230 replies to this topic

[Krivvan]

Wolfways, on 29 September 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

So the hardest weapon to use effectively in the game is "noob friendly"?

It's the easiest weapon to use and do halfway decent in. Hardest weapon to do well in. That fits the bill for noob friendly.

[Wolfways]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

The problem with balancing LRMs is that make them even slightly better, and they can become ridiculous. Make them slightly worse, then they work normally and few people use them at higher levels.

How is this different to any other weapon?

Quote

Are people seriously advocating for the days of the broken Artemis LRMs? Because that's the only thing that makes them halfway viable, and that ruined the game enough for an actually significant number of people to not play.

No, i'm advocating making LRM's a more viable weapon system by nerfing indirect fire and buffing direct fire.

[Krivvan]

Wolfways, on 29 September 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

How is this different to any other weapon?

Because it takes very, very little for someone to use the LRM well if it is buffed. It has an extremely low skill floor and a low skill ceiling.

Even then it can be used very effectively. One of my main weaknesses as a Jenner is my ability to roam freely being shut down by LRMs.

[Wolfways]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

It's the easiest weapon to use and do halfway decent in. Hardest weapon to do well in. That fits the bill for noob friendly.

It's the hardest weapon to do well with because it's the hardest weapon to use well. Unless you think point>click>take defensive measures is harder than point>wait>click>wait while tracking target>take defensive measures?
It doesn't get any easier than direct aim weapons.

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Because it takes very, very little for someone to use the LRM well if it is buffed. It has an extremely low skill floor and a low skill ceiling.

Even then it can be used very effectively. One of my main weaknesses as a Jenner is my ability to roam freely being shut down by LRMs.

Sorry i disagree with everything you said.

[Krivvan]

>Unless you think point>click>take defensive measures is harder than point>wait>click>wait while tracking target>take defensive measures?

You don't aim with LRMs. You don't need to maintain pinpoint aim with LRMs. You don't take defensive measure with direct fire weapons?

Would you say Streaks are harder to use than SRMs? Can you actually say that with a straight face?

And what is your solution for making them viable? They aren't viable at top tier play because they move slowly. Even if you made them long range instant kill weapons, they'd still be useless since anyone can sidestep them. Their only use is as indirect support fire to deny movement options to the enemy.

[Johnny Reb]

Bah, you lost me on no indirect fire! I like the fact I can hit a target moving on my with out the lock, its a desperation move but I like it!

[Wolfways]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

>Unless you think point>click>take defensive measures is harder than point>wait>click>wait while tracking target>take defensive measures?

You don't aim with LRMs.

Of course you do. You aim whiie waiting for lock, which is more difficult than aiming for 1 second with a direct fire weapon.

Quote

You don't need to maintain pinpoint aim with LRMs.

You don't with any weapon

Quote

You don't take defensive measure with direct fire weapons?

I said take defensive measures for both weapon, but using LRM's means you can't take defensive measures for a lot longer while using LRM's.

Quote

Would you say Streaks are harder to use than SRMs? Can you actually say that with a straight face?

Of course they aren't, because the target doesn't have a long time to take cover as with LRM's

Quote

And what is your solution for making them viable? They aren't viable at top tier play because they move slowly. Even if you made them long range instant kill weapons, they'd still be useless since anyone can sidestep them. Their only use is as indirect support fire to deny movement options to the enemy.

I stated my solution in the OP.

[Kaijin]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

The problem with balancing LRMs is that make them even slightly better, and they can become ridiculous. Make them slightly worse, then they work normally and few people use them at higher levels.

Are people seriously advocating for the days of the broken Artemis LRMs? Because that's the only thing that makes them halfway viable, and that ruined the game enough for an actually significant number of people to not play.

How about they be reverted to what they were just before the ill-fated Festival of Artemis, and call that what they're capable of with Artemis OR TAG. Un-TAGged LRMs or those without Artemis could be slightly worse that that. (This thing PGI's got going with Artemis and TAG stacking - It's wrong. TAG was developed to replace Artemis - to free up tonnage on the LRM carrying mechs. They're the same thing, and just as two TAGs aren't any more effective than one is, TAG + Artemis shouldn't be any more effective than either of them alone)

So no - Nobody has advocated LRMs returning to the two-day Festival of Artemis state in this thread, or for that matter any other thread. They were pretty viable before that little nightmare. If you found them only to be viable when insanely buffed from good to god, maybe they took more skill than you gave them credit for.

