31 replies to this topic

[SpiralRazor]

So with Splash damage for all intents and purposes being turned off, there is no reason not to restore Normal missile damage. LRMs should go to 1.0, and SRMS and SSRMS back to 2.0.


Also, unrelated but while on the topic of weapons, LPLs and ERLS are still to hot.

ERLS can be fixed by implementing Zoom 3.5x, and Zoom 4x. Remove the current UI for the module, make a lvl 1 and a lvl 2(15k GPX as usual) and do a full fix for PIP later when you have better programmers.

LPLs just need a 25% range increase.. LLs are clearly superior now in almost every situation. At least the heat generated would be somewhat worth it, for the increased effective ranges.


SPLs are pretty much useless...way way to close to SLs on the stat profile.

[dario03]

SRMs - Sure
LRMs - Maybe after they get more random in hit location
SSRMs - No. At least not until they stop being able to fly at crazy angles and concentrate so much damage to the CT and even then I think they should do less than regular SRM.

Edited by dario03, 09 June 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

They do not concentrate damage to the CT at 200m, which is a pretty common engagement range...i tested them extensively in the Testing Grounds yesterday. I went through SRMS and SSRMS, Machine guns and the LBX. SSRMS can shoot as long as you have a lock, but the angle on them will still miss if someone is moving laterally on you. This cannot be argued, it simply is.

Btw, i forgot to mention that the LBX-10s are completely worthless. At 200m, it took me 29 rounds to kill a STOCK commando, aiming at the front, level plane, and center of mass. Conversely, with 2 LRM 10s, no art, no tag, at 200ms it took 60 missiles. It took me less time to kill one with 4 machineguns, at a massively less tonnage ratio.


anyway, please try not to comment unless you can back your statement up with examples.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 09 June 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

SpiralRazor, on 09 June 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

They do not concentrate damage to the CT at 200m, which is a pretty common engagement range...i tested them extensively in the Testing Grounds yesterday. I went through SRMS and SSRMS, Machine guns and the LBX. SSRMS can shoot as long as you have a lock, but the angle on them will still miss if someone is moving laterally on you. This cannot be argued, it simply is.

anyway, dont comment unless you can back your statement up with examples.

hahaah ohhh man. Streaks NEVER miss. You understand that right. They NEVER miss unless you shoot them into a hill/building. Plus, they do concentrate damage even on CT at any range. This has been well-proven and well understood.

As far as your, "don't comment unless you can back your statement up with examples" you haven't even backed up your own statement with anything other than baseless/unevidenced other statements.

My claim's evidence:
Streak damage should not be buffed alongside normal SRM damage (which should go up to 2.0 or even higher.. In fact, Streak damage should only affect the one bone that the streak missile hits instead of splashing at all.

[HarmAssassin]

Quote

[color=#959595].i tested them extensively in the Testing Grounds yesterday.[/color]

SpiralRazor apparently hasn't read the dozen or so posts and/or announcements that have said that the training grounds use completely different stats and mechanics that the real game. Testing in the Training Grounds is pointless until they get the training grounds out of Alpha (which it's currently in).

[dario03]

SpiralRazor, on 09 June 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

They do not concentrate damage to the CT at 200m, which is a pretty common engagement range...i tested them extensively in the Testing Grounds yesterday. I went through SRMS and SSRMS, Machine guns and the LBX. SSRMS can shoot as long as you have a lock, but the angle on them will still miss if someone is moving laterally on you. This cannot be argued, it simply is.

Btw, i forgot to mention that the LBX-10s are completely worthless. At 200m, it took me 29 rounds to kill a STOCK commando, aiming at the front, level plane, and center of mass. Conversely, with 2 LRM 10s, no art, no tag, at 200ms it took 60 missiles. It took me less time to kill one with 4 machineguns, at a massively less tonnage ratio.


anyway, please try not to comment unless you can back your statement up with examples.

My post had just as many examples as your OP did And your follow up post doesn't really add anything either and can be argued with since it is wrong. Streaks can and do hit from just about any angle as long as you are in range and don't have something in the way. They also put a lot of their damage to the CT. For examples you can check any video of streaks ever made after the patch that made them like that, or go play the game against other people. Anyways please try not to comment unless you can post correct information.

Edited by dario03, 09 June 2013 - 02:08 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If PGI were to divorce SSRMs and SRMs stat-wise, SRMs should see a significant damage bump (maybe as high as a return to 2.5, but more likely 2.2 per missile). LRMs and SSRMs need a guidance fix before their damage gets bumped any more. Once that happens, LRMs should go to 1.3 or 1.4 per missile and SSRMs should match SRMs (but SSRMs should get a ROF nerf to promote SRMs as the premier brawling weapon).

[SpiralRazor]

No, they can miss... They have a tracking stat, and a set speed. If your angle is bad, and they are turning hard enough and moving fast enough, your packet will miss. I have zero doubt that I know the behavior of them better then you PEEF. I used them literally within 5 minutes of the devs making them live, and on until today.

Also, I didnt say anything about splash damage...Splash damage is out of the game with the current setting on it.

