71 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Udachi Kerensky, on 02 August 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

doing this also increases the chances of hitting the CT with more missiles. that people have not realised that chain firing lrms is better than alpha is rather amusing to me.

Nice imaginary truth.

See, missiles don't have a spread-buffer between launchers. So a LRM-5 can overlap a LRM-5, just can't have the missile on top of one another.

The result is: 10 missiles in a LRM-5 pattern. Or in my A1, its 30.

Or in my OP's case, 40 missiles in a LRM-10 pattern.

If I get the good angle on a targeted mech, that can really devastate a CT.


So, yeah. It does keep it landing in the same spot regardless, so no real difference between volley or stagger fire.

[AnarchyBurger]

I dunno. The heat system is beyond stupid. Pretty much ruined the game for me, done....

[Void Angel]

Unbound Inferno, on 02 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Should see what the 6x LRM-5 A1 can do on a good day. That thing is scary - racks up its own heat a bit fast tho.

That's kind of my point; LRM stacking is a huge problem - right now just using a couple of launchers feels very weak, but the constant pounding you can dish out with a pure missile boat, while overwhelming point defenses, is over the top. By using the heat system to limit the number of launchers that can be employed at once, PGI is making boating a little more difficult to do. Certainly, you can still use massive numbers of heavy ballistics and (ER)PPCs, but you can't blast a moving target with a 45-damage pinpoint alpha any more. He has at least a chance to roll his torso or get behind cover, and you have to aim twice to get the same damage. Similarly, being able to stack tons of LRMs from large launchers makes AMS feel useless and allows you to forgo close defenses to hit like the hammer of Thor. That's being toned down - and a good thing, too.

On the other hand, stacking lots of small launchers allows you to not only attain a significantly higher rate of fire, but, as you yourself pointed out just now, this setup allows a user to stack more missiles into a tighter volley, resulting in massive damage to the center of mass with every hit. If you require that kind of unfair advantage to play your Catapult, perhaps you should be looking into what you are doing wrong, rather than howling for the heat system to be nerfed.

Edited by Void Angel, 02 August 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[El Bandito]

Fix ECM first. Make it into a soft counter and then take a look at LRMs.

[Void Angel]

I think ECM would work better as a soft counter (via the sensor range mechanic,) but it still works as-is. Insisting that the system is "broken" because you don't like how it works is irrational - and irrationality is a great way to ensure people don't take you seriously. That, and snide, hypocritical forum signatures...

[Sephlock]

Remember guys, people piloting unharmed fully armored atlases were getting one-shot by LRM15s or whatever the last ridiculous claim was. I stopped keeping track when it became apparent that they would never stop.

I would only be mildly surprised (I still have a sliver of faith in my fellow mechwarriors) if they had progressed to claiming that one SRM2 can one-shot a fully armored atlas with the first missile, with the second one flying through it to one-shot the fully armored atlas behind him.

[El Bandito]

Void Angel, on 02 August 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

I think ECM would work better as a soft counter (via the sensor range mechanic,) but it still works as-is. Insisting that the system is "broken" because you don't like how it works is irrational - and irrationality is a great way to ensure people don't take you seriously. That, and snide, hypocritical forum signatures...

1. It is suppose to be soft counter as per canon. PGI said "F@CK THE LORE" and made it complete ninja mode, instead of simply toning down the SSRMs--which had caused the problem.

2. Current ECM implementation is not only hated by me, it is hated by the majority of the forumers who had expressed it in multiple polls and endless threads. Guess you were sleeping under the rock. I want MWO to be a better and more balanced game and turning ECM into a soft counter as it should be, is a great big step towards that.

3. My forum signature maybe snide, and maybe hypocritical, but it is apt to a scary degree. You may disagree, but it does not make you any less clueless.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 August 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Nutlink]

Why they didn't just go with an LRM count (LRM20+10 has the same penalty as 2xLRM15 for example) is beyond me.

As for ECM, it's become somewhat less of an issue because missiles are no longer the main threat in the game, and therefore less people feel inclined to use it. It's still BS though and really should be fixed.

