39 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

Quoting InRev from another thread (http://mwomercs.com/...80#entry2536071) because this post touches on a subject that deserves more attention than it'll get, being 5 pages down someplace else:

InRev, on 08 July 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Isn't it a shame? AMS implementation, ECM, and the way they do 0 damage at min range instead of suffering an accuracy penalty have made LRMs an all-or-nothing weapon: either balls-deep with 60 missile salvos, or nothing at all. It's a crying shame because they could be an ideal lightweight, long-range option for mediums and even lights if they were actually usable in sub-30 volleys. An LRM 10 is only 5 tons and could do around 7 average damage at 1000m. That's perfect! Instead, what we have is AMS devouring LRM-5s and 10s like cake, ECM making Tag mandatory or else, and LRMs a completely worthless liability at sub 180m ranges.

It's perhaps the most extreme example of a weapon mechanic that favors boating disproportionately (although Lord knows there are plenty in this game). The AMS thing in particular makes me wonder ¿"qué ******" is the balance team thinking?

I've suggested that the smaller LRM launchers should have different projectile velocity than large launchers. I think this is one possible way to make LRMs useful in small numbers.

You could have an LRM5 as a side-weapon and some of your missiles might make it past AMS. You could boat four or six LRM5s and maybe it would be pretty nasty, but you wouldn't be shooting 80 of them. You could have a combination of LRM5 and LRM15 to keep opponents off-guard.

There are numerous mechs that come equipped with LRM launchers as side-weapons. They are all worthless, and we all know they are, because InRev points out: AMS makes it basically impossible to damage most opponents unless you are firing huge salvos.


Are there other ways to make LRMs useful when not boated, without making LRM boats too strong?

[Unbound Inferno]

No. Then you'd have a different problem to contend with: boating smaller launchers.

Think of what this does for the 6-missile Catapult A-1.

[Braggart]

There needs to be a fix.

If they dont make lrms better then i want a weapon that an AMS that works against PPCS, and lasers, and ACs.

I think that AMS should only work missiles targeting you. That would fix a lot, but probably still need some more work.

also unbound. a 6 lrm 5 catapult would do at most a 33 damage a volley, that is meh. When you consider most mechs carry pinpoint alphas that are bigger.

Edited by Braggart, 09 July 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[Hotthedd]

If missiles were restricted to the number of missile tubes on a mech, LRMs and SRMs could be made more powerful without having to (or even being ABLE to in most cases) boat massive numbers of missiles.


Unfortunately, the Lurm lobby will never support this.

[Unbound Inferno]

Hotthedd, on 09 July 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

If missiles were restricted to the number of missile tubes on a mech, LRMs and SRMs could be made more powerful without having to (or even being ABLE to in most cases) boat massive numbers of missiles.


Unfortunately, the Lurm lobby will never support this.

I wouldn't mind, but PGI was saying they were going to add graphics to expand the tube sizes when loading more. Would also do the same for weapons so it appears you have the right weapon loaded on some.

[Hotthedd]

Unbound Inferno, on 09 July 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind, but PGI was saying they were going to add graphics to expand the tube sizes when loading more. Would also do the same for weapons so it appears you have the right weapon loaded on some.

Yep, that sounds like PGI alright.
Dev #1: "Let's spend extra time on graphics to augment a broken mechanic, rather than actually FIX the broken mechanic."
Dev #2: "Great idea, sir! How about we move the mapmaker team off their project to implement this?"
Dev #3: "Fine, as long as you do not bother the 3PV team. We have millions of potential phantom customers waiting on that."

[scJazz]

Would adding two new LRM Launchers XLRM5 and XLRM10 with the stats being similar to respective launchers work? Add a flag for mechs like the Centurion and Dragon to allow using this launcher type. Then tweak LRM speed or missile hit points. The user might still need a TAG to be effective but the missiles would arrive on target at least. Could also go so far as to disallow Artemis on this launcher type. Or not.

Thoughts?

Signed,
Member of the LRMBoating Association of Inner Sphere
(Actually not really the most I use is LRM35)

[Ngamok]

I actually use LRMs on my HBK-4SP as a way to soften up targets at range before they come at me and my 4xML and SRM6. I also use them on 2 of 3 of my Highlander builds. Because if we are gonna play the snipe game with it, I am also going to try to get you when I can't see you over hills and stuff. I also have 1 Trebuchet with them as well. It's for fast moving team support in the 200-500 range where I can still hit with the medium lasers.

[Unbound Inferno]

scJazz, on 09 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Would adding two new LRM Launchers XLRM5 and XLRM10 with the stats being similar to respective launchers work? Add a flag for mechs like the Centurion and Dragon to allow using this launcher type. Then tweak LRM speed or missile hit points. The user might still need a TAG to be effective but the missiles would arrive on target at least. Could also go so far as to disallow Artemis on this launcher type. Or not.

Thoughts?

Signed,
Member of the LRMBoating Association of Inner Sphere
(Actually not really the most I use is LRM35)

In 4 years.

The Extended LRM doesn't come out till 3054. If you mean that. Something else? I wouldn't want to drift from cannon.

