230 replies to this topic

[Galenit]

Shockwave144, on 03 October 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Why does it feel like I'm the only one who knows this.

Maybe its because LRMs depend more one the victims then the user skill?

Shockwave144, on 03 October 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

LRM's are the only weapons in the game that require you to bring a defenseive weapon which takes up tonnage. Since LRM's auto track and require little to no effort to use, the AMS should be more effective since it's mandatory, as you say. I wish I didn't have to use it everytime but the current AMS doesn't cut it against and endless wave of rockets.

You see it the wrong way.
LRMs are the only weapons that require you to bring artemis and tag and need a module to be effective.
And they are the only weapons that have easymode counter and damagereductionoptions for 1,5 tons each.

[xMEPHISTOx]

LRM's in their current state are fine. They are SUPPORT weapons that soften targets up not melt them in 30 seconds. They are working as closely as intended at this point imo after all the buffs/nerfs they've taken since closed beta.
I don't play my LRM mechs all that much but when I do I have no complaints on their performance. It is a weapon that requires a team effort to use successfully not buffing. When they fail (in pug matches) it is most likely due to lack of team mates facilitating their needs on the battlefield.

[Wolfways]

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

LRM's in their current state are fine. They are SUPPORT weapons that soften targets up not melt them in 30 seconds. They are working as closely as intended at this point imo after all the buffs/nerfs they've taken since closed beta.
I don't play my LRM mechs all that much but when I do I have no complaints on their performance. It is a weapon that requires a team effort to use successfully not buffing. When they fail (in pug matches) it is most likely due to lack of team mates facilitating their needs on the battlefield.

I haven't read anywhere that they are a support weapon, and i don't believe that a weapon is balanced if it requires teamwork (plus as others have mentioned, TAG and ArtemisIV) to be effective. What other weapon requires anything to be effective?
But i can understand how you can think LRM's are balanced if you see them as a support weapon with indirect fire as their main purpose.

[Baba Yogi]

I do agree OP on certain points. If we acquire lock through direct line of sight it should be fire and forget and only way to not get hit should be through cover. Tag should allow indirect attacks(as long as it is active so no fire and forget) and narcs should mix artemis and tag functions together. Basically allow lrms to make indirect attacks with artemis bonus. Also ecm should only remove artemis bonuses and narc nothing else. (THat was a stupid move imo). With all these buffs lrms will definately make a comeback. But then again, lrms will need to have greater spread and miss some of their shots if these changes were made since it will be too good otherwise. (few seconds and you can have up to 60-80 missiles on air guaranteed to hit)

[Barantor]

Wolfways, on 04 October 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

But i can understand how you can think LRM's are balanced if you see them as a support weapon with indirect fire as their main purpose.

Indirect fire I do think LRMs should be a support weapon, but direct fire I think they should be balanced like any other weapon. This is why I think that AMS shouldn't work when LRMs are launched under 500m and that direct fire LRMs should be faster. Wouldn't have to change anything else and it would potentially make the LRMs nice for a weapon to soften up a target before getting in very close range.

Indirect fire should be able to be countered way easier than direct, since all other direct fire weapons have no 'counter' besides cover which... makes them not direct again.

[Galenit]

Barantor, on 04 October 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

Indirect fire I do think LRMs should be a support weapon, but direct fire I think they should be balanced like any other weapon. This is why I think that AMS shouldn't work when LRMs are launched under 500m and that direct fire LRMs should be faster.

Give them scaling speed, they go slower the longer they travel and up the start velocity to 150m/s (srm have 200).

Lets say 150m/s at launch, 140 m/s at 200m, 130m/s at 400m, 120m/s at 600m, 100m/s at 800m

They travel now at 120m/s, that would make ams less effective against them until 600m, where it has then the effect of now and it will be more effective over 600m against them.

This lets you window a from 200-600m to use them with los for an effect that that much wheigt should have and gives them the option to be used as support weapon without los for much less effect.
The small 400m window is the price you pay for the second option you can use them for and its the spot where they should hurt as much as any other weapons of the same weight (including ammo, cooling and supportsystems).
Maybe they should hurt more in the window of opportunity, because they have a min-range of 200m?