[Void Angel]

El Bandito, on 02 August 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

1. It is suppose to be soft counter as per canon. PGI said "F@CK THE LORE" and made it complete ninja mode, instead of simply toning down the SSRMs--which had caused the problem.

2. Current ECM implementation is not only hated by me, it is hated by the majority of the forumers who had expressed it in multiple polls and endless threads. Guess you were sleeping under the rock. I want MWO to be a better and more balanced game and turning ECM into a soft counter as it should be, is a great big step towards that.

3. My forum signature maybe snide, and maybe hypocritical, but it is apt to a scary degree. You may disagree, but it does not make you any less clueless.

Wow, there's so much wrong with all that, I'm just going to hit the highlights. Let me grab you a flaming clue.
1. It's not "supposed to be" because board game rules. Put the rulebook for the other game down, and stop hitting. Or just try reading the rulebook you're waving. Double-blind tabletop ECM works a LOT like in-game ECM. So not only is this tired, worn-out argument silly - it's also wrong.

2. No, it was hated on by relatively small numbers of loudly unhappy people, many of them waving rulebooks for different games. Despite your amateurish attempt to poison the well, my disagreement with your arbitrary claim to popular opinion doesn't make me ignorant. Quite the opposite, in fact. Also in fact, while ECM might possibly be better implemented in a different way, the way it is now implemented is workable.

3. There's no "maybe[sic]" about it. Your signature is inarguably snide, and hypocritical in the extreme - or did you have some professional knowledge you can lay verifiable claim to? Have you actually designed any games, or do you just substitute obstreperous ignorance for for any substance in your claims? No, you say you're right because, well you say you're right - and call names when you're challenged on your bullcrap. It's easy to feel right when you discount any opposing viewpoint and ignore the endless factual and logical inaccuracies int the nonsense you spout - but all you have is that feeling. You can call it "apt," all you want, but... You keep using that word...

You know what you really need to do? Go start a thread demanding that PGI allow you to sell your Founder's package to a more perceptive player, so you can take your sense of entitlement and go find a different game to troll.

[Roland]

Ok folks, you should try actually using some of these configs before you worry about them being broken.

For missiles, a 0.5 second delay in firing two groups is insignificant. It has zero impact.

Just fire the missiles in two groups. It will have effectively the exact same effect, even against mechs in AMS. The heat scale doesn't really do anything at all to lock-on weapons like missiles. The fact that it was added to them is kind of silly.

The heat scale penalty punishes alpha strikes of the same weapon... The reason why alpha strikes with the same weapon is powerful is because it puts all that damage in one spot.

For missiles, the damage location for every missile you fire is going to be fairly closely localized anyway, and you really aren't aiming them at all... So a 0.5 second delay doesn't actually have the same impact as it does on direct fire weapons.

For PPC's, if I want to pound your face with 4 PPC's, I need to hit you in the face twice, which is slightly harder... For missiles, they're going to go where they go, whether you push the trigger once or twice. Neither requires more skill, so firing them in groups isn't "harder".

[HIemfire]

Roland, on 02 August 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Ok folks, you should try actually using some of these configs before you worry about them being broken.

For missiles, a 0.5 second delay in firing two groups is insignificant. It has zero impact.

Just fire the missiles in two groups. It will have effectively the exact same effect, even against mechs in AMS. The heat scale doesn't really do anything at all to lock-on weapons like missiles. The fact that it was added to them is kind of silly.

The heat scale penalty punishes alpha strikes of the same weapon... The reason why alpha strikes with the same weapon is powerful is because it puts all that damage in one spot.

For missiles, the damage location for every missile you fire is going to be fairly closely localized anyway, and you really aren't aiming them at all... So a 0.5 second delay doesn't actually have the same impact as it does on direct fire weapons.

For PPC's, if I want to pound your face with 4 PPC's, I need to hit you in the face twice, which is slightly harder... For missiles, they're going to go where they go, whether you push the trigger once or twice. Neither requires more skill, so firing them in groups isn't "harder".

