23 replies to this topic

[ExAstris]

The LRM coring problem is becuase missiles already behave as you describe. Smaller launchers have tighter spread. Combine that with artemis and tag and you get CT hits with more missiles from smaller launchers. This is why you barely ever see LRM20s. LRM15s are optimal with artemis/tag against assaults, but 10s work better against mediums and 5s against lights.

LRMs would be much easier to balance by normalizing the spread for all launchers and normalizing their terminal maneuverability (again, some testers report that the LRM5s and 10s actually turn sharper on final impact in order to increase their effectiveness against smaller/faster targets). Then after doing that, we can buff missile damage (because their best spread will always be LRM20ish, meaning all torso hits on an imobile atlas at best, but no all CT hits on anything). And we can go back to the old final impact trajectories where the missiles pepper over the area the mech is in instead of swerving down and focusing in at the last moment using their own maneuverability instead of the spread to get hits (the current system causes aweful discrepencies against targets based on speed and direction, while the old system provided reliable damage scaled by target size and only slightly bothered by speed, which was much better).

Then, after they are normalized we can further buff the rates of fire on the smaller launchers to encourage using them. Then LRMs will have an internal balance to which launcher is best to take. Larger launchers provide better heat/missile and better overall missiles/time, but smaller launchers offer much better missiles/ton, making the smaller launchers suitable secondary weapons and the larger launchers as suitable primary weapons.


TL;DR
Missile spreads and maneuverability are currently not normalized, and its actually more of a problem than it is a solution.

[scJazz]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

I don't think that is true for a weapon that has been known to be extremely random for its 30 years of use. LRM20s could hit with 6-20 missiles and able to pepper the whole chassis or no hot dice rip a section clean off. LRMs and SRMs are random weapons by design.

I want to cry every time I see this variation on the theme posted. Yes in TT they are random by design, along with UACs, LBXs and a bunch of other weapons. However we are not playing TT where you had a 1 in 36 chance of TAC or Head hit. TAC and Head hits are what makes LRMs, SRMs, LBXs, and UACs viable in TT.

You start applying the randomized damage to LRMs in MWO and you just destroyed a marginally useful weapon system.

[Joseph Mallan]

scJazz, on 25 July 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I want to cry every time I see this variation on the theme posted. Yes in TT they are random by design, along with UACs, LBXs and a bunch of other weapons. However we are not playing TT where you had a 1 in 36 chance of TAC or Head hit. TAC and Head hits are what makes LRMs, SRMs, LBXs, and UACs viable in TT.

You start applying the randomized damage to LRMs in MWO and you just destroyed a marginally useful weapon system.

I do not believe this is true. LRMs are not meant to be a pin point weapons. They are a scatter weapon. Its why they throw volleys of missiles instead of Thunderbolt LRMs single max damage missiles. UACs randomness makes sense due to the first shots recoil (Fire a Machine gun and watch how the weapon pulls) And a shotgun blast is anything but Pin Point accurate. LB-X where for when you already punched a hole in the armor.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 July 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Team Leader]

I really have no idea what im talking about so if you guys prove me wrong then Ill change my mind lol