383 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

So tell me Sandpit.

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with no Artemis and no TAG balanced?

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with Artemis and TAG balanced?

What if the mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a whole team with a total of 9 AMS due to a Firestarter S, is that balanced?

What if a mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a team with 7 AMS and 2 ECM?

What about a mech with 1 LRM 5 against a team with 8 AMS?

What about 3 LRM 20's with UAV, TAG, Artemis ADV Decay and the opposing team has no AMS and no ECM, is that balanced?

Please tell me which version is balanced.



Thanks for not answering my question at all?

Yup

Yup

Yup
Wanna know how I know? Well I'm glad you asked good sir. I know because I use them and I've seen teamates tear up the enemy team with them in just about every single scenario you laid out.

In other words yes, (just as I said in my earlier post) they are balanced now and could just use a little love in speed. That's no different than that 1% (12mans) calling for nerfs on Arty and Air because they're "op" when being used with extreme coordination and teamwork (which is EXACTLY what 12mans are for). Just because something is more effective in certain scenarios and setups doesn't in any way mean it's "op" or "up"

[Josef Nader]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Thanks for not answering my question at all?

LRMs are balanced when they're a little worse than direct fire weapons unmodified, better than direct fire weapons with modifications, and much worse than direct fire weapons with counters.

That is about as clear an answer as I can possibly come up with.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Rebas Kradd, on 26 February 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Nicholas Carlyle:

Now that you've just gotten hostile, I'll offer an equally surly response:

They are not going to remove UAV, Artemis, TAG, ECM, AMS, Adv Target Decay, and NARC. They are not going to remove seven different systems to affect just one, having gone to all the effort to establish them and followed community requests on a lot of them. They're not going to do it.

So if that's your only suggestion, it's no longer productive. And if your only remaining role is just gripe, please move on and let others discuss things.

Sorry, I refuse to accept that they can't be taught the error of their ways.

It might take going out of business...but hopefully not.

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Yup

Yup

Yup
Wanna know how I know? Well I'm glad you asked good sir. I know because I use them and I've seen teamates tear up the enemy team with them in just about every single scenario you laid out.

In other words yes, (just as I said in my earlier post) they are balanced now and could just use a little love in speed. That's no different than that 1% (12mans) calling for nerfs on Arty and Air because they're "op" when being used with extreme coordination and teamwork (which is EXACTLY what 12mans are for). Just because something is more effective in certain scenarios and setups doesn't in any way mean it's "op" or "up"

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

LRMs are balanced when they're a little worse than direct fire weapons unmodified, better than direct fire weapons with modifications, and much worse than direct fire weapons with counters.

That is about as clear an answer as I can possibly come up with.

Two people who talk a lot and do not say a damn thing. It's a real sight.

How can an LRM 20 be balanced with no ECM and AMS in a match, and still be balanced when ECM and AMS are present?

It's literally not possible.

[Roadkill]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Sorry, I refuse to accept that they can't be taught the error of their ways.

ECM sends its regards.

[Charons Little Helper]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with no Artemis and no TAG balanced?

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with Artemis and TAG balanced?

What if the mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a whole team with a total of 9 AMS due to a Firestarter S, is that balanced?

What if a mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a team with 7 AMS and 2 ECM?

What about a mech with 1 LRM 5 against a team with 8 AMS?

What about 3 LRM 20's with UAV, TAG, Artemis ADV Decay and the opposing team has no AMS and no ECM, is that balanced?

Please tell me which version is balanced.

Due to AMS - mechs with only a single LRM 5 are always going to be dumb.

But trying to balance stupid builds like that is... stupid.

That's like saying small pulse lasers are broken because they're not as effective boated on a stalker as they are on a firestarter.

You balance it with the smart builds in mind - and let the stupid builds suck.

And as for balancing vs the opposing team? Lots of builds get better or worse depending upon circumstances you have no control over.

Streaktaro? Great if the enemy has a bunch of lights. Sucks if they don't.

Energy heavy build? Great on snow maps. Sucks on Terra Therma.

Etc.

The problems you put forward aren't entirely unique to LRMs - though they have their share.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadkill, on 26 February 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

ECM sends its regards.

It took them 9 months to make an XML file change to make PPC heat right.

So maybe it'll take 3 years to fix ECM?

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Sorry, I refuse to accept that they can't be taught the error of their ways.

It might take going out of business...but hopefully not.




Two people who talk a lot and do not say a damn thing. It's a real sight.

How can an LRM 20 be balanced with no ECM and AMS in a match, and still be balanced when ECM and AMS are present?

It's literally not possible.

