910 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

No need, I can look at the numbers and see the problem for myself.

In English, this means "I don't want to admit I'm wrong, so I'm not going to supply the proof."

[Dimento Graven]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

In English, this means "I don't want to admit I'm wrong, so I'm not going to supply the proof."

Dear Troll,

Please re-read the post where I talked about my stats.

Quote

In this instance, I played 8 games with a Firebrand that I have well over 80% accuracy with dual gauss (yeah I know 80% is kind of low, but I was drinkin' cut me some slack), and got 7 kills and 7 deaths. In my LRM boat, which had an almost 33% accuracy with LRM10's, I got double the kills in the same 8 games. I continued playing, a total of 20 games and had 36 kills, an entire battalion's worth of 'mechs.

I believe I supplied the same level of detail as he did.

[Cimarb]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Dear Troll,

Please re-read the post where I talked about my stats.

I believe I supplied the same level of detail as he did.

Dear troll,

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

[Tesunie]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1b0fed418ebb28e
Dual LRM15s+Artemis+BAP

Artemis and BAP are there for the SSRMs, but do provide Benefits for the LRMs as well. (editTAG can easily be added on, if one desired. Works well without it.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1e01d025e505557
1 LRM20+Artemis+BAP

Same notes on the Stalker.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c4acc2e2546a287
1 LRM20+Artemis+BAP

Same notes on the Stalker.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f9634c0c93c9903
1 LRM10+Artemis+TAG

2 ALRM10s, with TAG. However, few in tube count. Concept here is the complementary abilities of the AC5, the TAG and the LRMs. If I can see a target, I shoot with basically everything non-stop.

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bb0bc827b009caf
1 LRM10+Artemis

This was an oppsie on my part. The build I posted was a build I was consdering, but was placed in the wrong section of my category of links. It's suppose to be: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fc1bd7d5e48b4ea

Even then, it has 2 ALRM10s. No TAG needed.
(The older design has 2 LRM15s, no Artemis or TAG. Worked fairly good before hand. Should be in a good place now with the new changes.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0aed9ef87384ab3
1 LRM5+Artemis

2 LRM5s...

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...98482fb6aa1c943
1 LRM15+Artemis

This build, the LRMs are for some long range, support punch. Look at the rest of the build, and it should become clear what it's purpose is on the battlefield.



Okay, now that I know you looked at them, you seemed to have only looked at the LRM system count. The point is, you don't need to have a ton of LRMs to be effective. You also don't commonly need the have the upgrades for LRMs. The Upgrades should never be needed for LRMs to be considered.

With the new changes, I could see people saying that the additional equipment could use to be toned down a bit. However, to claim that LRMs are OP because now they are hitting a little more reliably, and you now have to take the "incoming Missiles" warning a little more seriously. LRMs should be able to be effective before all the extras are added on. Then, once the extras are on, it should be a fairly good fighting weapon, on par with other weapons equal to it's weight.

If anything, the bugs of Artemis applying it's bonuses to even indirect fired missiles needs to be removed. This way, LRMs only become "seriously deadly" when in direct line of fire. This would probably place many of the upgrades back into their proper places.

Claiming that the LRMs are OP because of the possible upgrades is kinda silly. LRMs should be more than "minorly functional" (I think I've used them enough personally to know) in their base, right out of the box usage. If they weigh 3 tons and need 1-2 tons of ammo, then they should be able to preform like a 4-5 ton weapon. MGs preform like the 0.5 ton + ammo weapon they are, in the right situations (internal damage).

If anything, it sounds like you should be asking for some changes to the gear attached to LRMs, not the LRMs themselves. Right now, I feel that they work fine and a lot of hyperventilating is happening on the forums, as I see when any change happens to anything. (I have never heard a "thanks PGI, I think you have x just about right" after a change. I always hear "You changed X, now it's useless/OP and you should change it back!"

(PS: The point of my posted build was to show that LRMs, even in small numbers, can make for a good mech design. One does not need to boat LRMs to be effective on the battlefield.)