There is nothing wrong with LRM tracking whatsover now..they are at the most balanced point between AMS/ECM/DAMAGE/MOVESPEED/TRACKING RATE, and clustering that they ever have been.

SRMS were the premier brawling weapon for literally MONTHS....and it was broken as ****. No, they should not be the premier brawling weapon, not at all. That would be the AC/20, and to a lesser extent, the MLas. The damage of the SRM/6 for its small size and weight, was balanced in that it damaged multiple locations. True, it generated more TACS then an AC/20, but overall a single AC/20 was more feared then X2 or even x3 SRM6's.

Dario, your post has zero examples as did your follow up. Please stop commenting.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 09 June 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[keith]

any change to laser heat/range has to be can tech too. clan pulse already have double the range of IS tech. that would make clan large pulse a beast. so unless they balance them different(i think they should) the TT purist would have a **** fit. pgi should have set this game in 3025 made the game run, then worked on clan tech and jumped it, but too late to many broken promises.

[Lefty Lucy]

SpiralRazor, on 09 June 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

They do not concentrate damage to the CT at 200m, which is a pretty common engagement range...i tested them extensively in the Testing Grounds yesterday. I went through SRMS and SSRMS, Machine guns and the LBX. SSRMS can shoot as long as you have a lock, but the angle on them will still miss if someone is moving laterally on you. This cannot be argued, it simply is.

Btw, i forgot to mention that the LBX-10s are completely worthless. At 200m, it took me 29 rounds to kill a STOCK commando, aiming at the front, level plane, and center of mass. Conversely, with 2 LRM 10s, no art, no tag, at 200ms it took 60 missiles. It took me less time to kill one with 4 machineguns, at a massively less tonnage ratio.


anyway, please try not to comment unless you can back your statement up with examples.

My DDC with 40 tubes and TAG single-shots the training grounds commando and 2-shots the training grounds Atlas. However, I have not seen this performance in game, although at times it seems that LRMs are doing maxxive damage for unknown reasons. I think movement reduces LRM damage massively, so perhaps against slow-moving targets they are killing very very fast.

[aniviron]

LRMs are at 1.1 right now, you don't need to turn them back down to 1.0.
SRMs need to be at least 2.0; they hit like wet linguine right now.
Increasing zoom will help erll, but only a bit. It's just so hard to hold the mouse steady on a target that far away, and I don't believe mouse sensitivity decreases with zoom.
And yes, all pulse lasers need serious help.

[dario03]

SpiralRazor, on 09 June 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

No, they can miss... They have a tracking stat, and a set speed. If your angle is bad, and they are turning hard enough and moving fast enough, your packet will miss. I have zero doubt that I know the behavior of them better then you PEEF. I used them literally within 5 minutes of the devs making them live, and on until today.

Also, I didnt say anything about splash damage...Splash damage is out of the game with the current setting on it.

There is nothing wrong with LRM tracking whatsover now..they are at the most balanced point between AMS/ECM/DAMAGE/MOVESPEED/TRACKING RATE, and clustering that they ever have been.

SRMS were the premier brawling weapon for literally MONTHS....and it was broken as ****. No, they should not be the premier brawling weapon, not at all. That would be the AC/20, and to a lesser extent, the MLas. The damage of the SRM/6 for its small size and weight, was balanced in that it damaged multiple locations. True, it generated more TACS then an AC/20, but overall a single AC/20 was more feared then X2 or even x3 SRM6's.

Dario, your post has zero examples as did your follow up. Please stop commenting.

You should really stop posting topics since you don't seem to understand how discussions work. What exactly do you want me to post as examples? My posts read about the same as yours when it comes to examples which is basically stating a broad overview of what I see from the game's weapons. But here I'll give you a better example than you have, when I test SSRMs by actually playing the game on live servers my streaks almost always damage the enemy CT and almost always hit unless something gets in the way. I have on multiple occasions scored a kill in light vs light combat while both moving near top speed and had the enemy light 3/4 of the way off my screen. I'm talking so far to the side I would lose lock in 0.3 seconds because he would then be slightly behind me, the streaks are firing near 90 degrees out and landing the kill slightly behind me. Same thing happens when someone shoots streaks at me. LRMs spread a bit more but still put a lot of their damage into the CT especially on some of the larger CT mechs, I have taken mostly CT damage while literally pointing my shoulder at the enemy with the enemy having LOS and being about 200m away.

[Victor Morson]

aniviron, on 09 June 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

LRMs are at 1.1 right now, you don't need to turn them back down to 1.0.
SRMs need to be at least 2.0; they hit like wet linguine right now.
Increasing zoom will help erll, but only a bit. It's just so hard to hold the mouse steady on a target that far away, and I don't believe mouse sensitivity decreases with zoom.
And yes, all pulse lasers need serious help.

I still believe LRMs need to be brought back up to 1.2. They're right on the cusp of being serious competitive weapons and that'd take them over the edge. We're down to really minor tweaks here - going back to 1.0 would be terrible, though.

