Jump to content

From The Front Lines: Lrm Chronicles


52 replies to this topic

#21 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:30 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Of course, as well as numerous other LRM carriers.


Really, now.

Count with me:

http://www.youtube.c...oemOPUUQ#t=194s

One salvo.

Two salvo.

Three salvo plus buddy's salvo.

Four Salvo.

Five salvo.

Six salvo.

Most of those are on torso sections. That's at least 200 points of damage... which can't even exist on the whole torso of that mech - yet the dude has orange armor when he goes down.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Not to mention - he's being pumped full of direct fire by my team.

Just... uh... how many salvos should it take?

Ten? Twelve?

Fifteen?

Maybe we'll just make LRMs a visual effect. Real support comes from consumables.

Quote

I tend to play a wide variety of chassis, with a number of different playstyles, so that I can speak objectively about their relative effectiveness without falling prey to a misguided notion that some style is "mine", and must be defended out of a fear that somehow changing an element of the game would somehow nerf me as a pilot.


*shrug*

I get along just fine stripping people in my Jenner. I have plans to play around with the BlackJack. I'd like to build a decent sniper with the Jeager - but that looks like it's over-played at the moment.

I think you need to drag that LRM build of yours out of the closet and give it a try with the current game mechanics.

It's very, very different from what it was back in January - even February.

Quote

Yes, and to do so, he must be exposed to those mechs he is shooting. They will all have direct LOS to him, and he'll be in close proximity by the time he's able to use his weapons.


And is he going to be alone?

Should I bring a Catapult in to help my team... or should I bring an AC40 jeager?

Which is going to be more helpful to the team under the current mechanics in practical engagements?

At this point in time - if the enemy has a Catapult while you brought the Jeager - assuming the skill levels of all pilots are equal (lol); you're looking at a roughly insurmountable statistical advantage in favor of the team with the Jeager. The range and even theoretical application of the Catapult don't stack up to reality. It doesn't matter how you reposition the team, how many times you run the engagement. The catapult can run off and die or it can rack up 800 points of damage. It will not be able to affect the result in anything approaching the way even a single centurion with an AC10 can.

Quote

And in order to be effective, he's actually going to have to aim his shots and land them on the same location.


So I point at the shoulder and click the button.

I do this in my sleep while fighting off caffeine withdrawl in my Jenner. It's arguably a bit more difficult with an autocannon - but let's be real.

It's a major feat of skill that the bullet goes exactly where my little dot on the screen is in a straight line. This is taxing and we must necessarily bring this fact up in a discussion about the legitimacy of weapon usage.

Since a missile is guided - it must not require any cranial overhead to operate - much unlike the laser, which requires one to comprehend in which direction the target is moving and ensure their little dot remains over the target.

Also, these people with direct fire weapons must expose themselves to fire. Since missiles can be fired indirectly, it is okay if they don't do jack diddly ****. It's not like the mech with LOS and taking direct fire was actually relying upon those missiles to help him engage an enemy. He is, after all, a skillful tactician - a master of putting 10 pixel circles over humanoid objects and clicking the button. This one, is, in fact, a genius - and realizes that if he hits the same place repeatedly with his two 20 damage dealing weapons that he will kill an enemy very quickly. He wouldn't possibly need any help.

Quote

Eh? I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. On one hand you say that he's somehow killing three of your teammates in 30 seconds, but your team can't focus fire on him because he's behind cover? But he's within 270 meters of your teammates?


I'm talking about factors affecting lock. Those two are not necessarily inclusive of each other (though they can be).

Quote

No, they can't really hit THAT hard, because then they become overpowered. When you are able to do damage against a target, while not exposing yourself to return fire at all, then you cannot have as much firepower as a mech which needs to expose itself to return fire... because then you are overpowered.


The thing is that I can't fire at targets without team LOS. That means someone is in harm's way.

You keep thinking about this in a "me" context. "What if I'm up against this thing?"

Remember - I'm arguing for the enemy to be able to field these against me and my team, as well.

For an LRM player to fire indirectly requires teamwork. Somoene has to have LOS - Someone has to be exposed to fire. They also have to be selecting a target that is valid for the support mech. They must hold that track for the flight time of the missiles - which can be in excess of 10 seconds (or about 2 full recycles of most weapons - including those like PPCs and gauss rifles).

