910 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Its not really a balancing point since the two arnt balanced at all. PPCs are better 90% of the time.

An LRM10 should be a fair trade with a PPC, not an LRM15, since an LRM10 is the equivalent in tonnage and crit slots.

Its common sense that if you have any two given weapons and one weapon weighs more than the other, the weapon that weighs more should be better. Since its costing you more tonnage resources to use it.

Its also common sense that if you have any two given weapons and one weapon has counters (ecm/ams) and the other doesnt have any counters, the weapon with the counters should be better.

So given that an LRM15 both weighs more and has hard/soft counters, while the PPC has no counters, it stands to reason that the LRM15 should be superior to the PPC. And with Artemis and TAG it should be vastly superior.

In order to make LRMs superior, and retain their role as a support weapon (theyre not meant to be a dps weapon), I feel they need to be given a great deal more utility by introducing several different LRM ammo types (incendiary, smoke, thunder, etc...). One thing this game lacks is utility weapons and LRMs are a prime candidate for that role.

LRM 10 averages 7 damage, closer to a Large laser than a PPC.

[Khobai]

Quote

LRM 10 averages 7 damage, closer to a Large laser than a PPC.

If it even hits. The hit rate of LRMs is like 40%-50%. Its abysmally low.

In tabletop the other guy at least couldnt dodge your lrms.

[Israel Finklestein]

Here are the main issues with LRMs

1. You can't pick which map you play on, so you're often stuck on Alpine Peaks or Caustic Valley, where the 'lol take cover' argument pretty much falls apart. If I could cull those two maps from the pool, I'd enjoy this game much more.

2. Cover is usually too short even if present to prevent full damage. Even as a light mech, when I cover against small buildings I usually take missiles anyways.

3. Map design is generally speaking, wide ******* open. There are some 'middle of the road' maps with both open and tight areas, but there are several maps that are basically 100% open, without ANY maps that are 100% close quarters.

4. Spread is a random factor. Sometimes I have a volley absorbed by my legs, sometimes 7 missiles hit my torso and instapop me. If it was easy to predict the amount of damage they did it'd be a lot less infuriating to play against them. Even torso twisting isn't reliable, missiles still splash seemingly at random around my body.

5. AMS is still a waste of tonnage. The buff was not enough, in fact I'd argue the AMS is actually worse than it was last patch and the change did even more damage to SRM viability.

I think it's idiotic to compare LRMs to direct fire weapons on a dps basis, they shouldn't do the same dps as direct fire weapons because you don't have to expose yourself to fire them, the risk vs reward imbalance there is even worse than poptarting. I think the guy above me has a good point with adding ammo types, they're in Battletech and it'd be a better way to make LRMs better without making them more obnoxious.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

If it even hits. The hit rate of LRMs is like 40%-50%. Its abysmally low.

In tabletop the other guy at least couldnt dodge your lrms.

In TT, you rolled after hitting to see how many missiles hit the target- an LRM rarely hit with it's full compliment from the launcher. Nowadays, AMS in tabletop simply applies a -4 to the roll for how many missiles make it to damaging a target, which means at best, you're hitting with about 60% or so of any launch it engages.

Oddly enough, between to-hits and seeing how many missiles DID hit on a success, we're about at the same damage as TT- a bit more given ours do 1.1, but still.

[KnowBuddy]

Israel Finklestein, on 20 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

I think it's idiotic to compare LRMs to direct fire weapons on a dps basis, they shouldn't do the same dps as direct fire weapons because you don't have to expose yourself to fire them, the risk vs reward imbalance there is even worse than poptarting. I think the guy above me has a good point with adding ammo types, they're in Battletech and it'd be a better way to make LRMs better without making them more obnoxious.

See, this is really the crux of the misunderstanding issue. This whole "You don't have to expose yourself to fire them" argument is really not true. A couple points:

• LRMs (still) work most effectively when fired at a target at an optimal range of 250-500m with direct line of sight. I'd estimate that it should be possible to reach 40% accuracy under reasonable in-game conditions within this optimal range window only. Indirect LRM fire at any range averages more like 20% accuracy without a spotter or at long ranges (beyond 500m), and closer to 30% accuracy with a (PUG) spotter. This means two things:
  
  • You must expose yourself to the enemy while keeping your CT directly exposed for the majority of the flight time.
    