Count me in for the SRM buffs, though. They have great new firing mechanics so a little bit more missile damage and they'll be A+ guns again.

[Kaldor]

I think that LRMs should be the baseline for all missile damage.

If LRMs are at 1, SSRMs should be at 1.5 and SRMs should be 2.

Before you start flaming read please:

LRMs are largely skill less. Yes, to be really effective with LRMs you have to do more than dumb fire at 800m, but you dont really have to do anything more than let your team get your targets, and fire if you know the target is in the open. Advanced target decay helped LRM boats a whole bunch. Right now I think they are really close to being useful, and I think a buff to 1.2 wouldnt be bad. They also need to make LRMs an AOE weapon again. Right now they are playing like long range SSRMs and they are CT hitting way too often which seams to be a side effect of the Artemis patch a long time ago. In closed beta I felt they were far more balanced even at higher damage than they are now. I always compared the missiles launcher to 4 coins in size for AOE. The LRM5 was the most accurate, but shot the least missiles, so roughly the size of a dime. The LRM10 had a slightly bigger AOE, about the size of a penny. The LRM15 was about the size of a nickel. The LRM20 was about the size of a quarter. As you can see, the AOE goes up as the launcher got bigger, and the bigger launchers were still desirable, but the smaller launchers fired faster and were slightly more accurate as they had a smaller AOE. Remember the Cat A1 with 6 LRM5s? Brutal in its own right for a missile boat with only 30 tubes. Then Artemis came in, and screwed the entire dynamic up, and PGI still has not got it working right. The changes to flight path and speed were both warranted, but they need to return to an AOE weapon again as they are in canon.

SSRMs are also largely skill less. Its a bit harder to get a lock in close, but when you get that lock, its a no brainer. Advanced target decay is also a big deal as you can 360 turn and not lose lock on a target if your quick. The other issue with SSRMs is that in a light and medium fight, who ever has ECM or BAP superiority AND SSRMs will generally win most of the time. This is bad design. Keeping their damage down gives those in that weight class an equal fight and helps balance the fire and forget aspect of the SSRM. It also helps curb heavy boating. I actually felt, and I know a great many other did as well, that in closed beta, before they "fixed" SSRMs, they actually had about a 20% chance to out right miss. They were also bugged slightly and had lower damage than SRMs. They simply do NOT miss right now providing the target doesnt have some hard cover, or moving very fast at an extreme angle toward you. I still feel that SSRMs taking a hard 90 turn out of the launcher and ending up hitting the target behind you is wrong at all levels. Lock time seems about right, but maybe make the box you have to be in slightly more challenging to get the lock. Also making the lock easier to break needs to be addressed. SSRMs are a missile system that needs VERY close attention as making them too powerful will be extremely bad in the future when we see Clanner versions...

SRMs were overpowered as hell at one point. Now they are like shooting Nerf darts at someone. And they are really the only skill based missile as getting a good hit on a fast mover is still rough at times. HSR and a few Artemis tweaks have helped them, but they are still pretty subpar. The pattern for non-Artemis SRMs is pretty decent, but I still think the premium you pay for Artemis in tonnage and slots should tighten the radius even more. SRMs need to hit harder than the Streak counterparts. Needs to have the dynamic of whether you want guided missiles, they do less damage, but dont miss within reason. However, if your a good shot, SRMs should have the potential to hit harder.

This is something they need to get working right, and fast. Treating the LRMs, SSRMs, and SRMs as 3 different missile systems is a must. Medium striker mechs are suffering because they lost their teeth that were SRMs. The only commonly played mediums are Cicada's and maybe then maybe an occasional Hunchy, Treb, or Cent. Looking ahead to the future, PGI needs to get these missile systems working right. Clan tech is brutal and better than what we are running right now in every way. Clan SSRMs boats will ruin everyones day. Clan LRMs, even though they are a line of sight weapon, are basically long range SSRMs that should be AOE. I feel that as a countermeasure maybe they need to consider making AMS better. ECM is a still a valid counter to LRMs, but BAP really has leveled the playing field, in some cases almost too much though.

Overall, they are heading in the right direction, but they need to look back at some of the things in the past that worked good, and put them back in. AOE LRMs as per canon, great idea, go back to it. They should be suppressive fire for a team game. SSRMs that missed once in awhile, and had lower damage than SRMs, good, go back to it. All SRMs need is a damage boost, maybe not to pre nerf levels, but something to actually make them effective again. Maybe tighten the radius a little bit for Artemis versions. This is an area that needs some work, and getting it right will bring the meta game back into balance.

Edited by Kaldor, 09 June 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kaldor, on 09 June 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

LRMs are largely skill less.