Ok, in other words "You don't agree with me and I don't like what you have to say so you're just making noise"

You're just wanting everyone to agree with you and those that don't are dismissed. You have a different opinion. That's great. The difference between us? I didn't dismiss you just because you have an opinion that differs from mine. NOW you're getting dismissed because it's painfully obvious that you're just another player that only wants to have a discussion with people who agree with you and only want changes made to the game that YOU like

[IceSerpent]

Odins Fist, on 26 February 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

NEWS FLASH : MWO is "NOT" BattleTech Tabletop, it never has been and never will be, that's just the reality of the situation and has been since the very begining.

Another news flash: MWO is supposedly based on TT and in this particular case (LRMs) TT rules can be directly translated, because we're working with hitting random locations in both games - the biggest translation problem of dice rolls vs. pin pint aiming doesn't apply.

Quote

Not everything can be translated well from TT to MWO, some things will never translate exactly the way they are from TT to MWO.

Translation itself is not the problem, problem is the changes PGI made.
In TT LRMs are primarily LoS weapon, indirect fire is only possible under the following (somewhat uncommon) circumstances:

- target has NARC attached AND is not under ECM umbrella, or

- target is painted with TAG (by a spotter - if LRM mech can tag, it has LoS and doesn't need indirect fire) AND is not under ECM umbrella, or

- the team LRM mech is on has functioning C3 network (which is very vulnerable to destruction of mech(s) that carry C3 Master and comes at the expense of crits/weight, especially on light mechs) and target is not under ECM umbrella.

In MWO LRMs are primarily indirect fire weapon due to:

- ECM is being countered by a whole lot of stuff instead of the other way around.
- completely free C3 network that can't be destroyed.

Which creates a balancing problem.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Charons Little Helper, on 26 February 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Due to AMS - mechs with only a single LRM 5 are always going to be dumb.

But trying to balance stupid builds like that is... stupid.

That's like saying small pulse lasers are broken because they're not as effective boated on a stalker as they are on a firestarter.

You balance it with the smart builds in mind - and let the stupid builds suck.

And as for balancing vs the opposing team? Lots of builds get better or worse depending upon circumstances you have no control over.

Streaktaro? Great if the enemy has a bunch of lights. Sucks if they don't.

Energy heavy build? Great on snow maps. Sucks on Terra Therma.

Etc.

The problems you put forward aren't entirely unique to LRMs - though they have their share.

Yeah, but none of those are other mech items. What other item in the game changes a PPC's damage? What changes an AC's damage? What changes a Laser's damage?

Why is carrying 1 LRM 5 dumb? How many LRM 5's should I have to carry for it not to be dumb?

Is carrying 1 LRM 10 dumb? Is carrying 1 LRM 20 dumb?

If carrying 2 LRM 5's is dumb, why isn't carrying 2 Medium Lasers dumb?

[Josef Nader]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Two people who talk a lot and do not say a damn thing. It's a real sight.

How can an LRM 20 be balanced with no ECM and AMS in a match, and still be balanced when ECM and AMS are present?

It's literally not possible.

I must say, it's really impressive how hard you work to ignore the things that are being said.

The LRM20 is respectable unmodified, powerful with the help of NARC/TAG/Artemis, and weak in the face of ECM/AMS. You can use buff items to overcome the debuff items and get normal performance out of them. That is balanced for LRMs.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Ok, in other words "You don't agree with me and I don't like what you have to say so you're just making noise"

You're just wanting everyone to agree with you and those that don't are dismissed. You have a different opinion. That's great. The difference between us? I didn't dismiss you just because you have an opinion that differs from mine. NOW you're getting dismissed because it's painfully obvious that you're just another player that only wants to have a discussion with people who agree with you and only want changes made to the game that YOU like

Blah blah blah. Is an LRM 20 balanced when AMS and ECM is present, or is an LRM 20 balanced when no AMS or ECM is present?

Answer my question.

[NRP]

Meh, there's already too much LRM spam going on right now. I don't think they need a speed increase, or any other kind of buff for that matter.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

I must say, it's really impressive how hard you work to ignore the things that are being said.

The LRM20 is respectable unmodified, powerful with the help of NARC/TAG/Artemis, and weak in the face of ECM/AMS. You can use buff items to overcome the debuff items and get normal performance out of them. That is balanced for LRMs.

So what buff items do you use to beat 5 AMS and 2 ECM?

[Josef Nader]

The answer is that it's balanced in both cases. They are not mutually exclusive.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

So what buff items do you use to beat 5 AMS and 2 ECM?

The updated NARC overwhelms the ECM, and then your teammates forcing the enemy to spread apart will allow your missile boats to overcome the AMS. Cooperation allows fire support to do it's job.

Edited by Josef Nader, 26 February 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

NRP, on 26 February 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Meh, there's already too much LRM spam going on right now. I don't think they need a speed increase, or any other kind of buff for that matter.

I always love this post from you. I see maybe one LRM boat per match. And it's normally that crappy Stalker.

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

The answer is that it's balanced in both cases. They are not mutually exclusive.

lol what?