  • You are never reasonably going to get more than 40% of the damage potential of LRMs you might expect when looking at the damage values. Even if you try to dismiss raw damage comparisons between LRMs and direct-fire weapons, you have to consider whether a 100-200% decrease in accuracy (and thus effective damage potential) makes up for the ability to fire LRMs indirectly even though it is in most cases inadvisable to do so.
• Noone is comparing LRMs to direct fire weapons on a DPS basis. However, no weapon system can be excluded from comparison from other weapons on a DPT (Damage per Ton) and DPH (Damage per Heat) basis. I'd go so far as to say that to get a better idea of the relative power, those numbers should be adjusted based on observed accuracy numbers (which I've noticed most have reported as 25-40% for LRMs, 60-80% for direct-fire weapons, and 80-90% for hitscan weapons), so eDPT (effective Damage per Ton) and eDPH (effective Damage per Heat) would be good to think about, and then time and counters can also be considered within some explicitly stated assumed parameters.
  
• I think simplistic comparisons are idiotic. I feel like too many people have the tendency to zero in on only one aspect and argue for "balance" only within those narrow parameters and assumptions, whether they are stated or invisible. Like Dimento Graven has pointed out a couple times, making changes to systems without considering all of the other factors involved is problematic. Thinking about systems as isolated is also problematic. I'm also skeptical of PGI's performance in this area because of past actions, but I also recognize that I don't see or understand all of the underlying mechanics.

Edited by KnowBuddy, 20 March 2014 - 11:28 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Oddly enough, between to-hits and seeing how many missiles DID hit on a success, we're about at the same damage as TT- a bit more given ours do 1.1, but still.

Not really because we have double armor. And missiles dont hit in 5 points increments. They hit in 1.1 point increments. So its not like TT where LRMs hit like AC5s. LRMs are completely suck in MWO.

Edited by Khobai, 20 March 2014 - 11:47 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Not really because we have double armor. And missiles dont hit in 5 points increments. They hit in 1.1 point increments. So its not like TT where LRMs hit like AC5s. LRMs are completely suck in MWO.

Oh... "LRMs are completely suck in MWO", eh?

Spoiler

Just a small random sampling from the games I bothered capturing since the patch:

A small random sampling...

LRMs "suck in MWO"...

Sure... If that's your definition of "suck", show me what you think "good" is...

[Sug]

Dimento Graven, on 20 March 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

A small random sampling...

Weird. Who'd have thought that running premades with spotters on coms could lead to high LRM effectiveness vs random pugs.

[Dimento Graven]

Sug, on 20 March 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Weird. Who'd have thought that running premades with spotters on coms could lead to high LRM effectiveness vs random pugs.

And if you balance LRMs ANY WEAPON based ONLY on solo PUG users, what happens to the weapon when utilized by pre-mades?

Think about it...

Sorry, had to fix that...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 20 March 2014 - 02:39 PM.

[Livebait]

I did a few drops with my crew last night. I was destroyed by LRM's mostly. I use AMS but not much difference when they come in volume. LRM's did not need any change IMO. But this patch did make me stop playing in record time.

Honestly, I think the Devs are just messing with us all.

[Sug]

Dimento Graven, on 20 March 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

Think about it...

Zomg nerf ballistics.

Spoiler

They are so op a solo pugger does well with them.

LRMs possibly need a slight adjustment, maybe a cooldown increase, but we're far from the LRMageddon of 2012 that caused the devs to nerf LRMs til they were one of the worst weapons in the game.

[Dimento Graven]

Sug, on 20 March 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Zomg nerf ballistics.

Spoiler

They are so op a solo pugger does well with them.

LRMs possibly need a slight adjustment, maybe a cooldown increase, but we're far from the LRMageddon of 2012 that caused the devs to nerf LRMs til they were one of the worst weapons in the game.

The difference you and so many others are working OH SO HARD to ignore is that, much of the damage I inflicted with my LRMs was indirect fire.

Your ballistics (nice stats btw, dual gauss? I can link some vids of me getting nasty with my dual gauss Jaeger-FB) require you to expose yourself to the enemy for EVERY shot.

There's a significantly higher risk involved with them.

Also, with LRMs, I take a tiny target reticule and put it in a big box and wait till a big circle appears and turns red, then pull the trigger. Then all that needs to happen for the most part is that box and circle stay long enough for the missiles to get there.

Very little skill required.

Where as ballistics require you to deliver your damage to specific points of the 'mech for the quickest kill possible (again because you're exposed to your enemy), no computer guidance available at all.