All I needed to read to discount everything from there out. This is the third time I've had to cross post this tonight:

Quote

LRMs are the single hardest weapon system to use in MW:O despite their lock. Here's why:

* Huge minimum range
* Ineffective at maximum range as people can just walk backwards
* Multiple ECM in the area still obliterates locks
* The guns themselves take tons of weight and crit space, while also consuming ammo faster than any other weapon
* You really need TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay Modules and ideally UAV to get the most out of them.
* Ideally you need to maintain TAG to get effective damage, meaning you have to be between 270-750 consistently
* You also need to watch your firing position as an angle a sniper has likely will prove entirely ineffective for you
* Indirect fire really sucks for damage and accuracy and people should stop complaining about it. It's chip damage at best.
* There is an entire system designed specifically to counter LRM, and when multiple AMS are in the same area, it can decimate your missile flights.
* Did I mention if you lose lock in mid-flight your missiles hit absolutely nothing, and people have several seconds to dodge that lock?
* Oh, I almost forgot, you have to setup at an angle so your own missiles can actually get over the cover you are using, adding more positioning difficulties
* Additionally outside of the ECM bubble you cannot obtain locks to fire without piercing it with a TAG; PPC piercing is lucky to give you time to even get a shot off, let alone guide it in.
* LRMs are honestly most used at 400-500m like a Skirmisher more than an Archer due to the need to minimize flight time, which puts them in constant danger of being brought into a <270m fight.

... I could go on. But let's compare to PPCs:

* Point at target
* Pull trigger
* Wait for recycle
* Pull trigger
* Wait for Heat
* Repeat

From a design POV you throw a couple PPCs on and a couple DHS on and tada! This is the moment I should also put out PPCs can be targeted at critical locations where the closest LRMs can get is firing-facing, again, something that is not easy to maintain.

This myth that LRMs are easy mode is only perpetrated by the entirely ignorant. What you are seeing is a substitution of high-aiming skill requirements (skill is still required to maintain TAG, which is important) for high-positoning & piloting skill requirements. LRMs aren't hard to hit with when everything is positioned properly and you've got good locks but getting all that is hard.

Long story short, just because some really bad ELO players march straight out at an assault LRM Stalker and linger in it's effective range does not mean the gun is broken. Jesus.

This odd fallacy that LRMs are easy mode so needs to die. They are ludicrously rough to make work on any effective level and you have to micromanage your range and the terrain constantly. It is ten times harder to get effective LRM damage - as long as the target isn't very, very new or very, very stupid - than it is with other weapons, and it takes way more out of the 'mech too.

Anyone who's just shelling everything they lock is probably wasting ammo hitting less than 10% of what they're shooting at, and if it's indirect fire, it's not worth firing nines out of ten anyway.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 June 2013 - 12:42 AM.

[Kaldor]

Victor Morson, on 10 June 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

All I needed to read to discount everything from there out. This is the third time I've had to cross post this tonight:



This odd fallacy that LRMs are easy mode so needs to die. They are ludicrously rough to make work on any effective level and you have to micromanage your range and the terrain constantly. It is ten times harder to get effective LRM damage - as long as the target isn't very, very new or very, very stupid - than it is with other weapons, and it takes way more out of the 'mech too.

Anyone who's just shelling everything they lock is probably wasting ammo hitting less than 10% of what they're shooting at, and if it's indirect fire, it's not worth firing nines out of ten anyway.

You obviously didnt read anything past my initial statement. Of the 3 missile systems, LRMs need the most micromanaging, I will agree with you on that. Ive played LRM boats for a good portion of my time in this game, so I do understand how they work. However, from a targeting standpoint, they are the easiest. LRMs also function best when you are on a team that helps you. They give you good targets, give feed back on whether or not your hitting, keep targets locked, use ECM/BAP to nullify the oppositions ECM, and maybe your lights use a TAG if your team is really dedicated to the concept.

Another thing you need to add to your list is the fact that assault weight LRM boats, while having more firepower, are harder to play and generally less effective than a faster heavy LRM boat. I would much rather have a Cat with a XL300 moving at 82kph that can be fluid and actually get to their position to make a good shot, than an assault that is quite often out of position.

Let me comment on your cross post:

* Huge minimum range - Not really. Maintaining range is hard yes, but stop running a slow assault LRM boat that is easily picked off by faster mechs.
* Ineffective at maximum range as people can just walk backwards - You shouldn't be firing at anymore than 500m for max effectiveness
* Multiple ECM in the area still obliterates locks - This is a team game. If you feel that you need to get all your own locks, TAGging, etc, your doing it wrong. ECM still needs work, but is not insurmountable.
* The guns themselves take tons of weight and crit space, while also consuming ammo faster than any other weapon - Yes they do, especially with Artemis. Ive always felt that double ammo should be given to ballistic and missile systems due to doubled armor.
* You really need TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay Modules and ideally UAV to get the most out of them. - If you are trying to play an LRM boat solo, yes. I run TAG, BAP, and Decay modules. Have not run UAV. Teamwork is overpowered.
* Ideally you need to maintain TAG to get effective damage, meaning you have to be between 270-750 consistently - I agree. But I prefer 200-500m for my firing range.
* You also need to watch your firing position as an angle a sniper has likely will prove entirely ineffective for you - huh?
* Indirect fire really sucks for damage and accuracy and people should stop complaining about it. It's chip damage at best. - No, its indirect fire support and needs to be treated as such. Right now LRMs are almost functioning as long range SSRMs. They need to be AOE as they were in beta.
* There is an entire system designed specifically to counter LRM, and when multiple AMS are in the same area, it can decimate your missile flights. - Yes it can. There needs to be systems that beat others for balance reasons. Ever play rock paper scissors?
* Did I mention if you lose lock in mid-flight your missiles hit absolutely nothing, and people have several seconds to dodge that lock? - Target Decay helps a great deal. Getting closer helps too as you have less travel time.
* Oh, I almost forgot, you have to setup at an angle so your own missiles can actually get over the cover you are using, adding more positioning difficulties - With a Cat or Stalker, this is not really an issue. Awesome does suffer from this. Atlas LRM boats, yeah....
* Additionally outside of the ECM bubble you cannot obtain locks to fire without piercing it with a TAG; PPC piercing is lucky to give you time to even get a shot off, let alone guide it in. - Relying on PPC fire is pointless as you point out. TAG is OK, but not the best solution. NARC, lol. Teamwork is still the best solution.
* LRMs are honestly most used at 400-500m like a Skirmisher more than an Archer due to the need to minimize flight time, which puts them in constant danger of being brought into a <270m fight. - I dont know where you have been, but they have functioned best in the 200-400 meter range for a long time now. Be thankful they are not canon range of 630m.