Like the three types of large lasers and both types of ppcs, they linked lrm10s, 15s and 20s into one mechanic and are basing the penalty off the highest heat producing weapon. So replace "same weapon" with "weapon family" in that part on alpha strikes and you have it right.

[MechWarrior849305]

Unbound Inferno, on 02 August 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I want 4(four){4x}[quad] LRM-10 which equals 40 missiles to be launched without this stupid heat penalty.
Right now firing 4x LRM-10 generates about twice the heat of two LRM-20s.

So take the same 40 missiles per 2 (two){2x}[double] LRM-20 and get less heat with LESS efficiency. Not a big deal.

[Unbound Inferno]

Roland, on 02 August 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Ok folks, you should try actually using some of these configs before you worry about them being broken.

For missiles, a 0.5 second delay in firing two groups is insignificant. It has zero impact.

Just fire the missiles in two groups. It will have effectively the exact same effect, even against mechs in AMS. The heat scale doesn't really do anything at all to lock-on weapons like missiles. The fact that it was added to them is kind of silly.

The heat scale penalty punishes alpha strikes of the same weapon... The reason why alpha strikes with the same weapon is powerful is because it puts all that damage in one spot.

For missiles, the damage location for every missile you fire is going to be fairly closely localized anyway, and you really aren't aiming them at all... So a 0.5 second delay doesn't actually have the same impact as it does on direct fire weapons.

For PPC's, if I want to pound your face with 4 PPC's, I need to hit you in the face twice, which is slightly harder... For missiles, they're going to go where they go, whether you push the trigger once or twice. Neither requires more skill, so firing them in groups isn't "harder".

You couldn't be more mistaken about AMS there...

See, 0.5 seconds allows it to fire off a good dozen shots. That's another 3-4 missiles you've lost. If its against grouped AMS, the effect is worse. Why? Because its not 2+ AMS firing on the same missile, its got time to fire on a different one. The effect of it being shredded is faster.

If its 3+ AMS, you are screwed with two 20-missile salvos. Lucky if you get half a dozen down.

The entire intent of breaking the AMS shield is then out the window, as if it was a full 40 I might have had over 10 land. At least then it was worth shooting.


Now? I've gotta burn missiles to have them burn AMS before I even cause significant damage.
PPC and direct-fire weapons don't need to, and as a LRM user I'm now in a horrendous spot cause if by chance they get a good shot off one me and knock an arm off, well... goodbye match, I can't help anymore.

So yeah. Tried that, attempted it - and its not in a good place anymore. PGI's gotta fix it cause the Catapults are back to junk-worthless unless its the A1 or the PPC K2/C1joke.

DuoAngel, on 03 August 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

So take the same 40 missiles per 2 (two){2x}[double] LRM-20 and get less heat with LESS efficiency. Not a big deal.

It is a big deal when my first 100 or so missile, about 12 seconds worth of fighting is a waste.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 03 August 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[Skyfaller]

Roland, on 02 August 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Ok folks, you should try actually using some of these configs before you worry about them being broken.

For missiles, a 0.5 second delay in firing two groups is insignificant. It has zero impact.

Just fire the missiles in two groups. It will have effectively the exact same effect, even against mechs in AMS.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

I run a stalker 5s and I have my 2 AMS installed. I can completely deny a catapult A1 firing SIX lrm5's at me in chain fire mode. Not a SINGLE missile lands. When he switches to fire-all-at-once my AMS can only shoot down half his salvo.

That same stalker 5s also shoots down practically EVERY SINGLE missile of a quad lrm15 being fired at it in chain fire. Each AMS shoots down 7 missiles. 2 AMS bring down 14. The one remaining missile tickles my armor. If that quad LRM15 is fired all at once at me... i'm in trouble. the AMS can only bring down about 14 missiles before the remaining 46 slam into my hull.

...but with the heat penalty the poor SOB firing it is at near max heat. No second full volley fire will be coming my way for some time.

What is really silly is that four LRM10s get a heavy heat penalty too. My dual AMS can bring them down 100% if they are fired in 2's.

No matter how you see it, the heat penalty is absolute idiocy. Put in place by people who clearly do not play or understand the game.