So you have a weapon system that requires little skill, and has significantly reduced risk performing AS WELL AS a weapon that requires significant skill and has a high risk associated with its use.

That.is.not.balanced.

[Ajantise]

I am not playing until they fix the LRM bug.... It is boring to have 100 LRMs fly every time i want to play bravely. Every time i play as a coward and hide i get rewarded... MWO is now that type of a game.

[Khobai]

Quote

Just a small random sampling from the games I bothered capturing since the patch:

Doesnt mean anything. I can post games where I did 1100 damage and 7 kills with LB10Xs and machine guns. It doesnt mean theyre good weapons. It just means pugs are bad.

The true test of whether LRMs are viable is in 12man premade vs premade. If theyre still not used there then theyre not good. Period.

[Ajantise]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Doesnt mean anything. I can post games where I did 1100 damage and 7 kills with LB10Xs and machine guns. It doesnt mean theyre good weapons. It just means pugs are bad.

The true test of whether LRMs are viable is in 12man premade vs premade. If theyre still not used there then theyre not good. Period.

But if you play a solo random, and there is no ECM in the team you are dead... If a map is open you can hide like mouse, or you are dead?

[Keith66AH]

Anyone who sides completely with LRMs are not bad has not had their butt shot out from under them in 2 seconds. That happened to me after just peeking over and the three stalkers unleashed hell. I managed to back up about ten paces with my FULLY armored stalker (Energy weapon config) with AMS and four or five other mechs right near me with AMS...before I dropped. Exposed for maybe three seconds, dead two more after that. I lasted longer in direct weapon combat against a couple of atlases.

The increase has made them an overly viable weapon system that EVERYONE is using. I would say that in 60% or more of the matches I play there are at last 6 missile boats on either side. Its ridiculous. You need either ECM or go over 150 to stay alive long enough to do anything. Matches are almost always one sided.

Its also of note to mention the increase of TAG lasers flashing around. EVERY mech has one now so you cant say your not capitalizing on the LRM rush.

The duck and cover excuse for protecting yourself is also pointless. As others have said most maps do not offer sufficient cover. AMS which I have mounted since well before this update is virtually useless. Since the number LRMs coming at you overwhelms any reduction it gives.

All I see now are ECMs, just about every mech has LRMS on it, AMS, and everyone hugging walls. Its either long range or rush matches. With light mechs with tag or narc.

LRMs have been increased I speed. They have increased greatly in use, as well as accompanying equipment. I.E. NARC and TAG. ECM and AMS use has also increased. However one side is considerably more effective then the other. There was no balance made. I have looked at both sides of this issue. Simple fix.. reduce the speed increase 10 - 20% or increase the cool down rate.

On a side note its really the MASSIVE increase in LRMs on field that have swung this into a mess. And as long as people win an rack up kills it will NOT change or go away.

[Tesunie]

WARNING! LARGE POST INCOMING!

*TAKE COVER!*

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

First, Artemis isn't supposed to do anything for SSRMs. BAP potentially only defeats one ECM, and the sensor range bonus from it doesn't do SSRMs any good either, so... Yeah we're definitely playing this game differently.


And that was my point, LRMs were mostly fine before, but they were NOT all that lethal, especially with one rack equipped. They were good suppression weapons and 'finishers' of weakened 'mechs, but a PRIMARY tactical weapon intended for brawling, they were not.

The latest changes with NARC now lasting it's full duration, unless the component it's on is destroyed, and the speed change of LRMs now turns LRMs into something they weren't intended to be. Then you add serious boating to it the formula with 2 or more racks, plus all the add-ons, they have become over powered. Just like being able to boat and fire 6 PPC's was over powered, now 3 or more racks of LRM 10's plus the add-ons has darn near turned into The Last Starfighter's "Death Blossom".

Artemis increases lock on speed, including for SSRMs.
BAP shuts down ECM that gets close (a mostly useless feature for LRMs on the LRM mech itself, for the most part.)
You really should get to know what things do in this game before calling someone out.

I have been finding the utility of having even a single rack to be very useful, especially on larger/slower mechs. As a primary weapon, even now, they still tend to get beaten by direct fire weapons. The advantage of them is that they can indirect fire, which means they work better in a team without much need to communicate. Teamwork is OP now? (And I've seen people (my wingman) brawl with LRMs. He'd keep them outside the minimum range and just keep unloading. Of course, he didn't have only LRMs on his mech either.)