Did some figuring.

The ELRMs would have a minimum range of 300m but a maximum range of around 2100m.
Would not work with Artemis nor NARC.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 09 July 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[xDeityx]

Unbound Inferno, on 09 July 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

In 4 years.

The Extended LRM doesn't come out till 3054.

Did some figuring.

The ELRMs would have a minimum range of 300m but a maximum range of around 2100m.
Would not work with Artemis nor NARC.

Are we still keeping up the farce that we're holding to the actual timeline?

*looks around for the Clans*

[Mudhutwarrior]

LRM 5 10 and 20 alone pretty much useless now. If you don't send 40 or more at a time its pointless more often than not. Even then all the stompers stick in ams pack until their exausted then kill in free range. Built and mastered a cat with dual 20's and I have had matches with solid locks to targets and a 1080 missles later ended up with less than 100 damage. Thats with advance sensor, and target decay on. Wasn't dropping lock or the other team hiding it was most had ams. Really they never tried to avoid the volleys just stood together.

I would not begin to understand how to balance it but maybe if we had warhead selection like HE airburst or thermobaric packages we could counter in some ways. The options are so narrow so they will nurf or buff something till its passable instead,. Would be nice to have some tactical choices in those instances and it would be cool to decide if your ineffective to at least turn up their heat and slow their rate of fire.

[Hotthedd]

Mudhutwarrior, on 09 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

LRM 5 10 and 20 alone pretty much useless now. If you don't send 40 or more at a time its pointless more often than not. Even then all the stompers stick in ams pack until their exausted then kill in free range. Built and mastered a cat with dual 20's and I have had matches with solid locks to targets and a 1080 missles later ended up with less than 100 damage. Thats with advance sensor, and target decay on. Wasn't dropping lock or the other team hiding it was most had ams. Really they never tried to avoid the volleys just stood together.

I would not begin to understand how to balance it but maybe if we had warhead selection like HE airburst or thermobaric packages we could counter in some ways. The options are so narrow so they will nurf or buff something till its passable instead,. Would be nice to have some tactical choices in those instances and it would be cool to decide if your ineffective to at least turn up their heat and slow their rate of fire.

If the launchers were limited by missile tubes as to how many missiles could be fired, they could make 2xLRM20s as deadly as 2xAC/20s. (WITHOUT having the balance problems of LRM60s)

[Lightfoot]

It's a delicate balance, but the current LRMs do not compete with direct-fire weapons. That's one reason everyone just uses PPCs. If LRMs worked reasonably well, players would drop PPCs for LRMs and Lasers or LRMs and 1 or 2 PPCs. Missiles go with Energy better than with Ballistics.

LRMs take quite a bit of effort to land on targets and those targets have every opportunity to evade LRMs. During the 2-3 weeks LRMs were bugged/ overpowered, I was never once hit by them. Players shot tons at me, but LRMs in MWO are so simple to evade.

So keeping the ease at which players can evade them in mind LRMs need to be made too dangerous to not try to evade them. So far in MWO, if I start firing LRMs on a mech they come straight at me across open ground and win, even LRMx45. I typically use BAP, Artie, TAG, LoS, target Decay, Extended Sensors.

There is something wrong when players run straight into LRMx45, knowing they can get away with it. It teaches players to boat PPCs and Gauss, or AC20's, and that is what you see. It teaches them to expect to be immortal to LRMs so if LRMs ever start to work they all whine on the forums that they were killed by LRMs and how this has got to stop! They say how everyone is leaving MWO and how insane PGI is for making LRMs work and PGI put's out a hotfix nerf. I would just say learn to evade LRMs better, it's pretty easy.

True there was a Bug that had LRMs way over-powered, but the reset for LRMs was so nerfy players just all switched to PPCs.

The fix for LRMs is just make them do their job and tell players to improve their evasion skills and tactics. And if they get killed by LRMs and whine, say too bad. You'll do better next time.

Edited by Lightfoot, 09 July 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Braggart, on 09 July 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

also unbound. a 6 lrm 5 catapult would do at most a 33 damage a volley, that is meh. When you consider most mechs carry pinpoint alphas that are bigger.

Exactly. If the LRM5's missiles were more likely to strike the target, by being faster -- less vulnerable to AMS, and harder to dodge -- then it would be a useful side-weapon. Sure, you could boat it, but like Braggart says above, it won't be super-deadly.

[Volthorne]

Hotthedd, on 09 July 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

If the launchers were limited by missile tubes as to how many missiles could be fired, they could make 2xLRM20s as deadly as 2xAC/20s. (WITHOUT having the balance problems of LRM60s)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, as this already happens. Try and fire an LRM-20 through a 6-tube launcher? You get a 6-6-6-2 firing pattern.

jeffsw6, on 09 July 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Exactly. If the LRM5's missiles were more likely to strike the target, by being faster -- less vulnerable to AMS, and harder to dodge -- then it would be a useful side-weapon. Sure, you could boat it, but like Braggart says above, it won't be super-deadly.