I agree on some of your points, but others need work.

Long story short:
Stop firing at extreme ranges.
Stop running slow assault missile boats
Stop trying to do it all yourself, in other words, dont try and solo boat LRMs.
Always carry backup weapons.

[Aim64C]

Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

You obviously didnt read anything past my initial statement. Of the 3 missile systems, LRMs need the most micromanaging, I will agree with you on that. Ive played LRM boats for a good portion of my time in this game, so I do understand how they work. However, from a targeting standpoint, they are the easiest. LRMs also function best when you are on a team that helps you. They give you good targets, give feed back on whether or not your hitting, keep targets locked, use ECM/BAP to nullify the oppositions ECM, and maybe your lights use a TAG if your team is really dedicated to the concept.

So, here's the ultimate question...

-Should- we balance weapons against teamwork?

If a team figures out how to use a weapon system very effectively and efficiently... do we balance the weapons so that their teamwork is now "doing normal damage" - or do we leave the weapons alone and let other teams develop a strategy against the teams that adopt strategies centered around other weapon systems?

Balancing the power of teamwork is done through the use of information warfare. If a particular team strategy comes up that takes a weapon and makes it completely overpowered - then the first thing that we should look at is the respective power and challenge of bringing effective teamwork into play. Is the targetted team able to use teamwork to counter the particular strategy? Is the team using the strategy exploiting a gameplay quirk or is an element of information warfare giving them an unreasonable advantage with a certain system/strategy? Only after looking at those questions very carefully should we start to look at whether or not the weapon, itself, needs to be changed.

Quote

* Huge minimum range - Not really. Maintaining range is hard yes, but stop running a slow assault LRM boat that is easily picked off by faster mechs.

This is a huge factor that doesn't really play in to most other weapon systems.

Even then - a lot of other designs can easily meet or top a kitty with a 300 XL - which means you're stalling for time if some sneaky ******* manages to get near your minimum and doesn't get ADHD half-way through and decide to chase something else.

Quote

* Ineffective at maximum range as people can just walk backwards - You shouldn't be firing at anymore than 500m for max effectiveness

Again, compared to most weapon systems. I can zap a catapult running full tilt at 900 meters with an ERPPC so long as I get valid sight-in shot. Eventually, I'll be able to do it cold-bore on instinct with the first shot.

If they have good reaction times and just happen to be watching me - they might be able to jink at the last moment and throw my shot. More realistically - their actions don't much factor into the likelihood of a hit once I push the button.

Quote

* Multiple ECM in the area still obliterates locks - This is a team game. If you feel that you need to get all your own locks, TAGging, etc, your doing it wrong. ECM still needs work, but is not insurmountable.

Yet, ECM doesn't block other weapons from being able to function, requiring teamwork to overcome.

It's a factor that affects the difficulty of effectively employing the weapon system that is relatively unique to that system that is, supposedly "Easy mode."

Quote

* The guns themselves take tons of weight and crit space, while also consuming ammo faster than any other weapon - Yes they do, especially with Artemis. Ive always felt that double ammo should be given to ballistic and missile systems due to doubled armor.

I'm not too sure, here. Armor was doubled to deal with the realities of using shooter mechanics in a system that was designed for dice-rolls. The reason we get more armor is because being hit is far more likely than table-top would have us believe and the damage tends to be far more concentrated. For this reason - I don't think ballistic weapons should have double ammunition to compensate. I would agree to them having a slightly increased amount of ammunition - but not by much.

On the other hand - I would argue that missiles (at least LRMs) should get a damage increase as opposed to an ammunition increase. Flight-time, pilot-reaction, and a host of other things factor into the reality of using the weapon that simply don't exist in the table-top game it is based off of. The small pulse laser fires as frequently as the rack of LRM 20s and the checks and damages of both are applied before the player ends his/her turn. If they get increased ammunition at all, it should not be by as much as what ballistics get - but they should get a fairly substantial damage bonus.