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

You seemed to have missed my point. The LRMs by themselves are weak. The LRMs, plus the add-ons (BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis, Adv. Target Decay, Adv. Sensor Range, Adv. UAV) are MUCH more powerful (ESPECIALLY when you start stacking more than one on a 'mech). PLUS you don't have to carry ALL the add-ons yourself to benefit from them. You have a bud, or some other pug, drop with TAG or NARC and you get to benefit from his usage. Another bud, or pug drops with BAP, Adv. Sensor Range and you can keep your target as long he can. Another bud, or pug drops with UAV and suddenly you've got carte blanche on the enemy team.

In MWO you can't balance ANY weapon, especially in a vacuum, you have to consider all the modules and add-ons that can be brought to bear, and how they stack, to try and avoid those 'unintended consequences' we've seen so SO many times before.

LRMs should be comparable to like weapons of the same weight, maybe a little less powerful (spread damage mostly) due to their indirect fire support options.

You seem to blame the weapon's base stats (which you say are bad), and accuse the bonus gear (that costs weight and crits, and sometimes even a possible defensive weapon) of making it OP. Then, instead of complaining about the LRMs, suggest changes to the gear to make the boosted up LRMs more reasonable.

I've mentioned more of this above, so instead of restating it...

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

Which is why only considering the specific numbers you're using, without a significant sampling, without knowledge of how to properly use the weapon is a bad way to try and balance (or justify a bad buff) a weapon.

The END RESULT should be what specifically matters, and is actually KEY to judging the value of a change.

In this instance, I played 8 games with a Firebrand that I have well over 80% accuracy with dual gauss (yeah I know 80% is kind of low, but I was drinkin' cut me some slack), and got 7 kills and 7 deaths. In my LRM boat, which had an almost 33% accuracy with LRM10's, I got double the kills in the same 8 games. I continued playing, a total of 20 games and had 36 kills, an entire battalion's worth of 'mechs.

The END RESULT is telling me LRMs are probably OP now.

I stated at the bottom that I haven't had very many matches so far with the new patch. However, from how I seem to feel them playing, and my stats (as much as they still change by a few percent from match to match) seem to agree with me that they did get a small boost to "damage through accuracy", but not enough to make them "an OP killing weapon". (And are you saying I don't know how to use LRMs...? Lets not go there, shall we? )

What is your accuracy on those LRM10s? Are the Artemis? And, by most standards I know, 80% is considered high accuracy, not low. My score for the AC5 was 54.52% (Gauss at 66.11%) before the stat reset. I have not used them get this patch, but they did not get changed, so I shall assume that my results wouldn't change much.

I still have to disagree with LRMs being too powerful. I took quite the rain my last match I played in, and survived it fairly well. All components still attached. (It hurt, but did not kill me.)

So, because you killed a mech to two mechs a game average, it's overpowered? I've seen people get tons of kills with SmL, does that mean they are overpowered? I had a match with my Griffin where I got 4 kills in it. Shall I start claiming how OP the Griffin is? My Quickdraw 4H has played 97 games, and killed 97 mechs, with a K/D of 1.83. It must be OP and should be nerfed...

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

We disagree WILDLY on the number of LRMageddons and the actual causes of those.

This is, in fact, the 4th LRMageddon.

Before this last patch LRMs were very effectively, WHEN USED PROPERLY (and even when used by a half-assed no skill *********, were still pretty good), and after this patch have been pushed beyond where they need to be.

LRMs DO NOT, EVER, need to be on par with direct fire weapons.

Why?

Because NO OTHER WEAPON system allows you to fire from behind cover, without ever actually seeing the enemy yourself, or them ever seeing you. There's an INCREDIBLE risk-v-reward factor to balance in there.

No need, I can look at the numbers and see the problem for myself.

From my numbers, (at least when I am using them, and I suspect my numbers are rather average for most people), they are being less effective still compared to direct fire weapons. In spread damage, reload times, accuracy, lack of control (no aiming)...

I can only recall two such events, but I have only been here for a little over a year. One happened before I arrived, with the introduction of Artemis. The second one happened when the Jagermech was released. Each had problems that were either flight path or splash damage related, not LRM speed related. In the first, they hot fixed it so it didn't go straight up and straight down onto people's mechs. The second they reduced damage and splash radius, to bring the LRMs back in line per missile. The others I am not aware of...

