193 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

ColonelMetus, on 14 November 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

lrms are the most complained about thing, nerf them

Hahaha...yeah, most complained about in terms of how weak they are. I'd say you were trolling but you seem to have bought an Overlord package. LRMs are not that difficult to negate...you should probably be complaining about ballistics right now.

[Ngamok]

ColonelMetus, on 13 November 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

they need to add ECM to more mechs to counter OP lrm

Keep dreaming. Do you know I can core an Atlas faster in a Battlemaster with 3xAC/2s than I can in a Battlemaster with 2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s?

[Bacl]

LRM OP? Hmmm we playing the same game? In my founder Catapult i can go over my 1250 missiles and score a HUGE 400 damage at the end of the game ( which a bit part is coming from my 4 med lasers). You lose lock too easily, people use cover, always couple a mech in a group with AMS and waht about ECM?

So sorry but no LRM could actually use a small buff or they fix the hit registration because they were fine before the hits got all funky up. Actually all missiles could either use a buff or a registration fix.

[Metalsand]

Ngamok, on 14 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Keep dreaming. Do you know I can core an Atlas faster in a Battlemaster with 3xAC/2s than I can in a Battlemaster with 2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s?

That's...how it should be. You don't have to be exposed to the enemy, or even on the same side of the map as the enemy if you use LRM's. Not to mention that a good missle boat uses TWICE as many missiles as both of those combos.

Bacl, on 14 November 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

LRM OP? Hmmm we playing the same game? In my founder Catapult i can go over my 1250 missiles and score a HUGE 400 damage at the end of the game ( which a bit part is coming from my 4 med lasers). You lose lock too easily, people use cover, always couple a mech in a group with AMS and waht about ECM?

So sorry but no LRM could actually use a small buff or they fix the hit registration because they were fine before the hits got all funky up. Actually all missiles could either use a buff or a registration fix.

400 damage is pretty average across the board, and is especially good for a weapon that you don't even have to be on the same side of the map or even exposed to the enemy to damage someone.

[Fenris Krinkovich]

LRM's are the LEAST reliable weapon in the game. They're only scary if you act like a fool.

[CravenMadness]

400 damage for around 10 - 12 tons of ammo and dedicated four weapon system hard points (lrm 10s are 5 tons pre arti and 6 with arti, lrm 15 are 7 tons pre arti and 8 with arti so lets see that's a -minimum- of 22 tons of weapons in 4 hardpoints, max of 26 just in -weapons-) -and- he declares that most of that damage is from the medium lasers that have a 270 meter range so that's not standing across the map and that is staring the targets in the face... And you're saying that's how it should be?

Where as ac 2s are 6 tons so three would be 18 tons of weaponry for three hardpoints, granted the ac 2 ammo only comes in 75 rounds per ton but there is absolutely nothing that 'stops' ac rounds from hitting besides terrain.

How in the world is anyone 'ok' with plinking damage being more effective than an entire branch of weapons systems?

Oh, and if you honestly think four hundred damage is 'average' across the board then I suppose that's one reason some folk think lrms are overpowered. But I know in my crew that's generally the 'acceptable' amount of damage, do much less and you're getting gibed.

[Mercules]

Metalsand, on 14 November 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

...or even exposed to the enemy to damage someone.

Someone has to be exposed to the enemy to make this possible...


LRMs are really only fantastic with Teamwork. They are easy to avoid, I constantly avoid them in Heavy mechs going about 68KPH to 74KPH by simply breaking LoS and moving laterally. The only time I am unable to do so is if there is a spotter on my side of cover and if those spotters are being left alone then that is my and my team's fault and not LRMs.

Heck, I PLAY a spotter for two LRM using friends. Do you know how many people simply fail to notice a tiny little mech being unobtrusive about 700 meters to their flank or rear? Sure I don't do damage but if I can guide in my friend's missiles so they do twice the amount of damage they would have gotten without steady locks and spotting... I've done my job.


Teamwork is OP!

[Joseph Mallan]

Mercules, on 14 November 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Someone has to be exposed to the enemy to make this possible...


LRMs are really only fantastic with Teamwork. They are easy to avoid, I constantly avoid them in Heavy mechs going about 68KPH to 74KPH by simply breaking LoS and moving laterally. The only time I am unable to do so is if there is a spotter on my side of cover and if those spotters are being left alone then that is my and my team's fault and not LRMs.

Heck, I PLAY a spotter for two LRM using friends. Do you know how many people simply fail to notice a tiny little mech being unobtrusive about 700 meters to their flank or rear? Sure I don't do damage but if I can guide in my friend's missiles so they do twice the amount of damage they would have gotten without steady locks and spotting... I've done my job.


