23 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

Keep LRMs as weak as they are now, but make Narc last forever (or at least a flat 60+ seconds regardless of damage), so a single light could at least THEORETICALLY run around the enemy lines, tap several enemies in the back with Narc, then scamper away to rake in the points. God knows light pilots could use the boost- especially the ones who spent their newbie bonus (forgot what it's called) on lights.

Also, make TAG a bit less finicky.

BAM, the "LRMs are fine as they are now, because I can't understand stepping back and to the side" crowd is satisfied, and we get theoretically usable LRMs (although incompetent PUGs will still frustrate me to no end).

And before the howling starts: This would not alter the arcs of missiles, so even if you cannot understand the concept of hitting S + A or D, you can at least stay behind cover and never get hit. I know some of you fail at that as well (and of course that must be the fault of LRMs), but hey, if PGI bends over any further backwards to accommodate you, their spines will snap in half.

[ShadowbaneX]

Some boost like that would be nice, but that's a little much. One other perk that I'd like is that if you fire while locked on to a target with NARC or TAG if you lose your lock, the missiles will still know to home in on that target. As it is right now the moment you lose your lock, your missiles just travel to where they last had a lock.

[Kibble]

I think missles are fine but probably increasing the damage that the NARC takes before it "falls off" would be ideal.

[Roughneck45]

Kibble, on 21 October 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I think missles are fine but probably increasing the damage that the NARC takes before it "falls off" would be ideal.

Exactly.

Some more ammo per ton would be nice too.

[Tundara]

I'm of the opinion that flight speed is what LRMs could use. 15-25% increase in their flight speed so they are harder to dodge. 50% if you want to go wild with it.

[Shakespeare]

Tundara, on 21 October 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm of the opinion that flight speed is what LRMs could use. 15-25% increase in their flight speed so they are harder to dodge. 50% if you want to go wild with it.

I completely agree. I'm also of the opinion that we can't really get a good grasp on how balanced LRMs are until the tube behavior is normalized.
Right now every hardpoint has a tube limit assigned to it - this determines how many missiles will fire in a single volley. But multiple hardpoints in a single location allows one to essentially override the number of LRM tubes 'physically' present. For instance - on an AS7D, there are two missile hardpoints on the LT, corresponding to the original mech's LRM 20 + SRM 6. The LRM 20 fires in 2 volleys of 10 each. If I were to put 1 LRM 15 in that torso, it would fire as 10, then 5. But if I put 2 LRM 10s in that torso, and fire them both at once, it will fire as one salvo of 20. Two 15's would fire as 20, then 10. So how many tubes ARE on my LRM rack?

This leads to bizzare role mismatches where missile specialists, like catapults, are dependent more on the hardpoint no. than the tube limit. We only have one catapult that is technically capable of firing an LRM 20 in a single shot - but we have another which, despite only having a tube count of 15, can fire as many as 45 per arm in a single volley. The Stalker H sacrifices two laser hardpoints for the ability to, again, fire LRM 20's from the arms in one volley - but this supposed unique ability is superseded by the awesome's 15-tubes, which have 2 hardpoints apiece.

Conversely, take the 4SP - with only two missile ports total, it's capable of firing 2 SRM6s. One cannot trade these 2 6s for 4 4s, and have those volleys split, nor could one stack streaks into those tubes, despite the apparent size of the launcher. On the other hand, the missile Centurion can swap it's single 10 launcher for multiple SRM6's for no tube penalty (here meaning separated volleys) or streaks. That's why, when SRM damage was screwy, the cent was the SRM vehicle of choice, despite the placement and configuration suggesting that should not be the case. At the moment, there's even a Shadowhawk that has more missile hardpoints than the 4SP. Sorry, old friend.

Essentially, this makes the larger single launchers inferior to multiple smaller ones in all but heat generation. In fact, multiple small launchers have a more lethal flight profile, as larger volleys spread outward from center. Mech variants make sacrifices in order to facilitate these larger launchers, but the missile game is by far dominated by boating 10's and 15's in single component, multiple hardpoint configurations - rather than forcing a missile user to choose between recycle rate, volley distribution, and missile spread, like every other weapon type.

the LRM game is a cluttered mess of contradictory build rules, counters, counter-counters, and unpredictable performance. That's why you can have several threads proclaiming completely opposite arguments about them with absolute sincerity.

We need some hardpoint sanity - either by boosting older design hardpoint numbers and dealing with the consequences, or by treating the maximum tube count as rock solid, multiple hardpoints or no.

Edited by Shakespeare, 21 October 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Roboticus Prime]

Shakespeare, on 21 October 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

I completely agree. I'm also of the opinion that we can't really get a good grasp on how balanced LRMs are until the tube behavior is normalized.
Right now every hardpoint has a tube limit assigned to it - this determines how many missiles will fire in a single volley. But multiple hardpoints in a single location allows one to essentially override the number of LRM tubes 'physically' present. For instance - on an AS7D, there are two missile hardpoints on the LT, corresponding to the original mech's LRM 20 + SRM 6. The LRM 20 fires in 2 volleys of 10 each. If I were to put 1 LRM 15 in that torso, it would fire as 10, then 5. But if I put 2 LRM 10s in that torso, and fire them both at once, it will fire as one salvo of 20. Two 15's would fire as 20, then 10. So how many tubes ARE on my LRM rack?

