Prezimonto, on 10 February 2014 - 05:58 AM, said:
For the record, I've argued, passionately, in many threads that LRM's need a total rework. I understand that large missile boats (40+ missiles) are way too good against large targets, particularly with effective support. The problem with LRM's is that they're very not good when using low numbers of missiles (which is what most mechs are designed to carry). All the counters make lobbing smaller numbers of missile very ineffective and combined with the long lock and flight times they're, again, worse than worthless as you have to expose yourself and/or at least not defend yourself with much torso twisting.
The problem arises because there is a disparity between lots of missiles and few missiles in their usefulness. Most direct fire weapons scale up linearly in viability (or more in the case of AC weapons). Meaning a few is okay and more is better. With LRM's a few is wasted tonnage in most situations and more is useful, but not great. Compare to AC's/PPC's where for the most part they're good weapons when used singly, and become great weapons used in multiples.
So the problem becomes LRM boats, and the solution could include many parts. The game has been totally broken in favor of missiles at several points, but the problem has almost always been the mechs with huge amounts of missiles.
I usually argue that LRM's need some kind of a limit/nerf that will reign in the bulk utility of many tube mechs, but allow for the addition of faster or accelerating flight times, damage tweaks, and a restructuring of ECM so it significantly slows locks and speeds up the loss of locks instead of totally eliminates locks.
You can't increase the efficacy of 'low number of LRMs' without over powering the boats. PGI would end up having to restrict even possible 'mech configurations even more drastically than they've done.
As you say, with support, AKA: a skilled spotter with TAG/NARC, they are incredibly effective against large targets.
So, carriers of 'low numbers of missiles' should ONLY use them as a means of suppression, not expect to use them as a 'primary' weapons. After all, when Bitching Betty tells us we've got incoming missiles, we have no idea if it's a single LRM 5 pack, or 75 LRM's from a 5xLRM15 Stalker LRM boat, do we?
And all the other things you mention, long flight times, ability to torso twist to mitigate damage, etc. are all due to the fact that of ALL the weapons in the game, the LRM is the ONE weapon you can load up you don't have to actually EXPOSE yourself to the enemy to use.
Plus it's been the ONE weapon that has enjoyed significant enhancement through modules, lock retention being one of the most deadly.
Quote
Limits to boats that I've seen include bone targeting, This solution is hated by lots of players for the randomness, but I'd gladly trade the ability to actually hit and deal damage(buff speed/damage ect.), somewhere, on a mech instead of maybe hitting and doing some damage spread around the upper portion of the mech.
The other idea I've seen is heavily limiting the number of tubes that mechs have on launchers so there are very few actual LRM boats (40+ tubes). This could take several forms, including limiting the number of tubes to stock variant and/or limiting SRM/LRM hardpoints to that type of missile. This would make the handful of purpose built variants in the game more appealing, and also limit the ability of mechs like the stalker to keep from filling up on LRM60+.
As I mentioned before more restrictive configuration rules, and worse more complicated mechanics all in an effort to allow some bozo to load up an LRM 5 and use it as a primary weapon.
OMG, NO!
We have to maintain KISS.
Missiles do low damage per missile hit, the missiles are spread out when they arrive at target, so no concentrated damage, they move more slowly than MOST weapons, require a lock to be maintained for best chance to hit.
That's enough complicating factors for PGI to worry about. Everything else you mention adds more potential for exploitation and out right breakage.
Quote
I'll also note that I play with all weapons in the game (and have for a long time) and I agree SRM's are in really bad place, but the gauss is just fine, I regularly rack up 400+ damage with single gauss builds and usually manage around 3 kills with dual gauss, even post charge mechanic. The trick is to stop brawling with it, you need 300 to 400m range, you'll get chewed up by better brawling weapons/explosion/ the need to make trick shots in close with the limited hold time.(which is adding in a layer of skill, much like LRM's that has nothing to do with aiming and everything to do with positioning and awareness)
The buff to the speed of the round was a huge deal.
I use gauss regularly too, and I can say without prejudice it's nearly the most difficult weapon to use effectively with intent and skill. Absolutely, you're right. With some skill you can easily rack up the kills with it. I've been able to rack up 7 kills in a single match pre-nerf and POST-nerf with it (videos are on YouTube - TheDimentoGraven), so yeah they're effective, but EASY?
The only other weapon I've done as well with? LRMs, and in that match I didn't even have to show myself once.
Nope. I've got people I've been playing with since closed beta that refuse to use them because of the issues with them. These are people who have been playing for TWO YEARS, who can rack up 5 kills per match with ML's and a bad attitude.