The only penalty that makes sense for LRMs is not heat based but rather lock-based.

Your tracking/targeting system could overload from having too many missiles in the air, causing the lock to reset.

The way this penalty would work is by the system counting how many missiles are in the air vs. the launcher type. Each launcher has the ability to track its # of missiles times 2.

So..
an LRM5 installed gives you 10 missiles.
an LRM10 gives you 20
LRM15 gives you 30
LRM20 gives you 40.

Having two LRM20s and 2 LRM5s gives you a total of 100 missiles in the air allowed before lock is lost. Basically 2 salvos. If you fire a third salvo the lock is lost and the first volley of missiles may miss (timing wise, they're about to hit by then).

This system then becomes dual fold in nature. Chain fire allows constant missile fire without reaching the 100 limit... while 'alpha' salvos are limited to two volleys.

[Sephlock]

[Shakespeare]

Unbound Inferno, on 02 August 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Nice imaginary truth.

See, missiles don't have a spread-buffer between launchers. So a LRM-5 can overlap a LRM-5, just can't have the missile on top of one another.

The result is: 10 missiles in a LRM-5 pattern. Or in my A1, its 30.

Or in my OP's case, 40 missiles in a LRM-10 pattern.

If I get the good angle on a targeted mech, that can really devastate a CT.


So, yeah. It does keep it landing in the same spot regardless, so no real difference between volley or stagger fire.

Which is probably why the lower weight LRMs are in the max-alpha system the way they are - the idea is that if you want to bring more missiles to the party, use a larger launcher...boating the smaller ones significantly increases the % damage on CT, which is one of the values used to balance the larger LRM systems, along with recycle and heat.

Frankly, it's a bit stupid that you can put ONE LRM 15 on a cat-ear to launch in 1 volley, but also SEVERAL, as long as they aren't too big. LRM tubes aren't being used appropriately as a balancing/ chassis variation tool. It's likely that the heat nerf was a first step towards that.
If you've got an LRM rack that can launch up to 15 in a volley, you should ONLY be able to dump 15 at a time. Right now, you can actually fire several times the tube limit as long as the individual launchers are the right size. Not only is this nonsensical, but it also allows people to take advantage of the tighter cluster on small launchers to make their LRMs more potent.
That shouldn't be a thing. LRMs will be a lot easier to manage from a balance/ value standpoint if tube limitations per-volley actually worked properly. Since that's not the case, I'll take what I can get. Which right now, is a heat penalty for boating small launchers instead of bringing a large one, and dealing with the penalties to CT hit %.

Edited by Shakespeare, 04 August 2013 - 04:24 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Shakespeare, on 04 August 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Which is probably why the lower weight LRMs are in the max-alpha system the way they are - the idea is that if you want to bring more missiles to the party, use a larger launcher...boating the smaller ones significantly increases the % damage on CT, which is one of the values used to balance the larger LRM systems, along with recycle and heat.

Frankly, it's a bit stupid that you can put ONE LRM 15 on a cat-ear to launch in 1 volley, but also SEVERAL, as long as they aren't too big. LRM tubes aren't being used appropriately as a balancing/ chassis variation tool. It's likely that the heat nerf was a first step towards that.
If you've got an LRM rack that can launch up to 15 in a volley, you should ONLY be able to dump 15 at a time. Right now, you can actually fire several times the tube limit as long as the individual launchers are the right size. Not only is this nonsensical, but it also allows people to take advantage of the tighter cluster on small launchers to make their LRMs more potent.
That shouldn't be a thing. LRMs will be a lot easier to manage from a balance/ value standpoint if tube limitations per-volley actually worked properly. Since that's not the case, I'll take what I can get. Which right now, is a heat penalty for boating small launchers instead of bringing a large one, and dealing with the penalties to CT hit %.

Yet... the larger launchers are useless on the mechs intended to use larger launchers.