Assuming they actually got a proper 'cluster roll' behavior. I would argue that swarms of missiles should be more likely to blow out side torsos and arm sections than to core the center torso (unless it's just a huge center torso). Still crippling damage - but not what we see, currently.

Quote

* You really need TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay Modules and ideally UAV to get the most out of them. - If you are trying to play an LRM boat solo, yes. I run TAG, BAP, and Decay modules. Have not run UAV. Teamwork is overpowered.

I just run Artemis, BAP, and the decay/sensor modules together. Though I was developing a pretty effective play-style with just the incorporation of Artemis and a more mobile play style.

Of course - I have probably 20 million c-bills invested in my C1, alone. The XL engine to make the more mobile play style realistic was not cheap, nor was the endo steel.

Compared to the Jenner I just bought, hopped in, and started hitting damages similar to the rounds I'll currently see in my C1 and twice the number of kills with greater survivability....

Or the BlackJack I have been enjoying giving all kinds of silly builds (like 8x flamers, 8x small pulse lasers... the small pulse lasers were surprisingly effective... the flamers were just hilarious and not worth it).

The LRM builds are some of the few builds where the way you play them changes almost completely as you can afford to upgrade them.

Quote

* Indirect fire really sucks for damage and accuracy and people should stop complaining about it. It's chip damage at best. - No, its indirect fire support and needs to be treated as such. Right now LRMs are almost functioning as long range SSRMs. They need to be AOE as they were in beta.

They need to use a terminal scattering effect. They should guide accurately on center-mass to within a certain range, where they are then assigned a new acceleration vector that they 'dumb-fly' along. They should guide using proportional navigation (like real missiles - not 'chase mechanics' like hollyweird missiles) and then 'shotgun' (whether in a coherent swarm or in a stream of consecutvely fired missiles). Per-missile damage should be relatively high (even compared to now) - but splash damage would be removed.

Quote

* Oh, I almost forgot, you have to setup at an angle so your own missiles can actually get over the cover you are using, adding more positioning difficulties - With a Cat or Stalker, this is not really an issue. Awesome does suffer from this. Atlas LRM boats, yeah....

I've had some quirky missile behavior. Sometimes, my missiles want to arc stupidly high in the air even when they should be under the influence of Artemis with direct LOS. Other times, I'm firing indirectly, and my missiles just seem to think they need to fly straight into the small hill in front of me rather than use the arc they normally do.

Quote

* LRMs are honestly most used at 400-500m like a Skirmisher more than an Archer due to the need to minimize flight time, which puts them in constant danger of being brought into a <270m fight. - I dont know where you have been, but they have functioned best in the 200-400 meter range for a long time now. Be thankful they are not canon range of 630m.

So you have a band of optimal effectiveness that is 200 meters dense.

And you're saying that LRMs are "Easy mode"?

Look at all of your advice on "how to be a good LRM player." The additional awareness that must be burdened by the conscious mind, the additional build and cost considerations (even without repair and rearm), the fact that you can do everything 'right' and some pilot with basic awareness can junk your shot simply by knowing it's time to press the 's' key and move behind a building....

Compare that to weapons like lasers. Point at section of mech you wish to hit, track through a section of motion, apply most/all damage to desired component (requires some fine motor skills, therefor, being able to do it makes you a superior specimen among the human population). Bonus points if you remember to press "r" and see whether or not someone else has managed to deal damage to the thing and challenge you to hit an area other than the one you reflexively want to blast.

Quote

Long story short:
Stop firing at extreme ranges.
Stop running slow assault missile boats
Stop trying to do it all yourself, in other words, dont try and solo boat LRMs.
Always carry backup weapons.

That's good advice, and all... but that doesn't exactly contribute much to the point that LRMs are somehow 'easy mode' or suffering from ineffectiveness on the whole.

The fact is that the same advice, applied to any other weapon focus, would generate substantially improved results. LRMs are not effective enough in direct or indirect fire roles to really make them worth the team investment in them, at the moment. Better solutions can be found in other weapon systems and chassis selection.

[Kaldor]

Aim slays me with a wall of text....

My response in bold, as Im not going to break the quote down 50 times, lol.

Aim64C, on 10 June 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

So, here's the ultimate question...

-Should- we balance weapons against teamwork?

If a team figures out how to use a weapon system very effectively and efficiently... do we balance the weapons so that their teamwork is now "doing normal damage" - or do we leave the weapons alone and let other teams develop a strategy against the teams that adopt strategies centered around other weapon systems?

Balancing the power of teamwork is done through the use of information warfare. If a particular team strategy comes up that takes a weapon and makes it completely overpowered - then the first thing that we should look at is the respective power and challenge of bringing effective teamwork into play. Is the targetted team able to use teamwork to counter the particular strategy? Is the team using the strategy exploiting a gameplay quirk or is an element of information warfare giving them an unreasonable advantage with a certain system/strategy? Only after looking at those questions very carefully should we start to look at whether or not the weapon, itself, needs to be changed.