Those missiles fly a predictable ballistic arc that allow a player fired upon to seek cover. If one is facing the opposite way - a nice lady comes over your speakers and says: "Warning: Incoming Missile."

Those missiles, then, are subject to other factors that can be controlled by you and your team - such as AMS. I don't have the video uploaded - but I do have a pretty good video showing the effect of 3 AMS on my 40-round missile volley even over as short of a distance as 300 meters. I'd estimate it cut them down to about 10 missiles.

If you've, somehow, failed to understand all of this, but have basic instincts - you should be able to torso-twist to control where you want most of the damage to go - even spreading it around, yourself, if it's a stream instead of a 'wall' of missiles.

And if you don't understand any of that... then, well, you aren't much use to your team, anyway - and your use to them was being a brief distraction for the LRMs.

And, of course, there are times when you need to spot for yourself... which means -you- must maintain the track and the lock. It means -you- are exposed to fire (though, most of the time, you are to get a clear shot, anyway).

Quote

If one mech is able to fire on a target without seeing it (Especially without having to aim his weapons), then when faced directly with a comparably sized mech he really SHOULD lose the direct encounter...because that's his weakness.


Do you know why that wasn't happening back when missiles were doing 1.8 points of damage?

There was no host-state rewind. It didn't matter if you aimed - where you were shooting and where the server said you were shooting were two completely different things and the server didn't have a protocol for dealing with discrepencies.

I could dance around in front of an Atlas with a good 500-700 meter buffer region and just slaughter him.

Now you get clocked in the face from 1000+ meters and damned near lose a torso over it.

Quote

That's what makes the weapons balanced.


What you're saying is that it is balanced for your team to bring along a mech that is completely reliant upon other mechs to spot, survive, and maneuver for its primary weapon systems to be 'effective;' dealing a maximum of 36 saturation damage to a target after roughly 6-10 seconds of flight-time (with a follow-on 36 saturation damage after 4.5 seconds) - while another team can bring along a mech that can kill whatever is in front of it in 10-15 seconds.

If your spotter happens into the mech the other team chose to bring along - he's lucky to be alive when your first salvo hits, damned lucky to be alive after the second salvo hits... and either broken contact or dead by time your third hits.

Quote

Otherwise, why would you use direct fire weapons that mean you can be shot back?


No travel time.

Single-segment damage delivery.

No AMS.

No ECM.

Less ability for target to mitigate damage (torso twist, acceleration/deceleration, cover, etc).

Quote

And really, this is exactly what we've seen. When LRM's were capable of delivering large amounts of damage, they blotted out the sun.


There were plenty of snipers and ballistic builds running around when LRMs were at double the damage they do right now.

Before Host-State rewind made them much more competitive builds.

You're looking at this from the wrong angle.

The question is: "Can you provide effective support to your team with this support weapon in a chassis designed to field it in a primary support role?"

The answer involves a more complex analysis - but the scenario where a team can sit back and let their LRM player drop missiles into the enemy over time is just not realistic.

If the average skirmish lasts 20 seconds - you need to be able to, as a support player, provide meaningful support to your ally in that skirmish within 15 seconds, preferably ten.

For LRMs - that means two to three salvos is your 'sweet spot.' If you aren't able to tip the scales of a skirmish with those two salvos - then you're not really worth bringing along. Be it due to pilot skill, weapon balance quirks, poor design choices, etc.

That doesn't mean able to destroy mechs in those salvos - but 3 solid on-target 40 round salvos uninhibited by AMS should start exposing internals on all but the thickest armored assaults. That's a very long time to be 'under the rain' - and an excepionally long time to be in a skirmish where you're relying on support (possibly just to break contact and make it back to your team).

If it's not giving your ally enough damage to punch through and kill the threat - it should be enough to make the enemy consider breaking off to head for cover (even if it means they don't get to kill your buddy).

#22 Shalune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 647 posts
  • LocationCombination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:44 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Easy answer: This is not table top. Your experience with a boardgame is not applicable to a real time combat simulator.

Slightly more complex answer: In tabletop, there was not any specific difference between the amount of aiming skill required to fire missiles compared to firing other weapons. Guided weapons determined hits just like everything else, by rolling dice.