[Lyoto Machida]

SuckyJack, on 26 February 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

The problem with LRMs is how MWO has handled Range Compression.

In the TT LRMs were a means to provide high amounts of damage at a range that is nearly unmatched. The only weapon that beat their range was the AC/2 which has a low Damage/Tonnage ratio. To be marked against this strength LRMs spread their damage, have a high cost in Tonnage and Crits as well as require ammo.

MWO comes along and doubles the max range of all Energy Weapons and triples the max range of all Ballistic Weapons. These weapons get linear damage decay past their TT Max Range to deal 0 damage past their MWO Max Range. The TT Max Range got renamed Optimum Range.

LRM Max Range has remained unchanged.

Where does this leave the game? We have long range engagements with ERLLs, ERPPCs, AC/5s and AC/2s that are tagging damage out at or beyond LRM range. LRM Boats, mechs that specialized themselves to unload their payload at extreme ranges and used that range as a safety net are instead forced into the danger zone where high damage direct fire weapons can actually hit them.

Extreme Range Sniping becomes a problem due to the nature of pin point damage, film grain is used to obscure mechs at longer range, fluffed as the lower resolution on the screens that display the world around us and make the game look a lot uglier.

What can be done? Many things. Ballistics can get only Double their max TT Range (or Optimum Range) with Linear Decay and Energy could get non-linear decay to make the weapons more different. Or you could double the LRM range and apply a 1% missile death rate per 2% past optimum range they travel so only 50% of the volley will land. Gives larger launchers like the LRM20 a purpose.

Then again I've found out time and time again that my views are "On An Island" and to be dismissed without consideration. So take it all with a grain of salt.

Praetor Shepard, on 26 February 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

LRMs need attention, I'm glad the devs are beginning to take another look at them.

So, if flight speed is being investigated, and there is a concern of having them go too fast, I wonder if LRMs can have two stages/speeds?

For example, 180 to maybe 450 meters or so (open to whatever works best for range), they travel at a stock speed, hopefully faster then the current 120 m/s, going up to 200 m/s could be reasonable to test out.

Then 450 to 1000 meters, they could get a speed boost (a second stage), maybe first test them going 300 m/s or 400 m/s (having them go faster than that would be nice, but I understand why there would be concerns about that).

With something like that, LRMs shouldn't be overpowering but they get a slight boost to hit farther out than what they currently do.


What I'd also like though, is if targeting can be tweaked some so that LRMs don't seek center mass as much, where small salvos fly tight, ripping up CT's. SSRMs bone targeting is a possibility to help with this.


Also, I'd like to see stiffer penalties to LRMs when fired without LOS. And require equipment such as TAG or NARC to be able to get a lock without LOS, not simply getting our standard "R" Targeting to attain a lock if the shooter can't see the target directly.

No point in 2x or 3x LRM range unless a 2nd/3rd stage boost in speed is implemented. If LRMs arent really effective at 900m, there's no point in having them be able to fire out to 2700m...

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

Blah blah blah. Is an LRM 20 balanced when AMS and ECM is present, or is an LRM 20 balanced when no AMS or ECM is present?

Answer my question.

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Yup

I did, you just didn't like the answer.

[CyclonerM]

I totally agree to the need of some love for LRMs, but actually i think the problem is ECM preventing target lock.

[Sephlock]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Balance can't happen in a vacuum.

That's why they should include a dome on HPG! *rimshot*!

[Josef Nader]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

lol what?

I've explained it 3-4 times already, each time using progressively smaller words.

LRMs on their own are less powerful than direct fire because they scatter damage. They are still useful, because you don't have to be looking at the guy to shoot him.
LRMs that have been buffed by their supporting items are more powerful than direct fire, as they focus damage much better than their unmodified counterparts, have long range, and allow you to damage the other guy without looking at him.
If the equation ended here, LRMs would be incredibly powerful, and they would completely dominate the metagame. Being painted with a TAG or hit with a NARC would be a death sentence.
So, introduce counter LRM tools.
A single AMS will significantly reduce the damage from a single LRM launcher. A single ECM provides a protective bubble that must be overcome with counter equipment.
An LRM boat can overwhelm the single AMS through sheer volume of fire, and the 1.5 ton ECM is overcome by a 1 ton TAG laser.
Mass amounts of AMS can counter mass amounts of LRMs, but only if the mechs with AMS can stay grouped. LRMs are still balanced, as the threat of being LRMed to death is forcing the team to behave a certain way, and this makes them vulnerable to things like artillery/airstrikes, pop tarts, and being flanked.
LRMs can still do their job if the AMS bubble can be broken up, and they can once again melt a target under sheer volume of fire.

LRMs are not unbalanced in any of those situations. They are a major influence on the strategies in-game, and people are forced to build a certain way and behave a certain way because of their presence. LRMs are used for suppression more than anything. They restrict enemy movements and force them to behave in a certain way.

Still confused?