Yes, weapons like LRMs that function best when used by a team, need to be balanced around team play. If they are really good solo, then they will be OP when a team uses them. Im not saying they need to be worthless solo, as they need to be viable. But you should not be depending on LRMs if you plan on solo dropping. Its just too hit or miss as to whether or not the other team has ECM and your team has enough ECM or BAP to counter. Its not as bad as it used to be though when half the mechs being fielded in a drop were ECM.



This is a huge factor that doesn't really play in to most other weapon systems.

Even then - a lot of other designs can easily meet or top a kitty with a 300 XL - which means you're stalling for time if some sneaky ******* manages to get near your minimum and doesn't get ADHD half-way through and decide to chase something else.

Yes they can. But an 82kph heavy with decent armor and backup weapons can fend off most lights and mediums long enough for direct fire cavalry to show up to either drive the attacker off or kill him. This is also why I recommend shooting at 200-400m, it takes less time for help to arrive if you need it.


Again, compared to most weapon systems. I can zap a catapult running full tilt at 900 meters with an ERPPC so long as I get valid sight-in shot. Eventually, I'll be able to do it cold-bore on instinct with the first shot.

If they have good reaction times and just happen to be watching me - they might be able to jink at the last moment and throw my shot. More realistically - their actions don't much factor into the likelihood of a hit once I push the button.

Not really understanding your thought process here, but I will go out on a limb. LRMs are lock on, fire and forget weapons. The heavy use of assaults to boat LRMs is an issue because they lack the tools to get out for a shot if need be, and get back before getting owned by a direct fire weapon. Whereas a Cat with JJs can just get lock in cover thanks to team locking targets, poptart, launch missiles, and get in cover. Cats may have a huge head hit box but they are hard to hit when played by a competent player that understand they cant stand still. I honestly cant remember the last time I was headshot on any of my Cats, and I have all 4 variants mastered. The key is really mobility. I would prefer to play a medium (Treb or Hunchy) with LRMs over an assault to be honest in the current meta.


Yet, ECM doesn't block other weapons from being able to function, requiring teamwork to overcome.

It's a factor that affects the difficulty of effectively employing the weapon system that is relatively unique to that system that is, supposedly "Easy mode."

ECM still isnt perfect. The implementation was flawed from the beginning. Raven 3L is the only mech that should really have it out of the current lights if I remember right the last time I looked at Sarna. They also chose to roll like 3 pieces of information warfare kit into one arguably overpowered piece of gear. LRMs really took the biggest nerf by ECM. The only upside its that with the current BAP hard counter at least the usage is going down overall, and those that do run it are being countered. I run BAP in all my guided missile mechs, starting with my Jenner D, to my Hunch SP, and even on my Highlanders that use SSRMs. This doesnt help LRMs, but it at least does change the game in such a way that a team can overcome ECM to make the LRMs semi viable again.


I'm not too sure, here. Armor was doubled to deal with the realities of using shooter mechanics in a system that was designed for dice-rolls. The reason we get more armor is because being hit is far more likely than table-top would have us believe and the damage tends to be far more concentrated. For this reason - I don't think ballistic weapons should have double ammunition to compensate. I would agree to them having a slightly increased amount of ammunition - but not by much.

Im not sure either, but the ability to run a ton or two less ammo would help missile boats a bunch as it would open up the ability to run more armor or better backup weaponry, or at least thats what I would do.

On the other hand - I would argue that missiles (at least LRMs) should get a damage increase as opposed to an ammunition increase. Flight-time, pilot-reaction, and a host of other things factor into the reality of using the weapon that simply don't exist in the table-top game it is based off of. The small pulse laser fires as frequently as the rack of LRM 20s and the checks and damages of both are applied before the player ends his/her turn. If they get increased ammunition at all, it should not be by as much as what ballistics get - but they should get a fairly substantial damage bonus.

The devs have to be carefull with damage increases. Clan LRMs are not that far away, and they are superior. Make normal LRMs too good and the problem will only compound when we see Clan tech. Balance has to happen now, not as new tech rolls in or the game will constantly change as the devs struggle to balance new tech.

Assuming they actually got a proper 'cluster roll' behavior. I would argue that swarms of missiles should be more likely to blow out side torsos and arm sections than to core the center torso (unless it's just a huge center torso). Still crippling damage - but not what we see, currently.

LRMs in canon are AOE suppression and or artillery, not the long range SSRMs they basically are now. See my first post about how they used to function in closed beta as an AOE weapon.


I just run Artemis, BAP, and the decay/sensor modules together. Though I was developing a pretty effective play-style with just the incorporation of Artemis and a more mobile play style.

As have I. Being mobile keeps the ankle biters away or gives me the ability to get to my team mates to drive the little buggers off. If I have an assault or even a heavy on me, I did something wrong, or my team got rolled badly.

Of course - I have probably 20 million c-bills invested in my C1, alone. The XL engine to make the more mobile play style realistic was not cheap, nor was the endo steel.