Edited by Galenit, 04 October 2013 - 04:26 AM.

[Specops12]

LRMs are ******* OP with Artemis, they nearly only hit your torso, and they can go over a lot of "cover" in the game. The reason why you saw few to no lrms is because lrms are a skill less weapon, but they are still ridiculously good, for a weapon you don't even need to aim.

[Joseph Mallan]

Spec you have to follow your target till the missiles reach... That is much more "aiming" than say a Gauss or even lasers. Trust me when I say there is little to no "skill" required to use any weapon in this game, beyond point and click.

[Galenit]

Specops12, on 04 October 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

LRMs are ******* OP with Artemis, they nearly only hit your torso, and they can go over a lot of "cover" in the game. The reason why you saw few to no lrms is because lrms are a skill less weapon, but they are still ridiculously good, for a weapon you don't even need to aim.

You are wrong again young mechwarrior.

First Lessen:

Lets see what we need to hit an atlas ddc at 500m (we use this, because we want a target that you can hit without taking his movement into account) with an ac10, a gaus and a lrm15.

Ac10:
1. Need los and see target
2. Aim
3. Fire


Gaus:
1. Need los and see target
2+3. Aim and loadweapon and take firewindow into account
4. release weapon

LRM15:
1. Need Los and see target
2. Hold tag on the target, then mark the target,
3. wait for lock and hold tag on target.
4. Fire and hold tag on the target.
5. Hold tag for a nother 4.1 seconds on the target.


In next lessons, we will talk about faster mechs, moving into cover, ams and multiple ams and the risk of staying in los for the 5 or more seconds and the chance of hitting mechs more the 500m away and what happens if they are more then 750m away and have ecm.

Did you know, that most lrm users have around 35% accuracy with them?
(I dont know if this had changed with the mass use of small launchers?)

Edited by Galenit, 04 October 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

LRMs don't require pinpoint aiming, but they are the most strategic intensive weapon in the game.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Wolfways, on 04 October 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

I haven't read anywhere that they are a support weapon, and i don't believe that a weapon is balanced if it requires teamwork (plus as others have mentioned, TAG and ArtemisIV) to be effective.

Well lets be honost all weapons require team work and this is essentially a game based on team efforts (always has been back to Battletech:Solaris on aol) therefore your point is moot. Didn't think you would needed to read it anywhere as it is common sense and logic knowing that they are support/indirect fire weapons, hell indirect fire directly describes what they do, how can you not see that lol.

Quote

What other weapon requires anything to be effective?

Uhhhmmmmm...all of them. Every weapon on every mech is far superior when teamwork is applied. What are you some kind of solo puggie? Not only that but snipers require precision aiming, brawlers need good movement ie. torso/leg twisting to prolong survival...not sure if your just trolling or not w/such a silly question.

Quote

But i can understand how you can think LRM's are balanced if you see them as a support weapon with indirect fire as their main purpose.

Yes as their intended purpose all through history. Missle based weapons have traditionally been indirect fire support weapons ie. arrows, catapults etc. Even to this day this logic is applied...ground troops in direct confrontation with the enemy call in artillery and long range missle fire to SUPPORT them. How you think your argument has any validity is beyond my reasoning ability and I will leave it at your points and opinions are your own be they logical or not.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 04 October 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[Wolfways]

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Well lets be honost all weapons require team work and this is essentially a game based on team efforts (always has been back to Battletech:Solaris on aol) therefore your point is moot. Didn't think you would needed to read it anywhere as it is common sense and logic knowing that they are support/indirect fire weapons, hell indirect fire directly describes what they do, how can you not see that lol.

Complete rubbish. Direct fire weapons do not require teamwork whether the game is team based or not. Does a LL have reduced effectiveness if you fire at your own target?
They are normal fire weapons that can be used for indirect fire.

Quote

Uhhhmmmmm...all of them. Every weapon on every mech is far superior when teamwork is applied. What are you some kind of solo puggie? Not only that but snipers require precision aiming, brawlers need good movement ie. torso/leg twisting to prolong survival...not sure if your just trolling or not w/such a silly question.