My numbers are telling me that the increased speed is not overly increasing my accuracy. The LRMs still spread like crazy. They still do 1.1 damage. Cover and breaking line of sight still stops the LRMs. AMS got improved to counter the buff to speed (which I've seen as being much more powerful than they once were, even with the speed increase). If anything, Artemis needs to stop providing bonuses for indirect fire, like it is suppose to. That will be one gear that will help balance LRMs for indirect combat, while keeping them at a reasonable threat for direct combat.

They need to remain a threat. Not something that "incoming missiles" means nothing.

LRMs are going to be a weapon that will probably always have complained about it, simply because it can be fired indirectly. I realize this. However, I still am not under the impression that they are over powered with the recent changes. Now, they feel rather nice. This is my opinion. My Stats I have seem to back me up so far. However, I only have my own stats to call upon, and I can only call conclusions from what data I have, as limited as it may be.

Edited by Tesunie, 19 March 2014 - 05:31 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because NO OTHER WEAPON system allows you to fire from behind cover, without ever actually seeing the enemy yourself, or them ever seeing you. There's an INCREDIBLE risk-v-reward factor to balance in there.

But it requires a spotter. Its a two mech combo and its weaker than a PPC.

[KnowBuddy]

I recall an instance in closed beta before the introduction of ECM when for a short period LRM use was very prevalent. This was the first usage of that idiotic "-aggeddon" term if I remember correctly. Since then, aside from some actual bugs in implementation, LRMs were severely underpowered and only slowly have been restored to minimally viable overall, in my opinion. I see people trying out the changes to LRMs, I do not see the current long-range-direct-fire peek-or-pop strategy being significantly less effective, and it is still the safest and most effective combat style around. I do not believe that the current situation warrants use of that term, or any other buzz-word overreaction the likes of "LRMal Vortex," "Invasion of LRMia," or "Superstorm HLRMes."

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

I get what you're saying here, but, my judgment wasn't a 'snap' one.

I was not suggesting you were making a snap decision. But I do see a significant amount of jumping to conclusions among forum-goers about this issue (which was to be expected, since it happens for every change), and since I chose to chime in to support the direction of the changes in opposition to this, I wanted to make it clear that I am not jumping to conclusions or making snap judgements at this time.

I understand your concerns, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest that LRM+UAV+TargetDecay+SensorRange+TAG+Artemis+BAP should be balanced against PPC+AC/5+AdvancedZoom+Coolshot by reducing the effectiveness of LRMs given the actual GXP+CBill+Tonnage+CritSpace investment discrepancies between those two setups, especially since things like AMS and ECM already exist to reduce the effectiveness of LRMs while having little or no impact on a PPC+AC/5 setup.

Edited by KnowBuddy, 19 March 2014 - 06:42 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

Dear troll,

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

[Tesunie]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

In this instance, I played 8 games with a Firebrand that I have well over 80% accuracy with dual gauss (yeah I know 80% is kind of low, but I was drinkin' cut me some slack), and got 7 kills and 7 deaths. In my LRM boat, which had an almost 33% accuracy with LRM10's, I got double the kills in the same 8 games. I continued playing, a total of 20 games and had 36 kills, an entire battalion's worth of 'mechs.

80% accuracy suddenly became 63.51%... Strange...
LRMs go from 30.14% to 32.94%. (Mine's sitting at 34-36%, but will probably see that number settle more when I get more time to play. Oh, and my numbers are with an ALRM20, which is more known for missing with more missiles. Didn't someone call out my LRM performance as well? But, I shall not go into that besides this mentioning.)

So then, by your numbers:
LRMs (highest number): 65.2212 damage per ton of ammo.
Gauss: 95.265 damage per ton of ammo. (10 rounds per ton, 15 damage per round, 63.51% chance to hit)

LRM10 + Artemis + 2 tons ammo (recommended) = 8 tons.
Gauss + 2 tons ammo = 17 tons total.

LRM10= 16.3052 damage per ton (and probably running out of ammo before too long). Expected damage 130.4424.
Gauss= 11.208 damage per ton. Expected damage 190.53

And lets face it, I'm not including the BAP, TAG and probably the extra 1-2 tons of ammo one would like to take for LRMs. As Gauss would probably only need 1 more ton of ammo.