However, in Mechwarrior, you need to actually manually aim non guided weapons, while guided weapons do not require that.

I get where you're coming from, but you're leaving out some important things as well that skew this argument. Being forced to directly aim your weapons is both a downside and an upside. Here are just some of the benefits of aimed fire:

- concentrate fire on a specific component
- headshot or rear CT someone dumb enough to shut down near you
- given appropriate skill in a normal setting you should never completely miss with lasers, and relatively rarely with projectiles
- there is minimal to no time allowed to your target to react to incoming fire until they are already taking hits

Conversely you have the following issues with LRMs:

- travel time - if you are not in the wide open (and this should be a consideration of yours before going there) or already engaged then there are few situations in which you cannot get to cover and/or lose the target lock between missiles firing and landing
- lock required - I'm not sure why people dismiss this, but few non LRM boats carry TAG. This means they must have direct line of sight on you to get a lock quickly.
- inaccuracy - movement and twisting help distribute damage away from CT immensely
- having to change angles to fire around hard cover is much more time consuming and risky as you have to move in a wide arc to maintain range, this can risk placing you away from your main force
- AMS - non missiles have no components in game that simply reduce their damage to contend with

I'm not trying to say that LRMs' mechanics are horrific and bad and take a ton more skill. No, that's crazy. If anything I'd say keeping a LL on a component for full duration at range is the hardest thing to do with a weapon in game. But people arguing that LRMs need to be gimped because they're so easy to use are taking a very shortsighted approach.

#23 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:07 PM

Quote

I get where you're coming from, but you're leaving out some important things as well that skew this argument. Being forced to directly aim your weapons is both a downside and an upside.

Oh, without question.

But we can't simply look at TT experiences and say, "Well, in TT LRM's function pretty much identically to all other weapons in a direct LOS fight, so they should work that way in MWO."

MWO adds in a number of additional mechanics which prevent that from being the case.

If you have a weapon that requires aiming and one which doesn't, the weapon which is guided cannot function as though it were aimed perfectly.. that is, it cannot focus its damage on a single component (i.e. the Center Torso).

And since you can't allow that to happen, that means that it's generally going to be less effective than direct fire weapons in the hands of a skilled user.

Now, there are ways you could theoretically level the playing field some... back in MW4, missiles would actually kind of target where your reticle was when you pulled the trigger. Not perfectly mind you, but enough to make a significant difference between bad missile users and good ones. Having such a capability might improve MWO somewhat.

But then again, you also had lasers as hitscan weapons in MW4, so the fact that missiles were effectively hitscan in their targeting wasn't as powerful as it would be in MWO.

#24 Novakaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,731 posts
  • LocationThe Republic of Texas

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:12 PM

LRM's as it stand now are a support weapon only.
When I run my Stalker, that's my primary role to soften up targets for my team.
Sometimes i get lucky and get a kill or two, but a LRM boat is just that support only.

#25 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:18 PM

How does it feel to bring a dull knife to a gun fight?

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 June 2013 - 03:19 PM.


#26 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

View PostNovakaine, on 03 June 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

LRM's as it stand now are a support weapon only.
When I run my Stalker, that's my primary role to soften up targets for my team.
Sometimes i get lucky and get a kill or two, but a LRM boat is just that support only.


God I wish people would remove "support" from their vocabulary and remember the Weapon part.

LRMs would be a support weapon if they dealt crippling damage to exposed targets, but limited to none to covered targets. That's a support weapon, because it suppresses the enemy. Support weapons are supposed to be incredibly lethal. If they're dealing "chip damage" they are not support weapons, because they aren't impacting anything strategically - they're just crappy guns.

For example, this is a real life SUPPORT WEAPON:
Posted Image

Note the fact that while it is not as flexible as a rifle, it'll still kill you as dead as FASA.

Trying to argue LRMs are OK doing no damage is like trying to convince me that you should exchange the above gun for compound bow, since it could in theory hurt someone and maybe even make them easier to shoot with a real gun.

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 June 2013 - 03:23 PM.


