108 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Good thread.

More people need to learn about the LRMs. Then perhaps they won't QQ or deride about it.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 June 2013 - 10:48 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

I appreciate the OP. I was always scratching my head, wondering why everyone called LRMs "Easymode". Maybe once upon a time, but right now, they're a delicate, tricky weapon to handle well. I didn't agree with ALL of your points, but in general, this is a great thread. I'd vote for a sticky.

[Appogee]

Victor, you are certainly passionate about LRMs - posting frequently and long your view that they are hard to use and that they need to be further buffed.

Are you proficient at other weapon types? You rarely seem to talk about those. Just wondering.

[Victor Morson]

Appogee, on 29 June 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

Victor, you are certainly passionate about LRMs - posting frequently and long your view that they are hard to use and that they need to be further buffed.

Are you proficient at other weapon types? You rarely seem to talk about those. Just wondering.

You clearly haven't been following my other threads, where I am constantly pushing for buffs on MGs, Flamers, SRMs, Pulse Lasers, AC/2, AC/5, AC/10 and yes, even a velocity increase on the AC/20. Every major patch they touch the Airstrikes or Artillery, I do a full review on how holy crap terrible they are. A detailed one.

If it sucks, I am vocal about it. And a lot of things suck with balance right now.

The reason I am so "passionate" about LRMs is because people generally want all the above guns buffed. I don't have to defend them, because people such as yourself aren't going to lobby huge complaints about the AC/10 - even if it was overpowered, because it's not as much a "sound & fury" weapon like LRMs are. They don't frustrate people the same way, when they feel they're taking damage from something they can't see, and aren't really thinking about the stats.

Thus, I have to in particular defend LRMs in the hope to bring some semblance of balance to the community thought process and voice. That's why I'm doing this. I like LRMs, sure - I'm even a little partial to them as a system, in all incarnations of the game - but believe me I am every bit as passionate about getting weight balancing and brawling weapons up to snuff, too.

It's just without ALL elements of the ecosystem in place (Brawler, midrange, long range, support) you're never going to have a game that works right. LRMs are a big part of it, but people don't want to hear buff LRMs because they totally have the wrong ideas about them in the first place.

So if you think this is because I am an LRM fan, no. It's because I'm a MechWarrior fan, I've got to admit, and I want this game to not be stuck in this incredibly terrible dead zone it is at. You fear LRMs (from your other thread) because you think they'd lead to boating, I do not because they would lead to variety.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 01:39 AM.

[Jestun]

Sadly this thread won't change anything.

The kids using PPCs who think twitch is the be-all and end-all will continue to insist that their simple point & click interface makes them the most skilled people using the most skilled weapons.

[Victor Morson]

Jestun, on 29 June 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

Sadly this thread won't change anything.

The kids using PPCs who think twitch is the be-all and end-all will continue to insist that their simple point & click interface makes them the most skilled people using the most skilled weapons.

The sad part is a lot of the people bashing upgrading LRMs - probably the most vocal group - isn't the PPC sniper crowd (most of us PPC snipers wish we didn't have to be, badly) but rather the Frankenmech crowd; the ones that don't understand mech design, let alone an overly complicated system like LRMs are here.

[Karenai]

Victor Morson, on 28 June 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

[/i]
Draining a third of your very, very valuable ammo to do chip damage is questionably useful at best, honestly. Indirect hits that are still grouped from TAG are the only ones that are worth their ammo cost.

I believe this was repaired in the same patch that ended the LRM apocalypse. Artemis definitely does not work without LOS atm.

I kill people with indirect fire. You just have to be smart about it and yes you have to pound massive ammounts of missiles.
I guess it is different when you run an assault boat with 1800+missiles. I was running 2000+ missiles some months ago while almost no one ran LRM. It keept peoples heads down and did 1200+damage on most rounds. Now they just laugh and PPC you to death or walk straight at you. It was waaaay better when we still had splash, because hitting the rocks just above someone did CT damage.
Nah, after the hotfix Artemis IV still did not need los. People only stopped noticing it, because LRMs do laughable damage. They changed the vector for non line of sight attacks. Artemis IV never worked as it should.