ALRM10 + 3 tons ammo + 1 Ton TAG + 1.5 tons BAP = 13.5 tons
Gauss + 3 tons ammo = 18 tons

ALRM10 with the works = 195.6636 total expected damage. 14.4936 damage per ton.
Gauss = 287.795 total damage expected. 15.8775 damage per ton (roughly).

And most people would probably consider 3 tons a little skimpy for LRM ammo... But do you see a pattern? To make LRMs more and more effective, you start to drastically lose on your Expected Damage per Ton. The Gauss still seems to out preform the LRMs by the math on hit ratio.

[Dimento Graven]

Tesunie, on 19 March 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Artemis and BAP are there for the SSRMs, but do provide Benefits for the LRMs as well. (editTAG can easily be added on, if one desired. Works well without it.)

Same notes on the Stalker.


Same notes on the Stalker.

2 ALRM10s, with TAG. However, few in tube count. Concept here is the complementary abilities of the AC5, the TAG and the LRMs. If I can see a target, I shoot with basically everything non-stop.

This was an oppsie on my part. The build I posted was a build I was consdering, but was placed in the wrong section of my category of links. It's suppose to be: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fc1bd7d5e48b4ea

Even then, it has 2 ALRM10s. No TAG needed.
(The older design has 2 LRM15s, no Artemis or TAG. Worked fairly good before hand. Should be in a good place now with the new changes.)

2 LRM5s...

This build, the LRMs are for some long range, support punch. Look at the rest of the build, and it should become clear what it's purpose is on the battlefield.

Okay, now that I know you looked at them, you seemed to have only looked at the LRM system count. The point is, you don't need to have a ton of LRMs to be effective. You also don't commonly need the have the upgrades for LRMs. The Upgrades should never be needed for LRMs to be considered.

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".

Quote

With the new changes, I could see people saying that the additional equipment could use to be toned down a bit. However, to claim that LRMs are OP because now they are hitting a little more reliably, and you now have to take the "incoming Missiles" warning a little more seriously. LRMs should be able to be effective before all the extras are added on. Then, once the extras are on, it should be a fairly good fighting weapon, on par with other weapons equal to it's weight.

If anything, the bugs of Artemis applying it's bonuses to even indirect fired missiles needs to be removed. This way, LRMs only become "seriously deadly" when in direct line of fire. This would probably place many of the upgrades back into their proper places.

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.

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.

Quote

Claiming that the LRMs are OP because of the possible upgrades is kinda silly. LRMs should be more than "minorly functional" (I think I've used them enough personally to know) in their base, right out of the box usage. If they weigh 3 tons and need 1-2 tons of ammo, then they should be able to preform like a 4-5 ton weapon. MGs preform like the 0.5 ton + ammo weapon they are, in the right situations (internal damage).

If anything, it sounds like you should be asking for some changes to the gear attached to LRMs, not the LRMs themselves. Right now, I feel that they work fine and a lot of hyperventilating is happening on the forums, as I see when any change happens to anything. (I have never heard a "thanks PGI, I think you have x just about right" after a change. I always hear "You changed X, now it's useless/OP and you should change it back!"

(PS: The point of my posted build was to show that LRMs, even in small numbers, can make for a good mech design. One does not need to boat LRMs to be effective on the battlefield.)

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.

Quote

LRMs should be comparable to like weapons of the same weight, maybe a little less powerful (spread damage mostly) due to their indirect fire support options.

You seem to blame the weapon's base stats (which you say are bad), and accuse the bonus gear (that costs weight and crits, and sometimes even a possible defensive weapon) of making it OP. Then, instead of complaining about the LRMs, suggest changes to the gear to make the boosted up LRMs more reasonable.

I've mentioned more of this above, so instead of restating it...

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.

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.

Quote

I stated at the bottom that I haven't had very many matches so far with the new patch. However, from how I seem to feel them playing, and my stats (as much as they still change by a few percent from match to match) seem to agree with me that they did get a small boost to "damage through accuracy", but not enough to make them "an OP killing weapon". (And are you saying I don't know how to use LRMs...? Lets not go there, shall we? <_< )
What is your accuracy on those LRM10s? Are the Artemis? And, by most standards I know, 80% is considered high accuracy, not low. My score for the AC5 was 54.52% (Gauss at 66.11%) before the stat reset. I have not used them get this patch, but they did not get changed, so I shall assume that my results wouldn't change much.