Teamwork is OP!

You are the reason bad players cry!

Keep up the good work!

[Mercules]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

You are the reason bad players cry!

Keep up the good work!

Well, I do sometimes run a Raven 3L with BAP and Extended Sensor Range meaning I can lock targets for my LRM toting friends from 1.2 K out. There are some maps like Caustic and Alpine where you can easily hide in the background at those ranges.

[Metalsand]

Okay, after spending a match where I did LRM dodging instead of combat, I revise my statement.

While LRM dodging is not something you can do as effectively while fighting someone, I believe that they should be rebalanced, not nerfed. Tracking should be improved at the cost of a more shallow angle of attack. This will allow missiles to hit what they are aiming at if the enemy is out in the open, and fail when an enemy is behind cover.

Furthermore, I believe missiles should have the ability to make an impact probability estimation. Since you typically cannot see the enemy from where you are LRM boating, you will not know if you can actually hit them from where you are. If the previous rebalance is followed, I believe that LRM systems (or perhaps just Artemis-enabled LRM systems) should give you a very rough percentage of the chance of hitting the enemy. In other games where you have artillery, you typically have some sort of top-down view so that you can tell whether or not you can hit the enemy, but as this is not the case in MWO, something is needed to make up for that fact.

[Bobdolemite]

Metalsand, on 14 November 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Okay, after spending a match where I did LRM dodging instead of combat, I revise my statement.

While LRM dodging is not something you can do as effectively while fighting someone, I believe that they should be rebalanced, not nerfed. Tracking should be improved at the cost of a more shallow angle of attack. This will allow missiles to hit what they are aiming at if the enemy is out in the open, and fail when an enemy is behind cover.

Furthermore, I believe missiles should have the ability to make an impact probability estimation. Since you typically cannot see the enemy from where you are LRM boating, you will not know if you can actually hit them from where you are. If the previous rebalance is followed, I believe that LRM systems (or perhaps just Artemis-enabled LRM systems) should give you a very rough percentage of the chance of hitting the enemy. In other games where you have artillery, you typically have some sort of top-down view so that you can tell whether or not you can hit the enemy, but as this is not the case in MWO, something is needed to make up for that fact.

They have already played around with the Arcs in a pretty big way. There was a time when the Arc of unaided missiles was too high, allowing missiles to negate most terrain even high mounts were not enough. But then they balanced them reduced the Arc and added a LOS component, granting those with direct or indirect (spotter) LOS to benefit from a better Arc thus increasing the chances of getting into some cover areas.

LRM's are not meant to be Artillery, they are meant to be long range support weapons that can soften the enemy up with indirect fire (less accurate) or direct LOS fire (more accurate / better tracking) salvos. 400 Damage for the amount of hardpoints / weight / Modules / Components used is just not efficient, not as a primary weapon anyway.

As to the percentage based suggestion, it doesn't really apply to targeted homing type missiles. What your describing is more like a mortar, which may at some point be in the game as a weapon (I look forward to this)

As it stands now they are most effective as area of denial, this is more of a nuisance though than an actual threat. IMO they should be more reliable not less =/

I do however believe that Arty and Airstrike should be a top down map selection as you describe. The fact that it was point and paint in the first place had me...... confused.. I hope to see map selected arty strikes in the near future *crosses fingers*

[Metalsand]

Bobdolemite, on 14 November 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

They have already played around with the Arcs in a pretty big way. There was a time when the Arc of unaided missiles was too high, allowing missiles to negate most terrain even high mounts were not enough. But then they balanced them reduced the Arc and added a LOS component, granting those with direct or indirect (spotter) LOS to benefit from a better Arc thus increasing the chances of getting into some cover areas.

LRM's are not meant to be Artillery, they are meant to be long range support weapons that can soften the enemy up with indirect fire (less accurate) or direct LOS fire (more accurate / better tracking) salvos. 400 Damage for the amount of hardpoints / weight / Modules / Components used is just not efficient, not as a primary weapon anyway.

As to the percentage based suggestion, it doesn't really apply to targeted homing type missiles. What your describing is more like a mortar, which may at some point be in the game as a weapon (I look forward to this)

As it stands now they are most effective as area of denial, this is more of a nuisance though than an actual threat. IMO they should be more reliable not less =/

I do however believe that Arty and Airstrike should be a top down map selection as you describe. The fact that it was point and paint in the first place had me...... confused.. I hope to see map selected arty strikes in the near future *crosses fingers*

Yeah, top down arty/airstrike makes perfect sense, you should be able to use it with the B-map, I don't know why you can't anyways.