#27 Suko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,226 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

View PostTrauglodyte, on 02 June 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

I'm watching your vids now. Without having any comments, I'm just appreciative of you posting them. Call me a dork, but I've always enjoyed the work that people put forth even if I'm on the bad end of said work. :)

If you just want some videos to watch, have fun. I was recording these up until about 2 months back. I just got tired of it at that point:
http://www.youtube.c...57tlFdOi2zzvUrS

#28 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:31 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:


Just so ya know, based on all prior mechwarrior games, I would not expect "balanced" builds to be particularly effective in most situations. Certain mixed range configurations can be effective when combined with good tactics, but they are generally much harder to use than configs that are designed to be very strong at a single range.

yeah, but having tried poptarts and SRMs boats, I can say that balanced builds are just more fun... so I'm going with what's fun for me.

#29 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:34 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Oh, without question.

But we can't simply look at TT experiences and say, "Well, in TT LRM's function pretty much identically to all other weapons in a direct LOS fight, so they should work that way in MWO."

MWO adds in a number of additional mechanics which prevent that from being the case.


Such as mechs being able to use cover to completely nullify an LRM player in range.

Such as ECM that completely prevents a lock.

Such as the ability to fire on a section of terrain.

There were other considerations, as well. Such as many mechs not being designed with fighting other mechs in mind... they were designed to fight infantry or to handle wheeled and tracked armor assets. Some weapon systems were never really meant to be all that effective against mechs... which is all we are playing with.

Quote

If you have a weapon that requires aiming and one which doesn't, the weapon which is guided cannot function as though it were aimed perfectly.. that is, it cannot focus its damage on a single component (i.e. the Center Torso).


Of course not. No one is suggesting that.

Still, though, a support weapon must be able to affect meaningful damage in order to support your team. Otherwise - it has no use aside from role-playing.

Quote

And since you can't allow that to happen, that means that it's generally going to be less effective than direct fire weapons in the hands of a skilled user.


Generally speaking, yes. But you still have to keep in mind that it isn't just the 'support player' who is actually relying on this weapon. It's the team. If the dedicated support platform cannot provide real and effective support in the engagements a team is most likely to find itself in (regardless of the total damage that support mech caused)... then why have it along?

Quote

Now, there are ways you could theoretically level the playing field some... back in MW4, missiles would actually kind of target where your reticle was when you pulled the trigger. Not perfectly mind you, but enough to make a significant difference between bad missile users and good ones. Having such a capability might improve MWO somewhat.


Maybe...

I think the most important question to ask ourselves, though, so that we can start to balance missiles in the right way... is to ask what they should do... how effective should they be at support?

What is a reasonable volley size to be expected out of a support-centered design?

How quickly should those volleys wear down a mech?

How slow is 'too slow?' - at what point to missiles cease being realistic support weapons?

Given that information - how do we balance spread and damage to get us the results we are looking for?

Are we close on damage but too distributed?

Are we close on distribution but too shallow on damage?

Are missiles simply taking too long to get to their target, or is their firing arc too advantageous or too detrimental?

Quote

But then again, you also had lasers as hitscan weapons in MW4, so the fact that missiles were effectively hitscan in their targeting wasn't as powerful as it would be in MWO.


Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't a lot of laser weapons in MW4 do less damage? I seem to recall the medium laser as being 2 damage rather than 4 as it is in MWO.

Of course, I'm trying to remember if MW4 used doubled armor values like MWO does... which I think it did.

A medium laser battery is a hell of a lot scarier in MWO than it was in MW4 - I do recall that. Or perhaps I'm just remembering wrong.

#30 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:04 PM

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't a lot of laser weapons in MW4 do less damage? I seem to recall the medium laser as being 2 damage rather than 4 as it is in MWO.

The small and medium lasers were nerfed in MW4, in order to try and prevent what we saw in previous games.

Folks just moved to LL, which did equivalent damage to what you see in MWO.

#31 A banana in the tailpipe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,705 posts
  • Locationbehind your mech

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:12 PM

Hey guys just to collaborate with others saying that different mechs have different cluster patterns for LRMs, the perfect example is when I slapped a LRM20 on my commando for the fun of it. It only fits on the arm, and the arm only has 5 visible salvo ports so when I fire the LRM20 it spits out 4 volleys of 5 missles making it completely worthless. :)

#32 Shalune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 647 posts
  • LocationCombination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Oh, without question.

But we can't simply look at TT experiences and say, "Well, in TT LRM's function pretty much identically to all other weapons in a direct LOS fight, so they should work that way in MWO."