So which weapons require extra equipment to function effectively? Same question as before. How about not giving a stupid answer?

Quote

Yes as their intended purpose all through history. Missle based weapons have traditionally been indirect fire support weapons ie. arrows, catapults etc. How you think your argument has any validity is beyond my reasoning ability and I will leave it at your points and opinions are your own be they logical or not.

Yes because missiles are never fired direct...

[Autobot9000]

I second these points:

- range needs to be upped
- ECM needs to be nerfed (one of the fixes could also involve enlarging the area, where ECM can be detected (before the actual ECM effect kicks in, i.e. make the detection area greater than the effect area)

I disagree on the fire and forget idea. There needs to be a little bit of skill involved in using LRMs. Fire and forget would make these missiles the only guns used in this game.

I would like to add these three points:
- LRM damage needs to be upped - I am not necessarily saying doubled, but upped.
In MWO every mech has twice the armor than in TT, but LRMs remain at their damage. I can see, that the armor doubling has been added to account for faster fire rates of pin point guns, but I can not see the justification for area damage weapons like LRMs. At the moment it's too hard to score with LRMs.

- Maps need to be revisted
Currently there are maps that do not allow LRMs to be used, such as Terra Therma. Here LRMs will always hit the rocks no matter where. If I can not change my loadout before playing on a map (drop loadout customization, like in a BT story), then all builds must work on all maps, thats a simple verdict of logic.

- The cockpit shake needs to go. It's ridiculous to have vision clouding, screen shaking blasts for every ******* LRM salvo. If they do hit the cockpit I take that effect, but currently it's a joke. Remove that {Scrap} and remove that from smaller AC guns as well. Reserve this cheesy stuff for the events, where something actually does hit the cockpit. On slower gaming machines the blast effects are so stupid - not enjoyable anyway.

Edited by Autobot9000, 04 October 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Wolfways your ignorance is astounding...I will discontinue this discussion w/you as it is seemingly quite pointless. Good luck on getting what you want from LRMs in the future.

[Mr 144]

Charons Little Helper, on 04 October 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

LRMs don't require pinpoint aiming, but they are the most strategic intensive weapon in the game.

Best way I've seen of phrasing it...good job. One Track Minded people equate skill with pinpoint aiming and nothing else. LRMs require a different skill set, and one very difficult to master once out of the noob bracket.

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Wolfways your ignorance is astounding...I will discontinue this discussion w/you as it is seemingly quite pointless. Good luck on getting what you want from LRMs in the future.

Really? You're the only one I see not making any logical points , but ignorance is bliss I guess...

[Wolfways]

Autobot9000, on 04 October 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I disagree on the fire and forget idea. There needs to be a little bit of skill involved in using LRMs. Fire and forget would make these missiles the only guns used in this game.

I agree with everything in your post except this. Every other weapon is fire and forget, and travels to the target a lot faster. Could you please tell me why you think it would make LRM's the only used weapon?

[Shakespeare]

There's a very simple test to see if LRMs are OP, Easy-mode, skill-less, etc:

Is everyone using them? Like PPCs used to be? Or SRMS when they were bugged? Or Gauss when the Gauss-cat first appeared?

A few? 2-3 per match? 5, even?

And how many in 12's?

almost none, huh?

Yeah, total overkill, those LRMs. Clearly LRM users are racking up all the easy kills and bathing in our anti-LRM tears, as they gleefully ruin the metagame.

If a weapon is easy to master and fit, and requires minimal effort to be dangerous to the enemy in DMG or Kills, then EVERYONE would be using them. Just like PPCs before Nerfs, Just like Streakcats and Splatcats used to be. The game doesn't care what you bring to the fight. There are no real consequences for playing the most effective, viable build, and people who want to win will bring that load out most of the time. Every time some aspect of LRMs is radically buffed, we see them EVERYWHERE.

That's not the case, now. So it's not ruining the game. In fact, I'll say it again, the missiles need to be faster to have any effect against long range targets, IMO. The rest of the values - spread, dmg per missile, lock times, all feel ok to me.