And well, LRM's atm are essentially artillery. You shoot your round at an arc, and it can hit people from behind medium-cover. It's not exactly smart at the moment when it comes back down too. And we already have regular long-range support weapons such as the ER LLaser, ER PPC, and Gauss, so LRM's are really more of a lock-on smart artillery since they do the same amount of damage that an artillery call would do provided you use a missile boat build. If they aren't meant to be artillery, the arc should be flat then, with the bonus being that you can use them effectively at any range, and the other bonus being lock on capabilities.

[Vodrin Thales]

Missiles are so easy to avoid by just breaking LoS and continuing to move, they certainly do not need anything that makes them harder to hit with. I'd actually support a modest speed buff and a much lower trajectory when fired with direct line of site.

[Lyoto Machida]

Metalsand, on 14 November 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's...how it should be. You don't have to be exposed to the enemy, or even on the same side of the map as the enemy if you use LRM's. Not to mention that a good missle boat uses TWICE as many missiles as both of those combos.


400 damage is pretty average across the board, and is especially good for a weapon that you don't even have to be on the same side of the map or even exposed to the enemy to damage someone.

Thanks for posting this...now I'm almost convinced you're either a troll or don't have a good grasp of how the game works.

A good LRM boat needs twice the missiles as 2 LRM15s and 2 LRM10s? Name a mech that can shoot 100 tubes at once or even needs 5 LRM20s? I'll be waiting...

Also, 400 damage for the amount of tonnage he would have devoted to LRMs is pointless, considering how many counters there are to LRMs. He would have been better off taking direct fire weapons.

Go ahead and try indirect firing from across the map and see how much damage you get. Maybe once you get into a higher ELO bracket, you'll see how LRMs are not OP. The only meaningful way to use LRMs currently is to direct fire them with TAG from about 400m (or less).

I'm going to chalk this up as a "learn to play" issue and move on.

[Metalsand]

Lyoto Machida, on 14 November 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Thanks for posting this...now I'm almost convinced you're either a troll or don't have a good grasp of how the game works.

A good LRM boat needs twice the missiles as 2 LRM15s and 2 LRM10s? Name a mech that can shoot 100 tubes at once or even needs 5 LRM20s? I'll be waiting...

Also, 400 damage for the amount of tonnage he would have devoted to LRMs is pointless, considering how many counters there are to LRMs. He would have been better off taking direct fire weapons.

Go ahead and try indirect firing from across the map and see how much damage you get. Maybe once you get into a higher ELO bracket, you'll see how LRMs are not OP. The only meaningful way to use LRMs currently is to direct fire them with TAG from about 400m (or less).

I'm going to chalk this up as a "learn to play" issue and move on.

...Yes, a good boat needs at least 40-60 missiles total which is easily achievable if you are actually running an LRM boat and not a Hunchback 4SP. The more missiles you fire at once, the less effective AMS is, and the more effective your strike. I think you might want to take a step back and either re-read what I typed, i think you misunderstood me saying that you should use 40-60 missiles as 100 missiles, which no build can possibly do currently. Before you burst into a discussion and start throwing around labels, you should probably first actually read what people are typing instead of glossing over for something that you can use to derail the discussion.

I actually used dual LRM-15's on my SRM 4SP build because I wanted to experiment with different builds. Although more than half of my missiles were shot down or missed completely, and I ran out of ammo half-way through a round due to an underestimated ammo requirement, I still managed to deal about 200 damage. It's not unreasonable to say that a more experienced player running twice as many LRM's and a decent amount of ammo should average around 300-400 damage.

[Lyoto Machida]

Metalsand, on 14 November 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

...Yes, a good boat needs at least 40-60 missiles total which is easily achievable if you are actually running an LRM boat and not a Hunchback 4SP. The more missiles you fire at once, the less effective AMS is, and the more effective your strike. I think you might want to take a step back and either re-read what I typed, i think you misunderstood me saying that you should use 40-60 missiles as 100 missiles, which no build can possibly do currently. Before you burst into a discussion and start throwing around labels, you should probably first actually read what people are typing instead of glossing over for something that you can use to derail the discussion.

I actually used dual LRM-15's on my SRM 4SP build because I wanted to experiment with different builds. Although more than half of my missiles were shot down or missed completely, and I ran out of ammo half-way through a round due to an underestimated ammo requirement, I still managed to deal about 200 damage. It's not unreasonable to say that a more experienced player running twice as many LRM's and a decent amount of ammo should average around 300-400 damage.

Maybe it is you that needs more reading comprehension...I posted the guy you quoted's original post below for reference. He stated "2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s"...which to me implies a total of 50 total tubes (otherwise he would have said "2xLRM15 or 2xLRM10s). You then said that a good LRM boat needs twice as many missles as that.