This leads to bizzare role mismatches where missile specialists, like catapults, are dependent more on the hardpoint no. than the tube limit. We only have one catapult that is technically capable of firing an LRM 20 in a single shot - but we have another which, despite only having a tube count of 15, can fire as many as 45 per arm in a single volley. The Stalker H sacrifices two laser hardpoints for the ability to, again, fire LRM 20's from the arms in one volley - but this supposed unique ability is superseded by the awesome's 15-tubes, which have 2 hardpoints apiece.

Conversely, take the 4SP - with only two missile ports total, it's capable of firing 2 SRM6s. One cannot trade these 2 6s for 4 4s, and have those volleys split, nor could one stack streaks into those tubes, despite the apparent size of the launcher. On the other hand, the missile Centurion can swap it's single 10 launcher for multiple SRM6's for no tube penalty (here meaning separated volleys) or streaks. That's why, when SRM damage was screwy, the cent was the SRM vehicle of choice, despite the placement and configuration suggesting that should not be the case. At the moment, there's even a Shadowhawk that has more missile hardpoints than the 4SP. Sorry, old friend.

Essentially, this makes the larger single launchers inferior to multiple smaller ones in all but heat generation. In fact, multiple small launchers have a more lethal flight profile, as larger volleys spread outward from center. Mech variants make sacrifices in order to facilitate these larger launchers, but the missile game is by far dominated by boating 10's and 15's in single component, multiple hardpoint configurations - rather than forcing a missile user to choose between recycle rate, volley distribution, and missile spread, like every other weapon type.

the LRM game is a cluttered mess of contradictory build rules, counters, counter-counters, and unpredictable performance. That's why you can have several threads proclaiming completely opposite arguments about them with absolute sincerity.

We need some hardpoint sanity - either by boosting older design hardpoint numbers and dealing with the consequences, or by treating the maximum tube count as rock solid, multiple hardpoints or no.

Think of it this way, a "hardpoint" is more of a weapon firing mechanism.
For missiles, each hardpoint has a set number of tubes. With your AS7D example, it has 2 hardpoints, and each of those hardpoints has 10 tubes available to it.

[IllCaesar]

How about a flight speed increase for every TAG/NARC active on the target? That would really encourage TAG/NARC use, and cooperation with it. Two LRM boats with TAG + one light mech with NARC = 75% speed increase, something you're not going to escape.

I also like the idea of that NARC lasting forever, but it seems like people would abuse that to farm too much. How about a range increase for it (450m is just plain too ******* short), increasing its health, and maybe a decrease in weight as well? I mean, it takes four tons and three slots to use NARC, and then only fourteen times. One slot and one ton for TAG that will never run out of ammo and only requires line of sight (which, if you're using LRMs, there's a good chance you'll be far enough from the enemy that they'll be focusing on somebody else). Why would you ever pick NARC over TAG? The only advantage is not requiring LoS, but that only last for as long as you have ammo, and you have to get within 450m to NARC them again. I wouldn't pick NARC over TAG.

Edited by MarsAtlas, 22 October 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Sug]

I'd prefer a speed boost in the form of acceleration. The longer they're in flight the faster they go. Right now LRMs are useless over about 600m unless you target an i.diot.

Edited by Sug, 22 October 2013 - 05:11 PM.

[Shakespeare]

Roboticus03, on 22 October 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Think of it this way, a "hardpoint" is more of a weapon firing mechanism.
For missiles, each hardpoint has a set number of tubes. With your AS7D example, it has 2 hardpoints, and each of those hardpoints has 10 tubes available to it.

I'm aware of the system's functionality - I'm saying that this setup handicaps and devalues supposedly LRM focused variants, and gives advantages to multiple, smaller stacked missile systems, which makes it difficult to balance both as a weapon system, and as a chassis characteristic. Further, it's not hard to see a shift in hardpoint distribution for missile mechs, when looked at chronologically... The Huchback, Stalker, and catapult all have variants with difficulties leveraging their LRM utility, while the Shadowhawk, Kintaro, Highlander, and Battlemaster have variants with greater capabilities as missile mechs with no apparent drawbacks. As the hardpoint system evolved to do what it does now vs tube limits, these mechs got left in the dust.
This is hampering the balance discussion for LRMs as well as making the system more counter-intuitive to employ.

LRMs are in a dangerous place right now for balancing - you can see that every time they make a change and this place turns into LRMageddon. Any direct change in spread or damage gives mechs with 2 launchers or less a needed advantage, but exponentially boosts the power of mechs with 4 or more launchers.

Missile mechs need to have a hard limit on volleys that actually matches the launchers equipped, so that the choice is between a larger launcher, with more heat and spread but better one-shot-performance, OR multiple launchers firing in pulses. Instead, we've got small launchers doubling up to form larger one-shot launchers with better recycle, slighty better impact characteristics, and no drawback in weight, damage, or range.