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...).

Quote

I still have to disagree with LRMs being too powerful. I took quite the rain my last match I played in, and survived it fairly well. All components still attached. (It hurt, but did not kill me.)

So, because you killed a mech to two mechs a game average, it's overpowered? I've seen people get tons of kills with SmL, does that mean they are overpowered? I had a match with my Griffin where I got 4 kills in it. Shall I start claiming how OP the Griffin is? My Quickdraw 4H has played 97 games, and killed 97 mechs, with a K/D of 1.83. It must be OP and should be nerfed...

"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.

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.

Quote

From my numbers, (at least when I am using them, and I suspect my numbers are rather average for most people), they are being less effective still compared to direct fire weapons. In spread damage, reload times, accuracy, lack of control (no aiming)...

I can only recall two such events, but I have only been here for a little over a year. One happened before I arrived, with the introduction of Artemis. The second one happened when the Jagermech was released. Each had problems that were either flight path or splash damage related, not LRM speed related. In the first, they hot fixed it so it didn't go straight up and straight down onto people's mechs. The second they reduced damage and splash radius, to bring the LRMs back in line per missile. The others I am not aware of...

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.

Quote

My numbers are telling me that the increased speed is not overly increasing my accuracy. The LRMs still spread like crazy. They still do 1.1 damage. Cover and breaking line of sight still stops the LRMs. AMS got improved to counter the buff to speed (which I've seen as being much more powerful than they once were, even with the speed increase). If anything, Artemis needs to stop providing bonuses for indirect fire, like it is suppose to. That will be one gear that will help balance LRMs for indirect combat, while keeping them at a reasonable threat for direct combat.

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.

Quote

They need to remain a threat. Not something that "incoming missiles" means nothing.

LRMs are going to be a weapon that will probably always have complained about it, simply because it can be fired indirectly. I realize this. However, I still am not under the impression that they are over powered with the recent changes. Now, they feel rather nice. This is my opinion. My Stats I have seem to back me up so far. However, I only have my own stats to call upon, and I can only call conclusions from what data I have, as limited as it may be.

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.

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 19 March 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

But it requires a spotter. Its a two mech combo and its weaker than a PPC.

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.

[Nryrony]

Well at the moment its a bit ridicules though.

After a long time of uselessnes I finally gave my old STK-5S a try, with LRMs ofc. Its a completely stupid setup with 4x15 in salvo fire and 6medlasers for my ego and dual AMS ofc.

1. Half the games I played I got more kills with my lasers then with my LRMs
2. People are not even trying to defend against LRMs, there is basically 0 ECM or AMS and half of them just run into the open as a free-kill.
(Again I don't even bather to carry TAG... and I salvo fire...)

Yes people spam LRMs atm and yes its a bit too much - this will settle down eventually. However in a fixed setup (12vs12) they will now have a place as a suppression weapon an a bit for dmg.

Edited by Nryrony, 19 March 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Tesunie, on 19 March 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

80% accuracy suddenly became 63.51%... Strange...
LRMs go from 30.14% to 32.94%. (Mine's sitting at 34-36%, but will probably see that number settle more when I get more time to play. Oh, and my numbers are with an ALRM20, which is more known for missing with more missiles. Didn't someone call out my LRM performance as well? But, I shall not go into that besides this mentioning.)

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.

Quote

So then, by your numbers:
LRMs (highest number): 65.2212 damage per ton of ammo.
Gauss: 95.265 damage per ton of ammo. (10 rounds per ton, 15 damage per round, 63.51% chance to hit)

LRM10 + Artemis + 2 tons ammo (recommended) = 8 tons.
Gauss + 2 tons ammo = 17 tons total.

LRM10= 16.3052 damage per ton (and probably running out of ammo before too long). Expected damage 130.4424.
Gauss= 11.208 damage per ton. Expected damage 190.53

And lets face it, I'm not including the BAP, TAG and probably the extra 1-2 tons of ammo one would like to take for LRMs. As Gauss would probably only need 1 more ton of ammo.