Also for reference...I've spent over a day in my Awesome 8R since they started keeping stats so I know a thing or two about LRM boating.

You must also be setting your goals low because 400 damage is a rather mediocre game for the amount of tonnage you have to devote...not exactly anything to email home about. Again, you must not have been playing this game long because it was possible to achieve 800+ damage games with LRMs before (which you can still do with other weapons currently). Be honest...how many games do you see like that nowadays from LRMs?

You could have just taken 5MLs only in that 4SP and gotten 200 damage...why bother with LRM15s in their current state?

Why would someone want to devote tonnage to 4 LRM15s and 8+ tons of ammo when they could just take direct fire weapons and be way more efficient with less counters? And people in this thread still think LRMs are OP?

Ngamok, on 14 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Keep dreaming. Do you know I can core an Atlas faster in a Battlemaster with 3xAC/2s than I can in a Battlemaster with 2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s?

[Metalsand]

Lyoto Machida, on 14 November 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Maybe it is you that needs more reading comprehension...I posted the guy you quoted's original post below for reference. He stated "2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s"...which to me implies a total of 50 total tubes (otherwise he would have said "2xLRM15 or 2xLRM10s). You then said that a good LRM boat needs twice as many missles as that.

Also for reference...I've spent over a day in my Awesome 8R since they started keeping stats so I know a thing or two about LRM boating.

You must also be setting your goals low because 400 damage is a rather mediocre game for the amount of tonnage you have to devote...not exactly anything to email home about. Again, you must not have been playing this game long because it was possible to achieve 800+ damage games with LRMs before (which you can still do with other weapons currently). Be honest...how many games do you see like that nowadays from LRMs?

You could have just taken 5MLs only in that 4SP and gotten 200 damage...why bother with LRM15s in their current state?

Why would someone want to devote tonnage to 4 LRM15s and 8+ tons of ammo when they could just take direct fire weapons and be way more efficient with less counters? And people in this thread still think LRMs are OP?

I started a week ago, and in all matches, 400 is the average amount of damage done. 4SP only has two hardpoints for missiles. And of course they would want to, you can make missile boats of 80 firepower, meanwhile the best non-missile alpha you can get is around 50, and sustained is only about 4.5 in that case unless you are using a ballistics build.

You keep on overreacting and going "NO YOU ******* DONT TAKE MY LRMS AWAY OR NERF THEM WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU" and I just keep on saying they need to be CHANGED so that they have a proper role in gameplay. As it stands, it depends on whether or not the enemy team actually has team players to decide whether or not LRMs are OP or useless.

[Metalsand]

Lyoto Machida, on 14 November 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Maybe it is you that needs more reading comprehension...I posted the guy you quoted's original post below for reference. He stated "2xLRM15s and 2xLRM10s"...which to me implies a total of 50 total tubes (otherwise he would have said "2xLRM15 or 2xLRM10s). You then said that a good LRM boat needs twice as many missles as that.

Also for reference...I've spent over a day in my Awesome 8R since they started keeping stats so I know a thing or two about LRM boating.

You must also be setting your goals low because 400 damage is a rather mediocre game for the amount of tonnage you have to devote...not exactly anything to email home about. Again, you must not have been playing this game long because it was possible to achieve 800+ damage games with LRMs before (which you can still do with other weapons currently). Be honest...how many games do you see like that nowadays from LRMs?

You could have just taken 5MLs only in that 4SP and gotten 200 damage...why bother with LRM15s in their current state?

Why would someone want to devote tonnage to 4 LRM15s and 8+ tons of ammo when they could just take direct fire weapons and be way more efficient with less counters? And people in this thread still think LRMs are OP?

Oh, also might I point you over to this thread, where people are sharing their average damages so that I have actual numbers to compliment your ego trip. http://mwomercs.com/...average-damage/

[Sug]

Metalsand, on 14 November 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

You don't have to be exposed to the enemy, or even on the same side of the map as the enemy if you use LRM's.

400 damage is pretty average across the board, and is especially good for a weapon that you don't even have to be on the same side of the map or even exposed to the enemy to damage someone.

...yeah. Try using LRMS at any range over 500m and then come talk. They're a medium range weapon at best. And I would say most indirect fire has like a 30% chance of actually hitting it's target do to flight path issues, losing the lock from your team mates, or the target just moving slightly to the left and getting behind something.

[Jon Gotham]

Ghogiel, on 11 November 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

ALRM 60 with tag will basically 2 shot everything under 75tons.

IF all the stars and planets align, you sacrifice your firstborn AND the enemy pilot ignores the big flashing warnings in front of his face.