[Victor Morson]

Karenai, on 29 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

I kill people with indirect fire.

Sure you can, if they are incredibly critical - sometimes it's worth throwing some scattered shots at them. But you in all honesty are unlikely to finish anyone that's not already being shot by another target. For example if someone is blasting a large laser into a target to get the kill, each missile will "leapfrog" the laser damage, resulting in LRMs being among the best kill stealing weapons around.

If you think kill stealing is a good niche for them, because that's all they do (and not many people care about kills outside of random games, either).

Karenai, on 29 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

You just have to be smart about it and yes you have to pound massive ammounts of missiles.
I guess it is different when you run an assault boat with 1800+missiles. I was running 2000+ missiles some months ago while almost no one ran LRM. It keept peoples heads down and did 1200+damage on most rounds.

Only worked on PUGs. During that period of time when someone would start firing missiles at me I'd laugh, openly comment on how bad it was in text chat, and then generally absolutely obliterate them up close. LRMs aren't that bad anymore, but if anyone put their head down for the 0.7 damage missiles, they were simply scared of the cockpit rock and not the damage.

Karenai, on 29 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Now they just laugh and PPC you to death or walk straight at you. It was waaaay better when we still had splash, because hitting the rocks just above someone did CT damage.

Yes, yes it was. 1.2 /w splash, bug or no bug, missiles were outstanding for damage. Their faults were firing trajectory (terrible to clear things with) and travel speed. Those faults are gone now, so it's just a matter of bringing the damage back up to a comparable level without the bug.

Karenai, on 29 June 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Nah, after the hotfix Artemis IV still did not need los. People only stopped noticing it, because LRMs do laughable damage. They changed the vector for non line of sight attacks. Artemis IV never worked as it should.

Artemis doesn't register when it should but I've never had it do anything for people behind hills in a while now. Besides if that were true then that makes indirect even worse.

[William Mountbank]

I know this thread isn't aimed directly at the bottom of the barrel Elo ranks, but it's worth pointing out what is apparently also a myth about LRMs: that they still do damage beyond 1000m.

Yeah, I know, I know, but here in pug scrum I regularly see this:
"LRM boat, maintain locks"
I think, cool, I'll sacrifice my damage score to do some role warfare, and go and sit behind the enemy scrum. Then I chose a big fat mech out in the open, target him and in chat say "target B, exposed atlas"

Then I watch as the missiles sail in and self detonate 300m short.

I also quite often see a Stalker LRM boat sitting up to 600m behind his frontline in his favourite spot. Then I can just sit behind him while he waddles along, his entire weapon system shut down, as he desperately tries to get to his support.

I know most of you guys take a dim view of the bottom feeders, but even though LRMs aren't a weapon system I use much, it would still be great if it was a practical weapon in the wrong hands too. During the last LRM buff when the angle of attack was so steep, people were actually using them enough that I could drop with TAG on my light mechs and feel like I wasn't an *****.

[William Mountbank]

Is i d i o t really a word that needs to be censored?

[Victor Morson]

William Mountbank, on 29 June 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

I know most of you guys take a dim view of the bottom feeders, but even though LRMs aren't a weapon system I use much, it would still be great if it was a practical weapon in the wrong hands too. During the last LRM buff when the angle of attack was so steep, people were actually using them enough that I could drop with TAG on my light mechs and feel like I wasn't an *****.

I'm kidding when I say the LRM Apocalypse was perfect, but really, it DID bring about brawlers and the good units seriously were cutting their LRM support back to a mech or two. It helped the ecosystem immensely (including having extra TAGs in the group). They needed a slight nerf from there, but they were taken a notch too far back. They need some fine tuned increases and I think they'd be in good shape again.

Pre-nerf damage with post-nerf mechanics would be the best incarnation of LRM.

Also yep, you're absolutely right, LRMs ALWAYS detonate 1000m from where they were fired without exception. One of the big things people used to say with the 1.2+splash LRMs was that they couldn't do anything at range, which is silly because Gauss outranges LRMs by more than a few hundred meters, as does ER PPC.