Have you observed the video with "LRM100 Stalker!"? He has 100 LRMs. Guess what happens. He shoots all 100 LRMs off (which is 110 damage) and I see his targets barely seem to turn color. Their armor never seems to get breached by his 100 LRM swarm. However, a single volley just about overheats him. Ghost heat (and heat overall) still effect LRMs. For the sacrifices of the 100 LRM Stalker, it should be as powerful, according to you in the new patch, as the old 6 PPC stalker. It is not from what I have seen.

Before this patch, I was one of thew few hangerons of using LRMs, and used them I did. Often times, even when it felt like I was wasting my tonnage on it. Now, it feels like it's doing a little something more. People no longer just ignore the LRM warning and slowly duck into cover. Now I see people turn tail and run into cover. No longer am I getting stuck into "they can shot and hit me, but by the time my missiles get to them, I can't see/hit them anymore" situations. People now have to consider LRMs as an actual weapon to be concerned about.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

A 'little' more reliably?

Consider this, two LRM 15's artemis and TAG is now more deadly at 800 meters than two gauss. Why? Because the gauss has a 4 second reload time AND, a .75 second charge time, AND only a .5 second firing window. With artemis and TAG a LRM boat can aim, lock and fire both weapons the dual gauss build can charge, aim and fire, add to that Adv. Target Decay and the chance of the LRM boat getting a second indirect salvo off before losing target lock, with the speed allowing it to hit the dual gauss build, while the dual gauss build can't even fire because of reload/recharge, and most importantly lack of line of site.

God forbid we add in someone else targeting the dual gauss build, and/or TAG'ing, and/or a NARC, and/or a UAV, the missiles would be never ending and the gauss build could do nothing but TRY to find some sort of shelter to stop the rain.

Alright. Counter argument. My LRMs (for the same tonnage of ammo, gear, etc) do less damage overall per ton. I also will spread my LRMs all over my target, instead of in a concentrated area. If I know you have a weak side torso and an XL engine, I just lob and pray that they hit a side torso, and not an arm, leg or even the CT.

Your Gauss on the other hand can place 15 damage (30 in your dual example) into a specific location. If you know I have weaker sides, and an XL, you can carefully place that damage (or try to) into the side torso, several times over.

You could kill me causing less damage to me than I do in return. You also will hit more often, so each ton of ammo gets more damage out of it. You also don't get hindered by ECM or AMS either, farther reducing your damage and making you less effective.

As I have already shown, LRMs do less damage than (most) direct fire weapons, per ton of ammo and per ton to damage. The increase speed has only likely increased LRM accuracy by 5-10%. I recall Gauss getting a speed increase not to long ago. Why did no one complain that Gauss was now too dangerous, and was hitting more often than it use to/should?

So, you continue to complain that a weapon that works well with team play is too powerful, because it can work with team play. Well, I guess team play is too powerful...

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

I'm unaware of artemis applying its bonuses to indirect targets. I'm fairly certain it doesn't, however, I admit I could be wrong.

Your opinion of "silly" is rather self-serving. As I've said all along you can't ignore all the add-ons when you make a change as all these add-ons have a cumulative affect, AND stack. Your concept of what "should and should not" be is also self-serving. No, not true because of their very powerful indirect affect. They should NEVER perform the same as a DIRECT fire weapon because the DIRECT fire weapons NEVER GET an 'indirect fire' mode like LRMs do.

You're wrong the other add-ons worked appropriately for the benefits they provided. The most significant and drastic change made was increasing the speed of the LRMs by near 50%. THAT is what needs to be looked at and has pushed LRMs into the OP territory.

As far as the rest of that sentence, whatever, you wanna say 'thank you' for bad shit that happens to make your "easy mode" style of play even easier, go right ahead.

I agree they can make good mech design, but used in singles or even dual racks, without the add-ons, they aren't "deadly", they are suppression weapons and finishers of weakened 'mechs, what a reasonable person would expect from a SUPPORT ROLE, in ROLE BASED warfare.

Now they are WELL BEYOND their intended role.

As far as I last recalled, Artemis was applying it's full benefits to locks (as it changes the flight path) even if you do not have direct line of sight. I can't say with 100% certainty on this, but I'm really reasonably sure of it. Like, 85% certain. (I wished I had Some source on this, but the search feature on the forums isn't the best. Only thing I can come up with say no, but it's over a year old patch note... http://mwomercs.com/...68-18-dec-2012/ ) I think I will need to ask Koniving and see if he knows... he's normally on top of the ball for stuff like this.