No other hardpoint system works this way in terms of balancing factors - stacked smaller lasers lose range and heat efficiency in return for better dmg/ton and recycle (2ML vs 1 LL). Stacked ballistics have less reliable convergence and high tonnage and critical costs compared to the single system they replace (2xAC5 vs 1 AC10). Only missiles get identical munitions, damage-per-ton, and range - and BETTER impact behavior and recycle, at the cost of another hardpoint and a little more heat.

Madness, I say. I want LRMs to be reliably dangerous, but placed on a similar balance curve to the other weapons. There needs to be a reason to bring the big ones vs the small ones, other than "well, my missile mech is too old to get bonus hardpoints". If I'm fighting a catapult with two missile ears, I should be able to reliably say "oh, he's probably got 30missiles per salvo, but he might have multiple salvos available", not "oh, he's either got 30 in a burst, but it could be 90, unless he's a C4 and only gets 40". Even the "ITS CANNON, SEE?" Butterbee build only got 12 SRMs per ear, keeping to the max of 15 that those ears should be capable of.

All the 20-tube mechs make sacrifices in order to accommodate those weapon systems, usually by sacrificing other weapon hardpoints. That's supposed to be the balancing factor between missile-capable chassis. This quantum-tube-generator system subverts that, as there's not a single 20-tubed mech that isn't worse off for its 'benefit', compared to its multi-hardpoint cousins. Same volley size and missile performance, but typically keeps its other hardpoints or chassis benefits (twist, arm placement, etc.)

Madness. I truly have no idea what direction the game is trying to go re: missiles.

Edited by Shakespeare, 22 October 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[aniviron]

If I had to take a guess, I would assume that LRMs are also plagued by the same hit detection issues that currently make SRMs worthless and SSRMs do less than they should. Fixing that would be a good start.

LRMs are always going to be in a weird spot though. As long as "moving back into cover" works, they'll be worthless against good players, and if you increase the speed too much to try and hit the crowd that knows how the game works, they'll be a merciless death machine against new players.

Then maybe change NARC so that it's not destroyed until the component it's on is also destroyed, giving the user an incentive to take skilled shots with it. Finally, NARC beacons need to be immune to AMS. The fact is that if you have AMS, you just straight up cannot be NARC'd from more than about 100m right now.

[MonkeyCheese]

I dont think lrms need any kind of buff or nerf from their current position, say 2 lrm5 on a locust works well and lrm40 alphas do wonders on a highlander and everything in the middle is fine.

[Johnny Reb]

Sephlock, on 21 October 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Keep LRMs as weak as they are now, but make Narc last forever (or at least a flat 60+ seconds regardless of damage), so a single light could at least THEORETICALLY run around the enemy lines, tap several enemies in the back with Narc, then scamper away to rake in the points. God knows light pilots could use the boost- especially the ones who spent their newbie bonus (forgot what it's called) on lights.

Also, make TAG a bit less finicky.

BAM, the "LRMs are fine as they are now, because I can't understand stepping back and to the side" crowd is satisfied, and we get theoretically usable LRMs (although incompetent PUGs will still frustrate me to no end).

And before the howling starts: This would not alter the arcs of missiles, so even if you cannot understand the concept of hitting S + A or D, you can at least stay behind cover and never get hit. I know some of you fail at that as well (and of course that must be the fault of LRMs), but hey, if PGI bends over any further backwards to accommodate you, their spines will snap in half.

Make narc useful, great! Lrms are fine but better narc would be nice.

[RandomLurker]

Tundara, on 21 October 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'm of the opinion that flight speed is what LRMs could use. 15-25% increase in their flight speed so they are harder to dodge. 50% if you want to go wild with it.

It currently takes ~10 seconds to hit a target at maximum range.

A 50% increase to missile velocity will result in a 25% decrease in flight time.

So, ~7.5 seconds to target at max range. Sounds about right.

[Johnny Reb]

RandomLurker, on 22 October 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

It currently takes ~10 seconds to hit a target at maximum range.

A 50% increase to missile velocity will result in a 25% decrease in flight time.

So, ~7.5 seconds to target at max range. Sounds about right.

That speed and It will be lrm appoc 4!

[RandomLurker]

Johnny Reb, on 22 October 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

That speed and It will be lrm appoc 4!

Hardly.

[xe N on]

MonkeyCheese, on 22 October 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

I dont think lrms need any kind of buff or nerf from their current position, say 2 lrm5 on a locust works well and lrm40 alphas do wonders on a highlander and everything in the middle is fine.

Currently, LRMs are highly situational. They are the most penalized weapon that has the most counter. They weight alot and do no pin point damage as ACs. Their effective range is only in the medium field - the optimal range is below 600.

LRMs are not fine. But they could be easily fine tuned to be in line with other weapons.

[Johnny Reb]

RandomLurker, on 22 October 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Hardly.

Well, let it be! Then we see. Minor changes in lrms make a huge difference!

[Sephlock]

Johnny Reb, on 22 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Make narc useful, great! Lrms are fine but better narc would be nice.

[Johnny Reb]

Well, I'm good with lrms make them better = win for me!
More death sooner with less ammo spent!

Edited by Johnny Reb, 23 October 2013 - 11:41 PM.