[Krivvan]

Wolfways, on 29 September 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

Of course they aren't, because the target doesn't have a long time to take cover as with LRM's

That sounds more like relying on the enemy to be bad, rather than relying on any skill of your own.

[Wolfways]

Johnny Reb, on 29 September 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Bah, you lost me on no indirect fire! I like the fact I can hit a target moving on my with out the lock, its a desperation move but I like it!

I only said remove indirect fire (without TAG/NARC) because i knew players wouldn't accept a buff to direct fire without some other drawback.

[Wolfways]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

That sounds more like relying on the enemy to be bad, rather than relying on any skill of your own.

It has nothing to do with how well a player the enemy is. It's just a fact that SSRMs are short range therefore the enemy has no time to use cover.

[Ozric]

Krivvan, on 29 September 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Because it takes very, very little for someone to use the LRM well if it is buffed. It has an extremely low skill floor and a low skill ceiling.

Lolz. Are you new?

[MustrumRidcully]

The problem with ECM and LRM is probably partially result of the way locking/targeting works in the first place.

That ECM removes the ability to target enemies would be fine, if LRMs didn't require you to target enemies in the first place. Either ECM must allow targeting enemies,or LRMs need to be useable without targeting enemies.

I kinda prefer the idea of "no-target LRMs". Or rather changing the mechanic of how LRMs "lock" onto mechs.

Direct Fire:
Press the fire button for n seconds while on target. Depending on how much of the time you kept the crosshair on target, the LRMs will follow the target (basically, for every n/(#missiles) seconds one missile will keep target lock until it hits, the rest will lose lock and fly off. If possible, the missiles should also follow specific target locations.
That bascially means it's a bit like the current lasers, except the "pulse" of damage of the laser comes delayed in form of a missile. Artemis effectively lowers the duration you need to hold the LRM target lock.

This mechanic could also be applied to SRMs, with the special provision that SSRMs simply don't fire a missile if you failed to get a lock for it (just like it's meant to work).
The missiles will try to go for whatever location you directed them at, but they will also add a bit of a random scatter/spread to the effect.

Indirect Fire:
Indirect Fire requires a spotter or a Narc beacon, while the spotter is there, a lock can be acquired, once you shoot the missiles, the missiles will track the target even without a spotter, but there is a chance to lose lock for each missile. A spotter available over time and TAG and Narc increase the chance of missiles keeping their lock. "Spotter modules" also buff the percentage chance of missiles hitting.
ECM can interact with indirect fire in that it lowers the chance of a missile to hit the target.



I have no idea of PGI could implement missiles to work like this, or rather, if the Crytek would support such a weapon mechanic.

---

The alternative is to make ECM not block target locks, but that means you need to make other changes to the whole system. ECM used to disable IFF. I think that was actually a good feature, but coupled with no-target-lock it was too powerful. But imagine we could always target friends and foes, and the IFF indicator would always help us see the difference on a glance - remove the IFF indicator however, while keeping the ability to target anyone, you will have to memorize names - you have the chance to glean the necessary information, but you need some extra time to do it.

[jeirhart]

LRMs are powerful weapons that can be devastating in large numbers with a coordinated team. Competitive teams respect LRMs and the danger they present. However, LRMs are nearly never used in competitive play. Why?

They are too dependent on map/team comp and are easily countered by a coordinated team with set limits on weight and number of battlemechs.

Simple breakdown (TL;DR version)

The damage LRMs deal is dependent on whether you can retain lock-on for the entire travel time, that the enemy doesn't take cover, and that the enemy does not have AMS coverage. Flight time alone can be enough to ensure that missiles never deal full damage as notification ensures they will move to cover or AMS protection.

LRMs are heavy. You need at least 24 tons to deal significant damage to overcome the issues described above to make you worthwhile. You will need certain mechs to carry those LRMs and will rely on limited self-defense weapons or the protection of your team.

Competitive teams know what they are doing. You will not catch them in the open once you have been noticed and called out. These are not puggers who may not noticed the presence of LRMs or will not coordinate hiding in cover or moving from protection.

You are now signaled out. The enemy team knows your location, if not the location of the bulk of your team. Enemy lights can now plan their attack while the enemy moves in cover to your location.

When the brawl/engagement occurs there are only two potential situations. Either you're supporting from distance or the engagement is on top of you. Either case has significant draw backs which may render your LRMs, all 24 tons, completely null.