[Victor Morson]

William Mountbank, on 29 June 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Is i d i o t really a word that needs to be censored?

There's some other really hilarious combinations here. The phrase "LRMS" + "HIT" blocks out because of how you could reassemble the last four letters.

[Moira]

Hello there ppls.

LRM's even LRM5's (if having more than few) can be deadly if used correctly and you actually have a team around you that can understand the value of that person carrying all those LRM's. Ill derail here abit. Im just rendering a perfect example video (then ill upload it) just to show what can happen, if you time yourself correctly and position too in PUG game. And ofcourse ppls around do try scrape the enemies of you.

But back to the topic.

Myth: 2x LRM15, does more damage in the long run than, 4-5 LRM5's.
Truth: Yes and No.
Exp: 4-5 LRM'5 do potentially deal more damage in short time than 2x LRM15, due you can fire more LRM salvoes, maybe even 2-3 times more if targets are slippery and cant get good long target lock's. But If you can get long good locks then ofcourse 2x LRM15 deals more damage cause you get em to land with higher chance.

Secondary exp: You loose less missiles if you loose targetlock and fire into something. So you have more missiles left.

Myth: You can fire missiles and then get targetlock and still missiles land.
Truth: This works sometimes. And when they do those missiles do fancy moves in mid air =)

[Bagheera]

Victor Morson, on 28 June 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

EDIT: I will update this post as more points get brought up in the thread and oh boy, I'm sure they will.

Great post. Needs moved to the new user area after it's had a run here though. Definitely good info.

Only thing I would suggest is a brief summary of the history of LRMs in MW:O and the 3 Lurmpocalypses that have occurred since closed beta. Perspective and all.

[Ningyo]

@Moira (oh and good points)

On your second myth, you should clarify if you have a lock and lose it, then regain lock missiles will still hit the target.
(Missiles fired with no lock then you get a lock after will remain dumbfire and hit the ground where you originally were targeting. This might be another myth though)

And on your first 5xLRM5 will do more damage than 2xLRM 15 even if the enemy has 1 AMS, firing into 2 AMS it becomes about even. This is due to LRM5 having a smaller spread, and a faster fire rate. 4xLRM5 its a far closer call, it is probably more effective if there are no enemy AMS, with 1 enemy AMS it might be less effective. Also putting artemis on LRM 15 makes a bigger difference so 2xALRM15 is about = 4xLRM5 and significantly better if there is enemy AMS.

Edited by Ningyo, 29 June 2013 - 07:41 AM.

[Moira]

Ningyo, on 29 June 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

@Moira (oh and good points)

On your second myth, you should clarify if you have a lock and lose it, then regain lock missiles will still hit the target.
(Missiles fired with no lock then you get a lock after will remain dumbfire and hit the ground where you originally were targeting. This might be another myth though)

And on your first 5xLRM5 will do more damage than 2xLRM 15 even if the enemy has 1 AMS, firing into 2 AMS it becomes about even. This is due to LRM5 having a smaller spread, and a faster fire rate. 4xLRM5 its a far closer call, it is probably more effective if there are no enemy AMS, with 1 enemy AMS it might be less effective. Also putting artemis on LRM 15 makes a bigger difference so 2xALRM15 is about = 4xLRM5 and significantly better if there is enemy AMS.

Sorry I was little rushed to post it so Ill clarify this.
2 myth:
You have lock, and loose it-fire and get it back the missile goes to target. And does some grove moves in air - ill try to video this =) sometimes if you open ground ahead and are nearly getting the targetlock and fire premateruly those missiles still hit the target, this will be more than hard to video, but ill try.
1 myth:
check the video I have lastest in youtube account I bet you get a laugh or two =) since there is few AMS involved I still 3 good kills and 4th is AFK'er =) but still its hilarious video =) heck here is ther link
EDIT: ok it posted the whole video. well it should be wanted as maxed resolution due, I have some issues still to make vids into really really HD ones... sorry