Agreed. But I don't find LRM accuracy is a huge issue. With twisting, cover and movement they're very easy to avoid unless you are in the open or engaging another target.

And A+ to Victor Morson. The idea of a support weapon, from an LMG to any form of light or heavy artillery is that it -does- have very high killing power, but is generally easy to avoid once you're aware of its presence. From a game design standpoint this means it's an area denial weapon with heavy limitations. It has the potential to be very lethal, but in practice should be much less so because you would not walk onto a plain in front of an entrenched LRM boat any more than you would walk up a street towards an MG emplacement.

View Postlockwoodx, on 03 June 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Hey guys just to collaborate with others saying that different mechs have different cluster patterns for LRMs, the perfect example is when I slapped a LRM20 on my commando for the fun of it. It only fits on the arm, and the arm only has 5 visible salvo ports so when I fire the LRM20 it spits out 4 volleys of 5 missles making it completely worthless. :)

This actually has to do with the missile tubes on a mech. For example if you load an LRM 20 onto a mech like a Raven in a slot that came with NARC (1 tube) it will fire 20 missiles, 1 at a time. Whether there are also different patterns between, say, a Treb firing an LRM15 and a Catapult firing an LRM15 I don't know.

Edited by Shalune, 03 June 2013 - 04:16 PM.


#33 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:26 PM

Quote

Agreed. But I don't find LRM accuracy is a huge issue. With twisting, cover and movement they're very easy to avoid unless you are in the open or engaging another target.

Folks say this, and I understand what you mean, but I think we're kind of forgetting that cover doesn't just protect you from missiles. It protects you from all weapons.

Likewise, movement can make regular weapons miss too... especially since the shooter actually needs to aim manually, and the weapons don't just hit the target on their own.

Basically, all of those things that make LRM's miss, also make other weapons miss... Only, they can make the regular weapons miss, even if the target IS in the open. And if he's behind cover, then you can't shoot him at all, even if your teammate has a lock on him.

I think part of the frustration about LRM's being susceptible to cover, is simply the fact that you can fire LRM's at a target, and THEN have him get behind cover and cause you to miss. It's the time it takes to get to the target which hurts LRM's the most, I believe.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it went back to the old system, where missiles didn't require you to hold a lock through their entire flight time. That's one change I don't really like, and preferred the system in closed beta.

#34 Spades Kincaid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • LocationMyrtle Beach SC

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:35 PM

You know, it's really strange.

I have to aim my direct fire weapons. It takes a lot of skill.

I have upwards of 90% hitrate on every laser.

I have 65-70% on ballistics. (I do take alot more random potshots at max ranges than I really should. Wastrel.)

Those no-skill, don't have to aim, guided to target LRM's?

35%!!


They damn well better not ever damage as hard. Look how much easier they are to hit things with!



Oh wait....I think I'm lost.

Where's the nerf lasers thread?

#35 Shalune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 647 posts
  • LocationCombination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:56 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Folks say this, and I understand what you mean, but I think we're kind of forgetting that cover doesn't just protect you from missiles. It protects you from all weapons.

Likewise, movement can make regular weapons miss too... especially since the shooter actually needs to aim manually, and the weapons don't just hit the target on their own.

Basically, all of those things that make LRM's miss, also make other weapons miss... Only, they can make the regular weapons miss, even if the target IS in the open. And if he's behind cover, then you can't shoot him at all, even if your teammate has a lock on him.

I think part of the frustration about LRM's being susceptible to cover, is simply the fact that you can fire LRM's at a target, and THEN have him get behind cover and cause you to miss. It's the time it takes to get to the target which hurts LRM's the most, I believe.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it went back to the old system, where missiles didn't require you to hold a lock through their entire flight time. That's one change I don't really like, and preferred the system in closed beta.

Let's clarify something here. I don't think I, nor anyone else I've read, have any complaints about the travel time of LRMs nor the frequency with which they fly into cover. The point is that people arguing against LRM buffs downplay this aspect of playing with LRMs.

Many of your arguments and of others seem based around the two ideas that LRMs are both too easy, and too accurate.

You're also over-simplifying the situation by saying that cover prevents all weapons from hitting. If your mech is exposed the only major factor on if a PPC hits you is aim. If someone shoots 90 missiles at you from long range there are few excuses for letting even half of them land.