So, we should balance all weapons after all add ons are considered, and make them viable only if you have all the upgrades? If anything, I think the upgrades should be relooked into if that is the case. LRMs should be effective without the upgrades, and made better with the upgrades. Make the upgrades a nice bonus, but don't have it as a necessary "tax" either.

LRMs should be deadly. In massed, they should be potent enough to be worth taking. They should also still be worth taking even in smaller launchers as well. This is where balance starts to become tricky. As we all know, the more you place of a single type of weapon on your mech, the more you will show off it's strengths. However, at the same time, the more you show off it's weaknesses as well. Boat LRMs, and you die to anything that can get within 180m of you, even if it's only got a single sm laser, among other weaknesses.

LRMs were on most mechs in BT for a reason. They were a good system. There was a reason they designed mechs that boated them too. I would also like to bring up that there is more than one way to play the game, and more than one way to use LRMs.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

No, significantly less powerful due to that indirect fire support capability. NO OTHER WEAPON SYSTEM gets that benefit, and plus the ability to boat them and get such a cumulative benefit, beyond that of any other weapon system currently in the game, makes keeping them SIGNIFICANTLY less powerful on your arbitrary per ton comparison, PARAMOUNT.

And no, you're probably intentionally misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that the speed boost, plus all the pre-existing stuff, has cumulatively made them OP. The speed boost needs to be toned down, or adjusted to be a 'back end' boost, or a 'target centric' boost (where the speed of the missiles is maxed at 120kph or 10kph greater than the target's max speed, whichever is greater). This would allow the missiles to retain their previous efficacy against heavy and assaults, AND gain additional efficacy against fast moving lights and mediums, which is why the speed boost was added in the first place, you had light 'mechs capable of running as much as 30kph faster than LRMs could travel making them nigh invulnerable to LRM fire.

Actually, from what I've been seeing, LRMs do get less damage over other weapon systems. I've proven it with the stats shown. My own Stats show it too. (I'll be posting a Screen of my Weapon and Mech Stats at the end of this response for your viewing.)

And... um... WHAT!?!!? How/why would the missiles move slower if the target moves slower? For balance? or to keep people from getting hit with LRMs?

The more I read of your posts, the less I get from them. The more I perceive a message of "I don't like LRMs, so I want LRMs to be less useful". (No offense.) LRMs could barely hold their own before hand. They were barely effective, and then only if you took every upgrade you could and played them in very specific ways. (I defied that somehow, but I do admit that I never boated them so I never depended on only my LRMs.) It still takes a lot of LRMs to do much. I shot 3 tons of LRM ammo at an Atlas in the open, and AMS from his 2 teammates chewed through a lot of it. I didn't even breach his armor before he walked away. Now, if I had some Gauss, I probably could have taken a side, or even out right killed him in that situation...

Believe what you will. I still feel that LRMs needed the speed buff, badly. They are now a far more viable platform, and are now worth their weight to bring in. (Though, I don't boat them, so I very well may be seeing a different result, but I'm not thinking that is likely.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

I've never stated the affects of the other things needed to be toned down. They are fine, it's the drastic speed boost that's caused the problem.

At this point, given everything you've said, I would say your understanding of how to get the most out of the LRM weapon system leaves much to be desired. Your level of understanding appears to be, at best, 'average'.

I've posted my most recent stats in this thread. You can see that my gauss has fallen to 63.5%, but of course with never ending, inescapable, streams of LRMs falling on me causing cockpit shake, it's a bit difficult to maintain my level of accuracy (...that and 6 pints of beer...).

"Quite the rain"... LOL, that's a matter of perspective there. One person firing LRM5, probably? I miss those days. No, it's been between 4 and 8 mechs (as many as 10 a few matches) firing multiple racks of LRM 10's and 15's. You get caught underneath an effectively unending minimum LRM 80 and your perspective changes, SIGNIFICNATLY.

I only pointed out that you said 80% but posted 63%. About 60% is what I have seen from the average player (who has posted up their stats) for ballistic weapons. I see 70-80% for lasers. LRMs I typically use to see something close to 30%. Your 80% accuracy is possible, but until proven otherwise, I am inclined not to believe this at face value. The 63% is far more likely. (Or, you could always post up your Archived Gauss (or any ballistic weapon) values if you wished. Would give us far more of an even data number to work off of.)