Longer version:

Point 1 - Consider, in order to do damage in an LRM fight, you must have AT LEAST enough LRMs fired to do damage to the enemy team. This must mean you are bringing AT LEAST a LRM 15 (or equivalent). AMS alone would stop an LRM 5 to LRM 10 cold, or very nearly entirely (and yes competitive teams bring AMS, it also works on streaks and SRMs to a point). An LRM 15 weighs 7 tons, (8 with Artemis) and will need ammo, 1 ton more. You have now out-weighed all the energy weapons, including the PPCs. No big deal right? LRMs do more damage for less heat than PPCs. Consider what I said earlier though, AMS will knock those missiles down. Your LRM 15 is more like an LRM 5 or 10 by the time it hits, for 5-10 damage instead. Compare that back to the PPC, a guaranteed 10 damage per shot as long as your aim is true. So your damage with an LRM is inconsistent at best. But you can always bring more LRMs right? Maybe another LRM 15 for another 7-8 tons with ammo. Maybe a third for 45 LRMs total.You're now at 21 tons (+3 for artemis) and will need at least 3 tons of ammo (+3) so sitting around 24-27 tons for all those LRMs. 24-27 tons and 15 heat for 50 (potential) damage.

Point 2 - But what can carry that? Certainly not a Light or Medium Mech. While you can potentially fit all that in one of those, your mobility and self-defense is null. You are a sitting LRM launcher and would die as soon as the enemy spotted you. Nevermind that there's a very limited number of mechs under 60 tons that could even hold 3 LRM 15s regardless. So you're bringing a Catapult or bigger to bring those LRMs to deal good damage. Maybe the unique JM6-A or an ON1. Maybe get crazy and bring an AWS, STK or HGN. Go really crazy and bring AS7-D-DC. Just remember on all those builds you will need at least 24 tons saved just for 3x LRM 15s to do a potential! 50 damage.

Point 3 - Competitive teams are usually made up of experienced players. Players who know strengths and weaknesses of the game's weapons and mechs. These teams are also hopefully lead by competent commanders, and who all speak via voice (teamspeak3/ventrilo/etc).The instant an LRM dangerous mech is spotted (see at least 2LRM 15s if not 3). The word is put out. Unit designation and type is called along with probable location if possible. Now mech pilots know to group up under an ECM/AMS umbrella and to move behind cover. Fairly easy task on most maps, notable exception being areas of Caustic Valley/Tourmaline and wider open parts of other maps. Good job LRM guy, you've forced the enemy's notice and directed their actions. Generally a very useful thing.

Point 4 - And you have also signaled yourself and your team's location. Already, the command has gone out for the Light mechs to find your specific location and disrupt your firing. Core you from the rear or force you to react to them. If you're lucky, your team has formed up around you and is protecting you from these Light attacks, allowing your to continue focus on the enemy heavies' positions. However just as your LRMs are forcing the enemy to stay in cover and grouped up, so are the enemy lights now either forcing you to disengage your LRMs and protect yourself, or your teammates to protect you from them. Both teams are locked in place.

Point 5 - On virtually every map, you can move under cover from point to point with limited openings for LRM fire. So the enemy team will slowly, carefully, move from cover to cover to reach your position. There are now two possibilities. Either your team's bigger mechs will move out to engage the other team with you providing LRM support from distance, or the fight will occur once the enemy team has reached your position where you were all turtled together. In scenario 1, this means you are left naked for the enemy lights to engage and disrupt, or the your team has left some of your guys back to protect you. Hopefully lights or mediums themselves. Meanwhile the bigger brawl you support occurs some distance away. This is best case scenario mode and hopefully your team can protect you well enough that you can support the brawl occurring and are not wasted tonnage. Worst case scenario, the enemy team moves up and the brawl occurs right on top of you. You are left with your self defense weapons and can only fire your LRMs on targets you spot that move beyond the 180 dead zone. You are very unlikely to be able to deal much damage at this point.



So how can LRMs be used in competitive play?
Few (more viable) options
- Increase damage LRMs do.
- Increase flight speed
- Change effect of ECM

Now which of these would actually make them viable in competitive play? Pure damage and flight speed would not stop AMS from knocking them out of the sky and enemy already moves from cover to cover. You would still be the target of the light mechs disruption and would still need to defend yourself or have guard mechs around you. You would be more dangerous, but the counters to you would remain the same. Changing ECM would only mean that enemy can't rely on ECM, and would probably render it entirely useless. Guess what they'll bring instead? AMS. Tactics would remain the same.