I'm not sure how missiles being fired from an LRM-5 would be faster than missiles fired from an LRM-20, because they're a universal ammo-type, right? So that makes zero sense. Unless, of course, you buy a different brand of missile that carries more and stronger fuel at the expense of payload.

[jeffsw6]

Volthorne, on 09 July 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm not sure how missiles being fired from an LRM-5 would be faster than missiles fired from an LRM-20, because they're a universal ammo-type, right? So that makes zero sense. Unless, of course, you buy a different brand of missile that carries more and stronger fuel at the expense of payload.

It's a video game. They can make the LRM5 launch faster projectiles if they want to, simply by those missiles having been fired from an LRM5 instead of an LRM20.

Sure, there could be a different kind of ammo for them. That would still be good for utility but make it slightly less useful to combine some LRM5s and LRM20s in a boat in order to keep opponents off-guard.

My point is, this could be done either way, and it would be a good change. The ammo consideration is just not very important.

[Hotthedd]

Volthorne, on 09 July 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, as this already happens. Try and fire an LRM-20 through a 6-tube launcher? You get a 6-6-6-2 firing pattern.

What I am saying is that a 6-tube launcher would only fire 6 missiles.
For example: LRM5 would fire 5 (powerful) missiles from that location, LRM10, LRM15, or LRM20 would fire 6 missiles from that location. (6-0-0-0, Not 6-6-6-2)

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I would be fine testing another speed boost to LRMs.

But the concern is with boats that spam multiple launchers for big volleys (45+) that make CTs disappear too quickly. LRM targeting needs the new "bones" system mentioned for SSRMs implemented for LRMs too, IMHO.


And AMS would need another tweak so that smaller Launchers are viable and maybe could be used as a way to prevent huge volleys (40 or 45+) from hitting the targeted mech if it was carrying an AMS. Maybe having AMS take out 20% of out of each Volley for a start?

[Volthorne]

Hotthedd, on 09 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

What I am saying is that a 6-tube launcher would only fire 6 missiles.
For example: LRM5 would fire 5 (powerful) missiles from that location, LRM10, LRM15, or LRM20 would fire 6 missiles from that location. (6-0-0-0, Not 6-6-6-2)

So basically "put something of equivalent or lesser tube count here or f*** you". Yep, that would go over really well.

jeffsw6, on 09 July 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

It's a video game. They can make the LRM5 launch faster projectiles if they want to, simply by those missiles having been fired from an LRM5 instead of an LRM20.

Ah yes, the old "it's a video game you can do whatever the hell you want" argument. The fallback of people with no actual reasons. You remember the 6xLRM-5 A1 of closed beta? That would be back and murdering people all over the place again. Not to mention you'd have to implement this change for SRMs as well...

[Unbound Inferno]

Praetor Shepard, on 09 July 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

I would be fine testing another speed boost to LRMs.

But the concern is with boats that spam multiple launchers for big volleys (45+) that make CTs disappear too quickly. LRM targeting needs the new "bones" system mentioned for SSRMs implemented for LRMs too, IMHO.


And AMS would need another tweak so that smaller Launchers are viable and maybe could be used as a way to prevent huge volleys (40 or 45+) from hitting the targeted mech if it was carrying an AMS. Maybe having AMS take out 20% of out of each Volley for a start?

Nice graph, but you need to keep in mind the efficiency of the missile accuracy by launcher spreads that actually hit the CT. The AMS system focuses on the immediate threat that tends to be those missiles.

Going by that;
LRM5 typically is 3-4 that land
LRM10 is 5-6
LRM15 is 6-7
LRM20 is 7-8

A stalker boat launches in LRM10 patterns of 4 volleys usually. A Catapult or Awesome can get up to LRM15 unless they boat different launchers. My A1 is using 6x LRM5 for a test for now. The C4 is handicapped to a LRM20 if it uses that. The ammo efficiency and what will hit the mech is disproportionate for what you fear.


However the AMS targeting will hit any that are a threat, so it might be hitting some that wouldn't hit the CT anyway, rendering its effectiveness less.

In my signature I have a proposed stagger fire that cuts the landing spread down to make the larger launchers as effective as the smaller. However it buffs AMS by giving the AMS more time to shoot them. That is what you want if you want the AMS to work effectively, more time.


I mentioned I'm testing my A1 with 6x LRM5. I am finding against lights I can do better with a stagger chain fire as they move and get hung up for some to hit. But its useless against AMS where I'll just toss a volley of 30. That's the difference we have for now - the AMS against a mass volley is less effective than against a few missiles on average.


I don't mind the $ shot down idea, but I don't think they can do that in this mechanic system of the game.

Hotthedd, on 09 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

What I am saying is that a 6-tube launcher would only fire 6 missiles.
For example: LRM5 would fire 5 (powerful) missiles from that location, LRM10, LRM15, or LRM20 would fire 6 missiles from that location. (6-0-0-0, Not 6-6-6-2)

Oh, and no. Oh hell no. Never.

The game system has the LRM 20 using 20 ammo on launch. It'll be **** to have as you just wasted 14 shots that never went anywhere.