Believe what you may. So far, I've been seeing better results with my single ALRM20 (considered the least accurate of all the LRM launchers mind) than you have with your ALRM10 stats you posted. You've also seen my Griffin build. It has no TAG or BAP. Just the LRM20 and Artemis, with BAP.
( http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c4acc2e2546a287 )


From what I am seeing here, I still do more damage with my 2 Med lasers and 3 SSRM2s than I do with my ALRM20.

For the record:
10 Crits, 15 tons to LRMs
7 ctist, 8.5 tons to close range (9 crits, 10 tons for BAP, which is there for the SSRMs than for the LRMs)
No modules (as of yet)

And yet, I deal more damage with less tonnage of the close range weapons, and only a bare fraction of damage with my LRMs? But LRMs are OP. I'll remember that next time I close in on an LRM boat and show them what some lasers can do to them up close. (Maybe I should laser my initials into the side of their mech?)


PS: I've had the "LRM rain" on me as well. I almost lost an arm to it before I could break lock and get behind a tall building. Minimal damage was received otherwise really, considering the waves that were coming in...

PPS: Click the link in my Signature. Read that and the other guides linked in that thread. Then, come to your own conclusion. (I will admite, those guides were made with some information that may be correct, but may not be. (Artemis issues, with direct or indirect benefits. I have it stated in there that Artemis doesn't provide benefits unless in direct line of sight... which may or may not be wrong.) Then decide if I'm what you think I am with LRMs...

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Don't get all idiotic and histrionic with me. Go to YouTube and look at my videos, you'll see some high per match kill counts from me. The small laser boats have a LOT of compensating factors that balance them, the extreme limited range, the small amount of damage, the typically small amount of armor carried by those 'mechs, the fact that you typically have to traveling at full speed all the time to avoid being an easy target, thusly limiting your ability to focus your fire on a single point limiting the 'pin point' damage you can do in any particular pass, ALL, balance the 'mech. As far as your Griffin, I doubt it's over powered, in of itself, I'm guessing you've found a build and a play mode that isn't commonly countered by most game play.

The new state of LRMs has pretty much totally eliminated the "get to cover" mitigant for LRMs for slower mediums and heavies and definitely all assaults, below a range of 500 meters, and significantly eliminated the window at 800 meters. You seem to like to do the math, figure it out.

Before the speed boost, missile travel was:

1000 meters - 8.3 seconds
800 meters - 6.6 seconds
500 meters - 4.1 seconds
250 meters - 2.0 seconds

Now:

1000 meters - 5.7 seconds
800 meters - 4.6 seconds
500 meters - 2.9 seconds
250 meters - 1.4 seconds



You have significantly shaved off the "get to cover" time previously available for the target. Add Adv. Target Decay on there and EVEN WHEN you've gotten to cover the fact that the LRM boat gets an extra 3.5 seconds of targeting on you EVEN AFTER YOU ARE NO LONGER VISIBLE means that the LRMs will most probably hit.

They should be less effective to direct fire weapons, SIGNIFICANTLY so, due to the indirect capability.

I won't argue history, it has no bearing on today, other than showing precedent for PGI introducing BAD changes to LRMs.

What this statement tells me is that you're probably not regularly using artemis, TAG, nor adv. target decay, nor are you regularly dropping in a pre-made team, or with pugs who have experience acting as spotters. Do these things and you'll start seeing multiple 6 kills per match games like I have been.

As far as the repetitive artemis comment, again, I am unaware of it providing its bonuses to 'mechs who were NOT initially LOS when targeted and fired upon. If they make it to cover, I believe the missiles still spread, but the boost in target acquisition and the tighter pattern during that time remain. Sorry it's impractical to go back in time and eliminate ALL the bonuses because the target moved out of site.

They were a 'threat' before, and that "incoming missiles" message DID mean something to most 'mechs incapable of traveling at 121+ kph, they just need to NOT be certain death.

Well get more data then.

Tonight the targets of my LRM boats were brutalized, effectively ********* in some cases. The only time I started having issues was when the REST of the pugs were either noobs, or just badly skilled, OR, the other team brought MORE LRMs than my side did.

Not going to watch your videos. Don't need to.

To counter your point:
Sm Lasers only weight 0.5 tons.
Most mechs that take them over med lasers shave off a lot of weight.
This extra weight tends to go to armor and/or engine.
The beams of Sm Lasers are shorter than other lasers, making them more efficient at dealing their damage while moving at fast speed.
There are things balancing it out, but I've seen Locusts take top damage and kills. Does this mean that the 20 ton Locust should be nerfed? (It just got buffed with the leg hit boxes being reduced, as a hint). We could make this same kinda argument about any weapon in the game, or any mech in the game. Then post screen shots about how well we've done in them, and how that isn't right...