Worst case scenario, all matches turn into grueling 15minute LRM turtle fights, waiting for the enemy to step out of cover. DId you see the Tourmaline match with team Tiger in the launch party tournament? Imagine the first 10 minutes of that match repeated over and over and over for every single match you're in.

Now these are the only three options I can think of myself, and I'm sure others may think of more. However as I hope has been shown here, any changes to make the LRMs viable in competitive play would result in very little difference to competitive play at all or have too much of a change to where brawls never occur because LRMs prevent teams from moving.


A final potential option would be to have all those LRM 15s spread across a few different mechs (say 3 or so). However this would require all of these mechs to fire on the same target and roughly the same time to prevent AMS from knocking out 2/3 of each of their strikes. This would also require great coordination and would encourage those three to stick together. A potential option, but adding new issues while only negating at most a couple of the issues LRMs have in competitive play already.

Edited by jeirhart, 02 October 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[Ens]

Kitane, on 27 September 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:

2) Nerf Incoming missile warning. Make it part of AMS module and restrict the maximum range it can detect incoming missiles

thats actually a good one AND would make AMS more exclusive

[Kaijin]

jeirhart, on 29 September 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

Worst case scenario, all matches turn into grueling 15minute LRM turtle fights, waiting for the enemy to step out of cover.

We already have this. The jump-sniping meta has given way to the sniping from cover meta. Brawling only happens as a last act of desperation. Mostly, it's heavily armored war machines cowering behind cover, sniping at each other from across the field.

Situation hopeless.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Wolfways, on 28 September 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

I've never read anything about LRM's only being a support weapon. Could you explain why you think that? Otherwise i'd have to assume that it's just a misguided opinion, like players who believe MG's are only anti-infantry weapons.

Why was it not viable?

Didn't all weapons have advantages/disadvantages at different ranges? The gauss rifle and PPC had minimum ranges. Are they support weapons?

How would they be any different for the target than the way they are now?

I think TAG is fine now, but NARC needs some improvement. But i think LRM's are nowhere near good right now. My wife has been grinding Catapults recently and thinks they are the worst mechs in the game and LRM's are a joke.
I have to say i agree with her

I guess I'd be right to assume you haven't played Table-Top Battletech (TT for short). I mean classic effectiveness of weapons and equipment in their source which is TT, when I say LRMs were never an effective weapon as is.
The very fact they have minimum range suggests it. It is a weapon not to be a king of the battlefield, but to provide a suppressive fire and not to do much damage, but rather to spread damage to seek out the damaged parts of mechs to crit them at distance.

[arghmace]

Main problem is that LRM's cannot really be used as a support weapon alongside other weapons. You have to boat them like no tomorrow. Having for instance an LRM10 in an Atlas would be nice but since it gets completely shredded by AMS, don't bother. The more missiles you have, the more effective they are. Also since you basically need TAG and BAP, using just a few missiles is doomed. If ECM wasn't implemented insanely, TAG and BAP wouldn't be required. And if AMS didn't shoot down a certain amount but a certain percentage of missiles, you wouldn't have to boat for this reason either.

[Kaijin]

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 29 September 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

I guess I'd be right to assume you haven't played Table-Top Battletech (TT for short). I mean classic effectiveness of weapons and equipment in their source which is TT, when I say LRMs were never an effective weapon as is.
The very fact they have minimum range suggests it. It is a weapon not to be a king of the battlefield, but to provide a suppressive fire and not to do much damage, but rather to spread damage to seek out the damaged parts of mechs to crit them at distance.

Gauss Rifle has a minimum range in TT. PPC has a minimum range in TT. I guess if I used your logic, you haven't played TT. You seem to not recall that all weapon damage location was random in TT. Archers were feared in TT. Longbows even moreso.

[jeirhart]

Kaijin, on 29 September 2013 - 02:52 AM, said:

We already have this. The jump-sniping meta has given way to the sniping from cover meta. Brawling only happens as a last act of desperation. Mostly, it's heavily armored war machines cowering behind cover, sniping at each other from across the field.

Situation hopeless.

I don't know about that. All engagements Team Tiger was in (at the launch party tourny) and the Tournament my main unit is in (Marik Campaign) all eventually end up being brawls. Sure you peg with PPCs and large lasers from distance, but most maps you eventually engage in close quarters brawls (approximately 270meters). Pug matches maybe, but I believe this thread is mostly about competitive drops.

Edited by jeirhart, 29 September 2013 - 03:35 AM.