2 replies to this topic

[TheMadTypist]

The issue as I see it- context for the suggestion

I recently started playing matches again with the trebuchet that I’ve had sitting in my hangar for ages, and remembered why it had been so long since I bothered to take it out. Right now, LRM play is very binary- either the enemy knows how to react (or is properly equipped to counter you) and takes little to no damage, or they don’t, and take the full impact. You do well, or you do very poorly.

Don’t get me wrong, some counterplay is good for every weapons type. It makes gameplay interesting, and is why I wholeheartedly support the burn-over-time function of laser weapons encouraging responses like torso twisting. However, in the laser case, the defending player is reducing the effectiveness of incoming fire through this response, but he is still taking damage, and his attacker can still readdress his fire to attempt to counter the counter. It might provide him with enough survivability to come out of the confrontation as a winner, but his actions do not guarantee success- a soft counter, rather than a hard one. Missiles suffer because carrying the correct equipment or/and taking full advantage of cover can severely undercut their effectiveness, making them either powerful tools or wasted tonnage based as much or more on how your opponents are prepared and respond than on how you utilize them.

What this means is that you can’t really rely on any one salvo hitting your opponent, so what I’ve observed from other players are one of two responses- spamming lots of smaller launchers (such as the 5 or 10) to create a constant stream, or stacking as many missiles into a single salvo as possible. The smaller launcher method is based around maximizing the advantage you can take for as long as they remain exposed by continuously raining fire (and shaking them about), and hopefully reducing what you stand to lose when the enemy moves into cover while you still have missiles in the air. The stacked-salvo method centers around the idea of making sure that if or when you eventually do manage to hit your opponent, the hit will be significant enough to make up for the time you’ve spent waiting for that moment of vulnerability and missed shots you’ve put into finally making that hit.

Both of these methods favor a heavier chassis with a greater number of hardpoints and/or missile tubes, Like the stalker or Catapult. The reason we don’t see LRMs on lighter ‘mechs, like the trebuchet or the hunch -4J, is because they lack either the tube number, number of hardpoints, or simply tonnage to take the launchers as primary weapons and contribute as much as their more direct cousins. I believe we can encourage their use, however, by increasing the possible role of a skirmishing LRM platform.

Right now, this is limited by the high arc LRM’s take- great for clearing cover, but causing missiles to take longer to reach the target. This is time that a ‘mech has to remain exposed before even beginning to do damage, and time that increases the effectiveness of the counterplay to a missile incoming warning. While a ‘mech like the battlemaster can weather this, a lightly armored skirmisher has significant difficulty maintaining proper LOS and enduring impacts during this time, making it an unattractive option when compared to the weapons of other types which can fulfill the role at the middle-to-long range a skirmisher will likely engage. As a result, I instead see heavier missile boats sitting further back from the front, and ‘mechs like the Trenchbucket and Hunch-4J becoming rare on the field.

The Potential Solution

Give the player a key to toggle between the current, high missile arc, and a lower, slightly more direct and faster arc. Something that works similarly to the missile bay door toggle, but with greater impact on, and use in, an actual confrontation. Skirmishers who get just a bit closer to maintain their own locks, and have enough maneuverability to withdraw when it gets too hot, will benefit significantly from the option as they have greater capability to decide angles of attack and positioning of both parties. At the same time, heavy and unmaneuverable boats in the back will have a more difficult choice between maintaining their indirect fire capability or reducing time to target but giving distant enemies a greater positional advantage from their cover. Direct fire weapons like lasers and cannons would still rule the day in an outright slugging match due to their ability to target individual components, but increasing the viability of these smaller skirmishing ‘mechs could encourage their use enough to bring them back onto the field and add just that bit more flavor and variety to the game.

Whatever your opinion, thank you for weathering 800-odd words of suggestion, and feel free to point out any grievous issues you might see in my arguments.

[Firewuff]

its a nice though but I'm not realy convinced. Add tag + target decay and unless they have hard cover they will take substantial damage. Or use LRM's ar a medium range, between 200- 270m can be devestating esp if you also carry streeks.

LRM spamming of LRM5's is ineffective if you have AMS as less than half get through. dual LRM 20's have a heat issue... overall its reasonably well balanced. my opinion is have a balanced mech which has some direct fire + LRM. can be devestaing.

[Unrelenting Farce]

MRMs. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/MRM-30

They fire similarly to SRMs, but also have much longer range and might make Skirmishers happy.