioned in the first post that not doing this would be one of requirements for this change. And it's obvious that PGI is not likely to give up whatever they have done so far.

However I am dead certain that LRMs will always be a problematic system, because there's a huge gap between LRM capabilities of mechs like Catapults and mechs like Stalker.

85t LRM support boat is fielding twice as much firepower as 65t boat. That scaling is off when compared to direct fire weapons.

Whatever will be the ultimate solution, it must address this gap. And because we are unable to change tonnage and the hardpoint system is final, the only thing that can be changed is the mechanic of LRM launcher. Adjusting missile performance is not going to fix this, because it isn't the problem. Or rather it has its own set of problems but neither of them is relevant to medium/heavy vs assault ultraboat balance.

Be it my idea or some kind of heat scale that would make ultraboats struggle with heat, or a volley mode changed into ripple fire that would put hard restriction on x missiles/second from each physical launcher, there are more ways to solve this.

But until they find a way to restrict LRM stacking on assault mechs, LRMs will remain broken and impossible to balance.

And who says that this "scaling" to which you refer necessarily needs to be linear (as might implied by your argument)?

The percentage weight difference between a Stalker and a Catapult is roughly 31% (as 85/65 = 1.3077), representing a difference of 20 tons.

The non-Hero Stalker with the smallest number of missile hardpoints is the STK-4N, with three (3) missile hardpoints; the Stalker with the greatest number of missile hardpoints is the STK-5M, with five (5) missile hardpoints; the Hero Stalker (Misery) carries only one (1) missile hardpoint.
The non-Hero missile-carrying (as in, not the K2) Catapult (not that there is a Hero Catapult at this point, but still...) with smallest number of missile hardpoints is the CLPT-C1, with two (2) missile hardpoints; the Catapult with the greatest number of missile hardpoints is the CLPT-A1, with six (6) missile hardpoints.

Overall, each of the Catapult variants has six (6) total hardpoints, versus the seven to eleven (7-11) hardpoints for the Stalker variants (which, for the non-Hero veroants, generally represents the minimum humber and distribution needed to carry their canonical loadouts).

The c-bill price difference the STK-5M and the CPLT-A1 is 2,500,337 c-bills.
The MC price difference the STK-5M and the CPLT-A1 is 1,000 MC.

The issue, such as it is, is that the Catapults' missile hardpoints are always clustered in the arms (giving them access to a combined total of 20 criticals), while the Stalkers' missile hardpoints tend to be more spread-out across its body; with at least one missile hardpoint in each arm and each side-torso, some of the Stalker variants have access to a total of up to 34 criticals (12 from LT + 12 from RT + 10 from LA + 10 from RA) for missile weapons.

Hypothetically, the A1 could carry four LRM-20 launchers - at 5 criticals apiece, two will bit in each arm.
However, the four launchers by themselves would come to a total of 40 tons - roughly 62% of the Catapult's total weight; this leaves not-much weight (25 tons, to be precise) free for ammunition, armor, and the engine (among other things).
The same 40-ton investment, however, represents only 47% of the 5M's total weight - leaving 45 tons free for ammunition, armor, and the engine (among other things).
Alternatively, the 5M could carry five LRM-20 launchers (representing roughly 59% if its total weight) for a 25% increase in per-salvo striking power. However, the A1 could equip six LRM-15 launchers (90 missiles per salvo, vs the 5M's 100 missiles per salvo) for 42 tons (~65% of its total weight).

In summary: the crux of the supporting argument - that "85t LRM support boat is fielding twice as much firepower as 65t boat" is both necessarily true and necessarily undesirable - is flawed; not only can the CPLT with the greatest number of missile hardpoints generally keep up with the STK with the greatest number of missile hardpoints in terms of salvo size, but the simple fact of the matter is that the larger 'Mech with a potentially greater amount (both in terms of percentage and actual tonnage) of weight to devote to weapon systems will be better able to handle multiple heavy weapons than a smaller 'Mech with a lesser amount of potential free weight.