ALRM10 + 3 tons ammo + 1 Ton TAG + 1.5 tons BAP = 13.5 tons
Gauss + 3 tons ammo = 18 tons

ALRM10 with the works = 195.6636 total expected damage. 14.4936 damage per ton.
Gauss = 287.795 total damage expected. 15.8775 damage per ton (roughly).

And most people would probably consider 3 tons a little skimpy for LRM ammo... But do you see a pattern? To make LRMs more and more effective, you start to drastically lose on your Expected Damage per Ton. The Gauss still seems to out preform the LRMs by the math on hit ratio.

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.

[Kjudoon]

I will say this... NOW LRMs are the FOTM.

In about a month, or when the trial assault is changed it will drop back down some. But there are sooooooo many people out there who are very bad with the new, faster LRMs. You just see your misses quicker.

[Khobai]

Quote

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.

Four LRM10s vs one PPC isnt an equal weight comparison though.

Four LRM10s weigh 28 tons with 8 tons of ammo. Equivalently, you can get two PPCs, one AC10, and two tons of ammo. Or one PPC, two AC/5s, and five tons of ammo. Or one AC20, two er large lasers, and four tons of ammo. Not only do you get way better damage spread but none of those weapons are countered by ECM or AMS. And Artemis, TAG, NARC dont do nearly enough to justify their tonnage. An LRM10 with Artemis and TAG should be outright better than a PPC and its not.

LRMs are pathetic for their tonnage. And any combo that requires two or more mechs to pull off should be stronger than what one mech alone can do. Furthermore, ECM/AMS countering LRMs means LRMs have to be better than equivalent weapons, because its such a huge downside. But like I said before theres other ways to make LRMs better that dont involve making them do more damage. They can be given utility instead by having different ammo types.

Give it about a week and LRM usage will decline after it sinks in how ineffective they still are.

Edited by Khobai, 20 March 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[Mr 144]

Khobai, on 20 March 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

Four LRM10s vs one PPC isnt an equal weight comparison though.

Four LRM10s weigh 28 tons with 8 tons of ammo. Equivalently, you can get two PPCs, one AC10, and two tons of ammo. Or one PPC, two AC/5s, and five tons of ammo. Or one AC20, two er large lasers, and four tons of ammo. Not only do you get way better damage spread but none of those weapons are countered by ECM or AMS.

LRMs are pathetic for their tonnage. And any combo that requires two or more mechs to pull off should be stronger than what one mech alone can do.

My personal testings says 1x ALRM15 vs 1x PPC share similar Time-to-Kill metrics under optimal conditions. Intrinsics of course can be held for both types.

[Khobai]

Quote

My personal testings says 1x ALRM15 vs 1x PPC share similar Time-to-Kill metrics under optimal conditions. Intrinsics of course can be held for both types.

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

No it doesn't! It is a balancing point do I want to pay more tonnage/and some risk of blowing up for less heat? Some folks are willing to shoulder that risk. An LRM 15 is a fair trade for a PPC... or at least it should be.

[Mr 144]

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.

To be specific, I tested pairs vs pairs...and with 'viable' builds. The tonnage difference is actually pretty close with complete build mechnics including more DHS for the PPC...regardless...it was just an observational factoid. There's a lengthy post by me a while ago detailing the test. I was attempting top weapons in each category, and ALRM20 vs ERPPC didn't compare well as they are both only used in specialty cases, where as PPCs and ALRM15 are often used.

Edit: Here
It's slightly dated, but a decent enough reference for pre-patch.

Edited by Mr 144, 20 March 2014 - 08:51 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

No it doesn't! It is a balancing point do I want to pay more tonnage/and some risk of blowing up for less heat? Some folks are willing to shoulder that risk. An LRM 15 is a fair trade for a PPC... or at least it should be.

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.

Edited by Khobai, 20 March 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[VXJaeger]

I think that the apex of LRM-boats has gone by, and now on amount of them will rapidly decrease. But now LRM is viable weaponsystem as secondary or even tertiary in mechs, so AMS is needed in future.

Edited by VXJaeger, 20 March 2014 - 10:24 AM.