Same here. My old school A1 with 6 ALRM5s, XL300, Endo, etc, was a big chunk of change to build up. Even my Founders C1 has had extensive changes to it to bring it where I want it with 2 ALRM20s, 3 ML, and TAG.

Compared to the Jenner I just bought, hopped in, and started hitting damages similar to the rounds I'll currently see in my C1 and twice the number of kills with greater survivability....

Or the BlackJack I have been enjoying giving all kinds of silly builds (like 8x flamers, 8x small pulse lasers... the small pulse lasers were surprisingly effective... the flamers were just hilarious and not worth it).

The LRM builds are some of the few builds where the way you play them changes almost completely as you can afford to upgrade them.

They need to use a terminal scattering effect. They should guide accurately on center-mass to within a certain range, where they are then assigned a new acceleration vector that they 'dumb-fly' along. They should guide using proportional navigation (like real missiles - not 'chase mechanics' like hollyweird missiles) and then 'shotgun' (whether in a coherent swarm or in a stream of consecutvely fired missiles). Per-missile damage should be relatively high (even compared to now) - but splash damage would be removed.

No. Just make them fly in a swarm and be done with it. No need to add extra mechanics that could possibly be broken. Make all the LRMs have the same flight path. Add in consideration for flight path adjustments from team mates. All Artemis should do is tighten the pattern on LRMs for targets the LRM user has direct LOS on. Make them all AOE weapons as they should be. See my first post about LRM pattern sizes back in closed beta, and how the different LRM launchers varied.


I've had some quirky missile behavior. Sometimes, my missiles want to arc stupidly high in the air even when they should be under the influence of Artemis with direct LOS. Other times, I'm firing indirectly, and my missiles just seem to think they need to fly straight into the small hill in front of me rather than use the arc they normally do.

Yep, Ive seen it too.

So you have a band of optimal effectiveness that is 200 meters dense.

Yes, thats about it. 500m tops. Be thankful they didnt stick to canon with a 630m max range on LRMs. A 200m sweet spot is not hard to stay in with a cat at 82kph with JJs. Im not saying you cant shoot further, but playing has shown me that 200-400m is the best. This in combination with a mobile mech (non assault) and the ability to get help from you team mates when needed, seems to work about the best.

And you're saying that LRMs are "Easy mode"?

From a lock on and fire POV, yes, as you can just spam 10-12 ton of ammo, do 200-400 damage in a match and maybe get a kill. But in reality the guys that do this are actually hurting their team in a PUG match. If you really want to be effective, then they are more difficult, but not as hard as SRMs. Granted SRMs are simple to fire as you dont need to lock, but SRMs put you in the danger area, generally less than 150m from target, and they require lead time on anything faster than a heavy. Good team work makes LRMs much easier to play. Solo with LRMs, yeah Id rather dig my eyes out with a spoon.

Look at all of your advice on "how to be a good LRM player." The additional awareness that must be burdened by the conscious mind, the additional build and cost considerations (even without repair and rearm), the fact that you can do everything 'right' and some pilot with basic awareness can junk your shot simply by knowing it's time to press the 's' key and move behind a building....

Yup, thats life.

Compare that to weapons like lasers. Point at section of mech you wish to hit, track through a section of motion, apply most/all damage to desired component (requires some fine motor skills, therefor, being able to do it makes you a superior specimen among the human population). Bonus points if you remember to press "r" and see whether or not someone else has managed to deal damage to the thing and challenge you to hit an area other than the one you reflexively want to blast.

I dont disagree with you. My best accuracy is with LLs at 94% due to them being hit scan. My accuracy with PPCs and ballistics is around 50% just because I will snap shoot at anything. The fact still remains, that if you and your team play it right you very seldom have to expose yourself to take a shot.

That's good advice, and all... but that doesn't exactly contribute much to the point that LRMs are somehow 'easy mode' or suffering from ineffectiveness on the whole.

If people would follow those 4 things about LRMs, they would be alot more successful at it. It still wont make then perfect, but it helps. The point is, spamming 10-12 ton of LRMs at 800m is easy mode. To get where you get where your actually effective with them, they become a little harder, but more alot the lines of "moderate mode". Is that better?

The fact is that the same advice, applied to any other weapon focus, would generate substantially improved results. LRMs are not effective enough in direct or indirect fire roles to really make them worth the team investment in them, at the moment. Better solutions can be found in other weapon systems and chassis selection.

Once again, I agree with you 100%. Right now they are on the cusp of being useful again. However, PGI needs to balance with a scalpel, not a chain saw. Bring them up slowly. I say bump them to 1.2, fix the entire CT coring crap they have going on, get them back to an AOE weapon, and see what happens,

BTW, you raised some excellent points. What are your thoughts on SSRMs and SRMs based my first post in thread?

[SuomiWarder]

As to Streaks never missing, mine only fire with a solid lock and my stats say I have a 66.7% hit ratio with streaks so some of them are not making it to the target.

[Sephlock]

SuomiWarder, on 10 June 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

As to Streaks never missing, mine only fire with a solid lock and my stats say I have a 66.7% hit ratio with streaks so some of them are not making it to the target.