Quote
The AC20 is still my go to weapon as well for brawling... stop trying to use it over 270 meters and it's barely changed in lead time from before. I acknowledge that the AC10 is a bit of dog at the moment, but the LBX10's are great weapons if you can aim and hit stripped armor (punch like at least a gauss for less tons and more ammo).... so they're really quite good when mixed with other weapons.
Agreed, great brawling weapon, but as you say, over 270 meters and crap goes down hill with it REAL fast, requiring you move to within that range you gave, and that's deadly bad especially for slow moving assaults caught in the open. MOST battles aren't fought below 270 meters. There are some that EVENTUALLY will get to that range, but otherwise, you're looking at an average battle distance of around 400-500 meters. With AC20's and the recent speed nerf of the projectile, that increases their difficulty.
Quote
Anyway... the long and short, it's not okay to say LRM's are easy mode without taking a look at more issues. They're not really in a good place under the conditions that most mechs can equip them, to the point that the tonnage spend on LRM's is almost always better spent on something else, unless all you're doing is using LRM's.
This is where we disagree. You're trying to load a single 10 pack as a primary weapon, and expecting to do as well as AC10, or, heck, even an LBX10, you're screwed in the head. If you're loading it up as a secondary weapon intended for suppression of the enemy, you my friend, are a smart cookie.
Quote
Last thought. You ignored the fact that direct fire weapons are essentially computer driven skill as well(perfect, automatic convergence for all hardpoints).
See, that portion of your statement right there makes me suspect you really have limited experience using ballistics and PPC's. '...perfect, automatic convergence...' is only under the best of circumstances. You're stationary, or your target is stationary or at least moving slowly, or better yet, moving straight at you at less than 100kph. THEN yes, perfect convergence 95% of the time. As speed increases though, and you're having to increase your lead on your target, you start suffering significant deconvergence issues. It's NOT a broken mechanic that causes it. If you're leading your target by 50 - 200 meters to hit them on the run, the focus point is where ever your reticule happens to be.
Worse yet, with the still imperfect HSR, you could 'look like' you've scored a hit, but the server has decided you missed.
LRMs certainly suffer from HSR issues a LOT less than any other weapons, as again, the weapon tracking is driven by the server.
Quote
LRM's actually to take real skill to use, but the skill isn't hand-eye coordination, it's timing, map knowledge, ammo conservation, range judgement, learning to dance while keeping a cross hair on a target for 10 seconds without dying.
Now I KNOW your primary weapon used is LRMs, and you only incidentally use other weapons. Only a die hard LRM'er tries to suggest these things are SOLELY LRM skills and that NO ONE ELSE USING ANY OTHER WEAPON SYSTEM has to worry about this.
Quote
Just because direct fire weapons require a modicum more hand-eye coordination does not make them more "skillful" weapons. It doesn't even make using them "hard" because you have much fewer variables to deal with, like... exposure time of both yourself and the enemy, the enemies proximity to ECM, numbers of AMS in the area. Any mech that's not moving fast and in the open(where you say LRM's are good) is a free lunch for direct fire weapons as well as LRM's, which will be fired faster and arrive sooner, deal pin-point damage, expose the person attacking for much less time and not be countered by a variety of other mechanics. So suggesting that mech's in the open get eaten alive is fine... but any weapon with decent range can mange that.
Again, you expose yourself as a hard and fast LRM user.
1. Using someone else's skill to spot for you, you don't have to worry about ECM or exposing yourself.
2. AMS, you have no idea how many AMS's are in the area, so you don't even think about it.
3. That person in the open can torso twist too to mitigate all direct fire weapons, only, unlike the LRM user, the users of direct fire weapons MUST expose themselves to be effective. This isn't necessarily so for the LRM user.
Quote
PS: after reading this I realize I'm way off topic here, and I agree there's better places to have this discussion. I wanted to toss a last post in so you know I'm just a rosy "LURMs need love" guy. There's layers here that need addressing.
Well, the only thing I would say needs to be addressed is LRMs could use a range increase. A 1000 meter limit in a game where most direct fire weapons seem to have already had a range boost seems... subjective... I'd be interested in seeing the affects in the game if the ranger were increased to, say... I dunno, somewhere in the range of 1500 to 1750.
Other than that, I think LRMs are fine as is, and make GREAT turret weapons, AND, I think a use for the command module would be, any 'mech equipped for one, could SPOT for LRM turrets...
That's just my thoughts anyway (and an attempt to bring us back to OP, as you mentioned).
Edited by Dimento Graven, 10 February 2014 - 07:47 AM.
9