The idea that "Basically, all of those things that make LRM's miss, also make other weapons miss." only holds any weight if the target is perfectly stationary and exposed.

#36 Aim64C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:14 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Folks say this, and I understand what you mean, but I think we're kind of forgetting that cover doesn't just protect you from missiles. It protects you from all weapons.


Yeah. Except you don't have 5-10 seconds to react to an incoming Gauss or PPC.

Though most of the time, when I'm playing LRMs - I'm playing the strike role. I push a flank and punch a salvo into you at 400 meters while you're behind cover or distracted by something else. I have LOS, anyway, and am self-spotting. I really only use indirect fire on the off chance that it works while I'm in-transit to a new target. I fall-back into the strategic role after razing someone - and it's harder for the enemy to pin me down and know exactly where I'm going to come into play from.

Quote

Likewise, movement can make regular weapons miss too... especially since the shooter actually needs to aim manually, and the weapons don't just hit the target on their own.


...

What... is so complicated about aiming a direct fire weapon that doesn't even follow proper ballistics?

If LRMs were this godsend of no-skill weapon... why is it that everyone and their brother has some infernal contraption with 4 or more PPCs on it (or a gauss rifle thrown into the mix)?

It -used- to be -unfair- to try and play as a sniper at any distance because of the problems with lag and no host state rewind.

Now it's a piece of cake. It's not difficult to get 65+% accuracy with ballistic weapons - even the longer ranged ones. I have well over 85% accuracy with my lasers with an average damage rating of about 70% of the laser.

Yet the LRMs ... that 'require no skill' have an average accuracy rating of between 45 and 55%. The task of aiming a ballistic shot is little different than the task of lining up a missile shot. Time that volley so that it arrives just as a mech walks around the bend (only works if someone on your team is spotting).

Quote

I think part of the frustration about LRM's being susceptible to cover, is simply the fact that you can fire LRM's at a target, and THEN have him get behind cover and cause you to miss. It's the time it takes to get to the target which hurts LRM's the most, I believe.


Or the fact that he can equip a piece of equipment that will cut your salvo effectiveness by 20%.

Or that he (or someone else) can install a piece of equipment that will make him immune to being locked onto (even out in the open)... and if a scout gets within range of you using such equipment - shut down your ability to fire missiles at anything.

There are a crap-ton of hard-counters put in against LRMs... because they are -supposed- to hurt!

They're not supposed to be: "Oh, hey... look... there's a scratch on my paint... and another one... It's like I'm being hit by a sand-blaster... if this keeps up, it's going to wear down our mechs before the battle next week."

Quote

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it went back to the old system, where missiles didn't require you to hold a lock through their entire flight time. That's one change I don't really like, and preferred the system in closed beta.


Actually - there's a segment of this: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2189213

that addresses that.

Such a functionality should be granted to the NARC beacon. It wouldn't be quite as valuable for PUG matches - but if CW comes online and gives us a little bit more information about the team we're with (assuming we aren't running as a group)... then it would really give NARC a functional role and make carrying one as a light mech quite effective as your team would know to priority LRM anything with a NARC on it (and it's a 'free' shot for them - it becomes fire-and-forget).

#37 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostShalune, on 03 June 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Many of your arguments and of others seem based around the two ideas that LRMs are both too easy, and too accurate.

It's not that they are "too easy", but rather that they are easier than hitting with weapons you need to precisely aim.
And let's be real, they are easier. I know that some folks suggest that LRM's need to be aimed, but those folks must not ever use any other weapons, because LRM's don't really need to be aimed in any true sense of the word.

In order to get a lock, you just need to hold the reticle vaguely near a mech for a second or two.. after which you only need to brush it over the mech periodically to maintain the lock. This is not aiming.

Likewise, with other weapons, in order to effectively use them, you need to aim not merely for a hit on the mech, but for a very specific component on that mech. Being able to do that against a fast moving target is not a trivial accomplishment, at least from what I've seen with most shooters in the game.

View PostShalune, on 03 June 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

The idea that "Basically, all of those things that make LRM's miss, also make other weapons miss." only holds any weight if the target is perfectly stationary and exposed.