Good. The speed got boosted. Your PPCs, Lasers and ballistics don't take almost a minimum of 2 seconds to hit their target, with warnings, with counters to reduce damage...

So, LRMs now give you an average of 3 seconds to find cover/break lock over 4 seconds. How fast does your AC20 round move in comparison? I bet you LRMs are still the slowest weapon in the game... And don't you think 4-5 seconds for the mid range of the LRMs as being a little too much time? Not to mention, many other weapons can out right out range the LRMs in this game as well... (making them more like MRMs than LRMs at the moment.)


Sounds to me like it's not the LRMs, but some modules that might need to be getting a relook at into. Maybe Target Decay should be reduced in the near future? Instead of LRM speed again. Maybe (if) Artemis should no longer provide bonuses to indirect fired LRMs? Maybe BAP and TAG should only cut through ECM and increase lock speed only now? There are, as you mentioned, many of pieces of LRMs that could be altered. Another thing that could maybe be changed (again) are the arc that LRMs travel in. Maybe, they should fly just a little more straight, and not climb quite so high? These are all options.

However, instead of trying to consider other alternative of concepts or idea, you instead bash the latest change as being the core of the problem. I feel that the increased speed is good. They feel about right from my experience, using them and getting hit by them (when they do hit, as I still seem to manage to break locks and hide most times). However, I could be persuaded to consider other changes to the LRMs and their associated gear...

As far as your "current data", people are still getting use to the new LRMs. Give it a couple weeks. People will relearn how to dodge them and ways to counter them. (I still have not had a match were we or they got LRM spammed to death... strangely, I've still been one of but a handful of LRM users on the field.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:36 PM, said:

By what measure? An indirect fired single rack of LRM 10 vs. PPC, yes, weaker.

An indirect fired dual rack of LRM10s vs PPC? Maybe about the same, but potentially more powerful...

An indirect fired triple rack of LRM10s vs PPC? More powerful.

An indirect fired quad rack of LRM10s vs PPC? More powerful.

Obviously our experiences vary, if you've never seen these combos, and given the new flight speed, plus adv. target decay grants an effective indirect fire for the average situation... It's a very powerful weapon that needs to be carefully balanced.

Consider weight here. You add on more LRMs, but no extras for the PPCs? (Someone else already covered this. Read their post.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

I claim BEER and timing on that one. Immediately after my last match from last night, I refreshed and looked at my stats. Apparently my last game(s) hadn't been added to the mix (I played a few final rounds with my Jaeger before calling it a night) and AT THE TIME, it showed well over 80%.

Obviously it had time to update since then, when I took those screen shots BEFORE logging in tonight.

So, my bad, I should have checked the numbers again before attempting to quote them.

I made a mistake.

You are forgiven... this time.
(Though beer really makes for a lousy excuse. Just saying.)

I can understand that, and it very well may have been 80%. However, as I mentioned above, I do still find this to be pressing my suspicion of belief... (no offense.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

You're looking at the numbers COMPLETELY incorrectly. If in my gauss builds were able to do the following:

1. Load up a REASONABLE build with more than 2 gauss rifles (the BOOMphract DOES NOT count)
2. Load up more than 6 tons of ammo without unreasonably compromising the 'mechs survivability
3. Fire a constant stream of gauss
4. Fire at, hit, and kill a target I couldn't see

I'd say, "Ok, balanced", but that is NO WHERE near the case.

At the rate I was going I'd have had to play at least 4 or 5 more matches in my gauss build to match the number of kills my missile boats got, and by the end of the night with an ever increasing number of missile boats out there, that was NOT likely to happen.

It's not the raw static, this number equals this and this number equals that comparisons you're trying to make, it's the END RESULT from the accumulation of everything that matters.


End result of tonight's play: I can't recall a single non-missile related death (where I didn't die from overheating).

I found it damn near impossible to find respite from LRMs once I got the 'incoming missile' message, if I moved from any cover that wasn't at least as tall as 1.5 Atlas's, and even then the height of the cover sometimes didn't seem to matter. Hell, when I was piloting my boat in Frozen City, I saw some missile rounds I fired arc over some of the taller buildings and seemingly hit the targets immediately behind it.