Edited by Moira, 29 June 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[Volthorne]

Moira, on 29 June 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Sorry I was little rushed to post it so Ill clarify this.
2 myth:
You have lock, and loose it-fire and get it back the missile goes to target. And does some grove moves in air - ill try to video this =) sometimes if you open ground ahead and are nearly getting the targetlock and fire premateruly those missiles still hit the target, this will be more than hard to video, but ill try.
1 myth:
check the video I have lastest in youtube account I bet you get a laugh or two =) since there is few AMS involved I still 3 good kills and 4th is AFK'er =) but still its hilarious video =) heck here is ther link
EDIT: ok it posted the whole video. well it should be wanted as maxed resolution due, I have some issues still to make vids into really really HD ones... sorry

This is actually a side effect of Artemis. Launchers without Artemis will not auto-correct missile flight-paths when lock is re-established. Launchers WITH Artemis will. I have never seen it work otherwise (outside of the first LRMpocalypse).

Edited by Volthorne, 29 June 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Moira]

Volthorne, on 29 June 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

This is actually a side effect of Artemis. Launchers without Artemis will not auto-correct missile flight-paths when lock is re-established. Launchers WITH Artemis will. I have never seen it work otherwise (outside of the first LRMpocalypse).

OK thanks that sorts it out a little bit, due I have even in my LRM Raven a artemis =)

[ExAstris]

I have to agree with the OP. LRMs have always been the most skill intensive weapon in this game. While its true that they handle the final impact themselves, allowing otherwise incompetent shots to score damage, every other feature of the weapon is incredibly skill intensive to use properly.

This is especially true due to all the counters that are in the game. The most important to note, and most under-emphasized in the OP is ECM. Any break in lock can completely ruin a batch of LRMs, and ECM can provide that when it covers your target, covers you, or (rarely) covers your spotter. And it only takes just a fraction of a second of coverage to break, so BAP will never completely save you, only if the enemy remains within 150m of you, or you're BAP equipped ally remains within 150m of your target, or if you never fail to ping the target with your TAG every couple seconds.

So anyone who thinks lasers are probably the most skill intensive weapon have to remember that LRMs need TAG, and TAG is a laser that must be perpetually held on target. No breaks. No defensive maneuvering. No using other weapons with travel times (because you'd have to lead the target, which means you aren't tagging it).


So yes, LRMs are the most skillful weapons in the game. But its a plethora of skills that aren't as obvious to notice as the twitch-aim skill the initiates worship.



And on the subject of balance, they're still second class citizens.



Furthermore, I would like to see the LRM5 and LRM10 become viable weapons as well. I would do this by increasing the LRM5 heat to 3, but then drastically reducing the cycle time of both weapons. (I'll use 3.25 for the 10 and 2.0 for the 5 for this example)

This would give LRMs a missile/second capacity of
20 = 4.21
15 = 3.53
10 = 3.08
05 = 2.50

But would give them a heat/missile of

20 = .3
15 = .333
10 = .4
05 = .6


While this does allow a pair of LRM5s to have more dps than an LRM20, it really won't be a problem. They'll stagger their shots by twice as much (even when group fired), meaning AMS will chew through twice as many. Furthermore, the mech using a pair of 5s will generate twice as much heat per missile as the single 20 would. Maximum boating for large launchers remains around 4 due to weight constraints (meaning maximum missile dps remains untouched), and maximum boating for smaller launchers will now be capped around 4 launchers as well because the heat output becomes unmanageable very quickly (hence the need to bump the LRM5s heat up by one point).

This means that smaller mechs can still put out some noteworthy LRM damage, but it will be more easily mitigated by AMS than our current boats are. It also gives our current boats the option to downgrade to smaller launchers, saving weight for a secondary array of weapons, but the increased heat output means they'll be less effective at LRM support and incapable of using LRMs while engaging with other weapons due to the high heat of the smaller launchers.


Combine that with rebalanced damage and the ecosystem/meta will shift towards a more favorable state of affairs.

[ExtremeA79]

I bet most of the people who voted "I already knew this stuff" are lying.