Both the Awesome and Catapults fire full 15-salvo, and the C4 uses the full 20-salvo. At that size its a horrendous waste of ammo and space. A dual LRM-20 from a C4 deals as much damage on a mech as a pair of LRM-10s. So, load up 4x LRM-10s and I got a 40-salvo that deals damage in at least some appreciable amount. So int he same amount of ammo I just about doubled my damage rate. With a smaller launcher.

Its hardly encouraging to use larger sizes when I become volumes more ineffective, with less shots, dealing less damage and unable to actually damage a single mech enough to kill it.

Not much of a chance they'll fix that, so I'll continue to argue to fix the only alternative that left me with a chance of enjoying the game in this atmosphere of PPC/Gauss meta where at most I get 2-3 salvos off before I'm either crippled or killed.


So, PGI - FIX THOSE LRM-10s TO FIRE MORE. Because we all know its not like you'll admit you made LRMs wrong and fix that.

[Aim64C]

Sephlock, on 04 August 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

God, I loved this episode.

"Well-well, seems like you just initiated your self-destruct sequence. Let me give you a count-down-FIVE! *Wham*"

I was so happy to see how they kept Vegeta's personality in that episode yet made it their own...

But, yes, this does apply to people in this game and LRMs.

That said - LRM 10s do have a tighter clustering than LRM 20s (especially from a kitty) - to the point where I've dropped LRM20s from my catapults in favor doubling up on LRM10 launchers for each LRM20.

Otherwise, over half of your salvo goes to waste, even with LOS, TAG, and Artemis.

But then you're practically auto-coring stuff... which is only balanced by the fact that you're having to stare down the barrel of a few autocannons, PPCs, and gauss rifles (which, arguably, is not very balanced...).

[Sephlock]

FupDup, on 30 July 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Well, you can maybe fit your C4 with 2 LRM 15 and 2 LRM 5 for the same total number of missiles for 2 tons less weight (but with slightly different cooldowns).


But yes, I agree that it's pretty stupid; especially seeing how the SRM2 has a max alpha but the LRM5 doesn't. DAFUQ?!!!

Please edit that post to remove that last bit. You have to know that they're going to address this oversight by giving LRM5s a max of 2.

[Andross Deverow]

Unbound Inferno, on 30 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Explain this to me...

Paul's heat scale...

LRM-20 x2 = 40
LRM-15 x2 = 30
LRM-10 x2 = 20
I really hoped it was a typo and was going to be fixed by the patch, but I guess not..

LRM-5 isn't restricted, but the best is on an A1 for 6, meaning 30 launched, not so bad...

Then there is the linking...

LRM-20+15=35
LRM-20+10=30
LRM-15+10=25
LRM-10+10=20


Why is a LRM20 so dangerous to be in this kind of a mess? I can't understand why the limit is a LRM40 or less... but this is just stupid - especially when missile spreads make the dual LRM-20 out of a Catapult weak as hell.. It forces chain-fire on the LRM10s into an easily shootable pattern, rendering the Catapult line even further behind in piratical support uselessness.

Even accounting hardpoint restrictions the only mech that ever makes the LRM10s dangerous is the A1 with 6x for LRM60, and that's sacrificing ammo due to its size, even then its still behind the typical LRM80-100 Stalker from the tube launching patterns. Even the Awesome deals and handles better as a LRM boat than that being more durable with more shots. Also Assaults can boat enough Lasers as backup with Missiles and ammo making the Catapult's only versatility with JJs a token thought in the confines of MW:O fighting grounds.

Goodbye Catapult C4. Back to the shelf with you as the Dual LRM20s are useless wastes of ammo still.


I'm pretty much limited to my A1 now if I want to run a Catapult and feel like I am dealing damage with LRMs or SRMs, unless I turn the C1 into a PPC runner - since LRM15s or LRM20s are woefully lacking in actually dealing damage.


So, an explanation PGI? Maybe a fix? Cause right now the C4 can't use the 4x LRM10 style in a sustained fire without shredding itself on AMS rendering it useless again since every shot counts with almost no backup weapons.

Great patch nerfing an already vulnerable chassis that can't use PPCs, Gauss or AC20 well.

Personally I love it when an A1 equips 6 LRM5's... Such easy kills..

regards