I think you are mistaken here.
If I am in a fast mech, I tend to avoid running in straight lines. You know why? Because every time I juke, it means that if someone fired a travel time weapon at me, then they just missed. And really, there was no way for them NOT to miss, short of predicting that I was going to shift my direction.

Thus, movement makes travel time weapons miss. And this is in contrast to a missile shooter, who will generally do some damage to me with his missiles no matter what, unless I am able to get behind cover which is high enough to block his missile arc.

Again, I would tend to favor speeding up missiles even further, or making it such that the shooter does not need to maintain contact through the full flight. Back in MW4, once you fired missiles, they were gonna go to the target... This isn't to say that you couldn't get cover from them, or just outright dodge them, but it allowed for a much more interesting role as a missile boat, since a single missile boat could surpress a number of enemy mechs at once.

With MWO's system, I tend to find playing with missiles boring, since I need to spend all of my time just staring at that little red box. It's not a particularly rewarding system.

Make no mistake, I would definitely like for them to improve LRM's, because I do not find them to be a very fun gameplay mechanism right now.. But simply making their damage greater isn't really the solution I don't think. They could buff the damage somewhat, but I don't think damage is the biggest issue right now.

#38 Shalune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 647 posts
  • LocationCombination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:22 PM

View PostRoland, on 03 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Thus, movement makes travel time weapons miss. And this is in contrast to a missile shooter, who will generally do some damage to me with his missiles no matter what, unless I am able to get behind cover which is high enough to block his missile arc.

Again, I would tend to favor speeding up missiles even further, or making it such that the shooter does not need to maintain contact through the full flight.

Alright first up as an LRM player, and I cannot emphasize this enough, I DO NOT WANT EITHER OF THESE BUFFS. You know why? Because they would do exactly what everyone's complaining about and narrow skill gap of using LRMs. The entire point of LRMs, and support weapons in armed combat (given some leeway for balancing) is to act as a potentially threatening weapon that is relatively easy to avoid given proper awareness.

If you have played many online shooters before think of LRMs as a bolt action sniper rifle or a machine gun that must be deployed via bipod for any real effectiveness. While I am not saying we need to mirror that model perfectly, in these settings those weapons provide high killing power but with severe limitations in how you use them. As a result neither option is generally the dominant, most kill-earning, nor popular option.

Also, suggesting that LRMs are easier to hit with is misleading, and borderline false. LRMs, much more than any other weapon (aside from SRMs in their broken state) rely on luck, and the mistakes of your target to land. You're correct, you can dodge shots in a light. But that's mostly luck. You do not know until less than 1 second before a projectile lands that it is even fired. What you are doing is hardly juking because you're not reacting to anything, you are moving erratically to make it difficult to predict a shot.

Alternatively you have LRMs. I have no doubt you are very experienced, practiced, and skilled in a light but if you are consistently being hit by any noticeable amount of LRMs then you have room for improvement on situational awareness. I'm far from perfect myself, but in all my games played in a light the past few nights I can count on 1 hand the number of times a majority of an LRM volley touched me. The only one I remember specifically happened because I dumbly ran into and got stuck on a wall. A vast majority of cases, I ran behind cover and watched the volley land to my side.

Edited by Shalune, 03 June 2013 - 07:27 PM.


#39 Sephlock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,819 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:41 PM

View PostAim64C, on 03 June 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

No knocking against the guy firing the missiles... they're on-target and would have been awesome if... missiles were ... you know... actually working as a support weapon.


#40 Asmudius Heng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 2,429 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 June 2013 - 08:46 PM

As much as i hate the idea of fire and forget LRMs form a skill point of view, it makes sense to add this in so that LRMs can be mixed with other weapons systems more easily and people can fire multiple LRMs at different targets quickly to suppress and cause havoc if not much damage.

It would also mean smaller packs of LRMs would be more useful as your long range fire and forget punch while concentrating on aiming with other weapons.

I think that holding the reticle on your target should give you an decrease in missiles spread through at least rewarding thoe who do so, or giving more reason for the boats to make this their primary damage dealer.

As much as it screams lack of skill, at least it gives the weapon a better niche beyond the absolute boats and you still need all the skills to get the lock, determine the best times to fire, position yourself etc which are not going to change.

I think the mechanics as they are simply cause more issues than they solve.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users