The cumulative affect of everything available to increase missile efficacy now FAR OUT WEIGHS any of the currently available items and strategies to decrease missile efficacy.

The cumulative affect has pushed LRMs into the OP territory.

Maybe this is only at the TOP tier of the game, or if not "top tier" then whatever "tier" I happen to be dropping in, but I can tell you, there IS a problem.

LRMs are designed to fire indirectly, and is the only weapon to be able to do so. However, it does typically become less effective when doing indirect.

The Guass Rifle is still better at dealing damage overall, and can drop targets better than LRMs can, with less waste of ammo.

You talk about boating LRMs. Any mech that boats a system will have very big strengths. Recall the 6 PPC Stalker? The LRMs still can't compete with that. Dual AC20? They still tend to drop targets much faster. Fast light? Tends to annoy and make LRM mechs drop as they get within 180m to the LRM mech.

If played improperly, LRMs can be a death trap. You can die without doing anything. A properly played light mech can shred an LRM boat.

We can go on and on in circles about this. It will change nothing. I will continue to believe what I believe, and your evidence has not been convincing me to believe otherwise. You seem to not be changing your way of thinking no mater what I post as evidence to the other side of the debate.

There are some things that math can never calculate. How one plays, what happens in combat, and each player's performance are some examples.


I've been seeing other results from my matches. However, as others have stated, LRMs are going to be in full swing for probably a week at least before things settle down. They just got changed so people are going to play them and check them out. Reminds me of a Warhammer 40k turney results. Top few players were all Grey Knights. Did this mean that the Grey Knights were strongest? Not exactly. Not when over 50% of the competition was running Grey Knights. It was the newest codex at the time, so it was very popular...

Read above comments on LRMs and their gear. Your issue seems to stem not from the LRMs, but from the gear that helps it out. Maybe, the problem isn't LRMs, but the gear needs to be reworked now? Think and consider this for a while.

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Yeah but an LRM15 also weighs more than a PPC after including 2-3 tons of ammo. The fact you need to devote more tonnage in LRMs to have the same lethality as a PPC demonstrates the problem. LRMs should require less tonnage than a PPC to do the same damage because LRMs have to contend with ECM/AMS as counters. PPCs have no counters.

Don't forget the Heat Sinks needed for PPCs to run effectively...
Otherwise, yes. Agreed. (And LRMs is the only weapon with, not one, but two counters to it.)
(Also the only system with 6 (from my count) advancement gear, where as everything else only has 1 (don't forget the upgrade modules).)



IF YOU ARE READING THIS:
Then you have survived the post. Congratulations!
You may now depart from your bunkers and go about your business...

(Had to rearange some quotes to reduce their number. So, forgive if some things don't seem properly lined up.)

[Ajantise]

Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles, Incoming missiles more or less the soundtrack of Mech Warrior now days...

[Novakaine]

ColonelMetus, on 06 November 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

4-5 lrm 10's on chain fire that permanantly screen shake you.

everyone has seen them all over the place sense the tuesday before last.
if something isnt done PGI is going to over correct the problem like always and we will be left with useless LRMs again.

please, stop the flooding before you ruin LRM for everyone, or. nerf LRM flooding

What a bunch o sissies.
Where's the bad arse brawlers and the poptarts now?
Quaking in bunkers and slinking behind rocks again.
That's where.
So where all the rage at the dual ac20 bombers or quad AC'2 and 5's
Yup when it's your meta you have nothing to say.
But change it ever so slightly and metal tears commence.
So here's a tip from all us Rocketeers.

Learn to play.
We did.

Edited by Novakaine, 20 March 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Doesnt mean anything. I can post games where I did 1100 damage and 7 kills with LB10Xs and machine guns. It doesnt mean theyre good weapons. It just means pugs are bad.

The true test of whether LRMs are viable is in 12man premade vs premade. If theyre still not used there then theyre not good. Period.

This thinking right here is what is killing MWO's population. **** the 1% of players who do 12 mans. If you want the game to live you make it fun for everyone not just shitty players who have to group up in order to have a >40% win rate. I refuse 4 mans because it heavily stacks the game in your team's favor and I don't play with crutches

It actually means a lot since the patch was less than 4 days ago.This means the sample size can't be very large... (I felt I had to make sure you and others defending lrms current status could connect the dots here since complex thought doesn't seem to be a strong suit.)

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 20 March 2014 - 10:03 PM.