[Galenit]

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Well lets be honost all weapons require team work and this is essentially a game based on team efforts (always has been back to Battletech:Solaris on aol) therefore your point is moot. Didn't think you would needed to read it anywhere as it is common sense and logic knowing that they are support/indirect fire weapons, hell indirect fire directly describes what they do, how can you not see that lol.

Common sense you can read here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Indirect_fire

Quote

Indirect fire[color=#000000] is aiming and firing a projectile without relying on a direct line of sight between the gun and its target, as in the case of [/color]direct fire[color=#000000]. Aiming is performed by calculating [/color]azimuth[color=#000000] and elevation angles, and may include correcting aim by[/color]observing[color=#000000] the fall of shot and calculating new angles.[/color]

It says that the lrms can be direct and indirect fire weapons.

The indirect fire mode you can only use with teamwork for lrms, the direct firemode you need for artemis.
The other weapons have no indirect fire, they dont need teamwork to be used.

You are talking about teamplay and working together, but not about the need of a teammate to make a weapon working. Nice try to distract from that you are saying nothing ...

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Uhhhmmmmm...all of them. Every weapon on every mech is far superior when teamwork is applied. What are you some kind of solo puggie? Not only that but snipers require precision aiming, brawlers need good movement ie. torso/leg twisting to prolong survival...not sure if your just trolling or not w/such a silly question.

Is there any item in the game that makes any weapon better like tag/lrms, artemis/lrms?
Dont say nothing with that much words if we all can see the answer in the mechlab.

The second part is a pure distraction, you are talking about personal skill, there is nothing a teammate can help you in any form.

xMEPHISTOx, on 04 October 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yes as their intended purpose all through history. Missle based weapons have traditionally been indirect fire support weapons ie. arrows, catapults etc. Even to this day this logic is applied...ground troops in direct confrontation with the enemy call in artillery and long range missle fire to SUPPORT them. How you think your argument has any validity is beyond my reasoning ability and I will leave it at your points and opinions are your own be they logical or not.

I will use your definition of missilebased weapons:.
Missile based direct fire weapons like the crossbow or the rpg 7 or the Hydra 70 that is used on the AH-64?.
I think you meaned the ballista when you talked about the catapult, the ballista was a missile based direct fire weapon from that ages ...


Lets sum it up:

We have 3 points from you,
the first was wrong,
the second you said nothing
and the third was not right again.

Maybe you are young or stupid or you are just a troll, but your post lets you look not good.
In all cases you have to learn a lot and you should start with logic ....

Edited by Galenit, 04 October 2013 - 07:25 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

Shakespeare, on 04 October 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

There's a very simple test to see if LRMs are OP, Easy-mode, skill-less, etc:

Is everyone using them? Like PPCs used to be? Or SRMS when they were bugged? Or Gauss when the Gauss-cat first appeared?

A few? 2-3 per match? 5, even?

And how many in 12's?

almost none, huh?

Yeah, total overkill, those LRMs. Clearly LRM users are racking up all the easy kills and bathing in our anti-LRM tears, as they gleefully ruin the metagame.

If a weapon is easy to master and fit, and requires minimal effort to be dangerous to the enemy in DMG or Kills, then EVERYONE would be using them. Just like PPCs before Nerfs, Just like Streakcats and Splatcats used to be. The game doesn't care what you bring to the fight. There are no real consequences for playing the most effective, viable build, and people who want to win will bring that load out most of the time. Every time some aspect of LRMs is radically buffed, we see them EVERYWHERE.

That's not the case, now. So it's not ruining the game. In fact, I'll say it again, the missiles need to be faster to have any effect against long range targets, IMO. The rest of the values - spread, dmg per missile, lock times, all feel ok to me.

In the 12 mans I run in, we run one pure lrm boat at most, if not that maybe 2 hybrid Atlas w lrm (which I actually think is better)

[Corwin Vickers]

People keep talking about making them stronger or weaker. I think they just need to be different. ATM they are at their lowest level of skill ever with these gigantic arcs. I find that you do better NOT taking artemis and TAG and instead loading up on a crapload of ammo to spooge all over the place.

|
|
|
v