383 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

3rdworld, on 05 March 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

What I would like to see is a mech equipped with 15 or less LRMs, to have fire and forget.

Arbitrary rules like that are what brought us Ghost Heat. No thank you please.

[TygerLily]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Arbitrary rules like that are what brought us Ghost Heat. No thank you please.

It was just a off-the-top suggestion...it could just be "any single launcher" + Command Console, etc.

Do you have any ideas Cimarb?

[3rdworld]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Arbitrary rules like that are what brought us Ghost Heat. No thank you please.

That was just what I came up with off of the top of my head, wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion.

Spent a bit more time thinking about it.

1. LRMs don't require your target reticule in order to get a lock. Only X amount of time with the enemy targetd. This will be the "soft" lock".

2. LRMs can be "hard locked" just as they are now.

The difference between the 2 is just the tighter pattern.

So LRM boats can continue to operated as they do now, and "backup" lrms will be more usefull as you can focus on other things instead of staring at the enemy to maintain your lock.

This would work better if we had a secondary target, in which case it would be really nice if you could shoot your LRMs at the secondary target while still getting info on your primary. For instance a light jumps you, so you need target info on it, but the secondary allows you to continue to fire off LRMs while you fight the light.

Edited by 3rdworld, 05 March 2014 - 02:09 PM.

[Cimarb]

TygerLily, on 05 March 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

It was just a off-the-top suggestion...it could just be "any single launcher" + Command Console, etc.

Do you have any ideas Cimarb?

I have mentioned several of them already, but even though I use a lot of LRMs, I don't think a fire and forget version is needed (though I wouldn't complain if it was added). I think the biggest and most glaring issue with LRMs is actually ECM, and if they fixed that, LRMs would be in a really good place as is. Barring that, a little bit of a speed boost would help, though not against ECM, and the ability to manually toggle direct and indirect flight paths would be extremely helpful.

3rdworld, on 05 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

That was just what I came up with off of the top of my head, wasn't meant to be an actual suggesting.

Spent a bit more time thinking about it.

1. LRMs don't require your target reticule in order to get a lock. Only X amount of time with the enemy targetd. This will be the "soft" lock".

2. LRMs can be "hard locked" just as they are now.

The difference between the 2 is just the tighter pattern.

So LRM boats can continue to operated as they do now, and "backup" lrms will be more usefull as you can focus on other things instead of staring at the enemy to maintain your lock.

This would work better if we had a secondary target, in which case it would be really nice if you could shoot your LRMs at the secondary target while still getting info on your primary. For instance a light jumps you, so you need target info on it, but the secondary allows you to continue to fire off LRMs while you fight the light.

I do like the 'hard' and 'soft' lock idea, but I really think two targets or a full fire-and-forget system would make LRMs far too powerful for their own good.

Now, a focus or target-of-target function? I would be all over that idea!

[Lyoto Machida]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 March 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

At 900M you better know what you are doing LRMs! And You sound like a PUGger with missiles. In a group you can count on longer locks with more consistency.

In a group, you can but not always...I still stand by my statement of shooting "Long" Range Missiles from up close. LRMs are hard(er) to use in 12 mans than in PUGs (due to the level of opposition).

[Kjudoon]

Trauglodyte, on 05 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Fire and Forget tied to the NARC and TAG would def work. It would mean that you'd need spotters for it to work but that would be part of the balance. A boat carrying TAG would be able to get around ECM like now but wouldn't be able to fire and then meneuver away (as it should be according to lore). But, have a Light out there doing it's job and all of a sudden that boat is really nasty. It isn't quite as eloquant as what you get with PPCs and ACs but you're also not investing as much weight, crits, or heat to do the damage either.

Definitely something that could be fleshed out some more.

That'd be the best bump to a NARC ever! I'd be packing that into my Jenner with 3 tons of ammo and an ML to make doom rain from the skies for my team.

[ImperialKnight]

LOL at this thread. LRMs are in a good place right now, if it were that unbalanced, everyone tom, **** and harry pilot would be packing them and every competitive team would be boating LRMs.

Learn to break line of sight and run from cover to cover when the enemy has LRM boats.

What some of you are talking about is nerfing teamwork. Of course you are going to get rolled with a lance with 2/3 LRM boats and a good spotter. The same way you get rolled with a lance of 4 meta HGN/VTRs

[Kjudoon]

3rdworld, on 05 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

That was just what I came up with off of the top of my head, wasn't meant to be an actual suggestion.

Spent a bit more time thinking about it.

1. LRMs don't require your target reticule in order to get a lock. Only X amount of time with the enemy targetd. This will be the "soft" lock".

2. LRMs can be "hard locked" just as they are now.

The difference between the 2 is just the tighter pattern.

So LRM boats can continue to operated as they do now, and "backup" lrms will be more usefull as you can focus on other things instead of staring at the enemy to maintain your lock.

This would work better if we had a secondary target, in which case it would be really nice if you could shoot your LRMs at the secondary target while still getting info on your primary. For instance a light jumps you, so you need target info on it, but the secondary allows you to continue to fire off LRMs while you fight the light.

If a hard lock meant that on average of a 75% hit ratio on average instead of 15-25% currently being norm... I'm oohhhhhh so in.

[Cimarb]

knightsljx, on 05 March 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

LOL at this thread. LRMs are in a good place right now, if it were that unbalanced, everyone tom, **** and harry pilot would be packing them and every competitive team would be boating LRMs.

Learn to break line of sight and run from cover to cover when the enemy has LRM boats.

What some of you are talking about is nerfing teamwork. Of course you are going to get rolled with a lance with 2/3 LRM boats and a good spotter. The same way you get rolled with a lance of 4 meta HGN/VTRs

If you got past the first five pages of this thread, which was a series of posts just like yours, you would have found that it's a pretty good discussion, actually.

[Symbiodinium]

LRMs do need some tweaks, I think, mostly to make them more effective at longer ranges. It's very odd that an LRM boat is often out-ranged by ballistics mechs. For what it's worth, I would:

- Increase the missile speed slightly, though not the missile turn radius, so light mechs can generally dodge most of them. Slower mechs would have less time to hide.
- Increase the LRM maximum range (~1500m?), either as a hard limit as it exists now or through gradual missile death/spread with increasing distance.
- Those changes don't mean much unless TAG range is increased. Maybe increase the range of TAG to ~1000m, either as an "extended range TAG" module or maybe adding a 2-ton "ER TAG" (no, I don't think anything like that existed in tabletop, nor do I care).

Edited by Symbiodinium, 05 March 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Symbiodinium, on 05 March 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

LRMs do need some tweaks, I think, mostly to make them more effective at longer ranges. It's very odd that an LRM boat is often out-ranged by ballistics mechs. For what it's worth, I would:

- Increase the missile speed slightly, though not the missile turn radius, so light mechs can generally dodge most of them. Slower mechs would have less time to hide.
- Increase the LRM maximum range (~1500m?), either as a hard limit as it exists now or through gradual missile death/spread with increasing distance.
- Those changes don't mean much unless TAG range is increased. Maybe increase the range of TAG to ~1000m, either as an "extended range TAG" module or maybe adding a 2-ton "ER TAG" (no, I don't think anything like that existed in tabletop, nor do I care).

I've said for a while TAG needs a huge range increase. Double at least would be very good. I'd also say that's a neat idea of having the last 500m of a missile's flight path be 'ballistic arc' with say one last terminal correction and then it's dumbfire and spreading like an LB10x. Combine that with a 250m/s minimum and it's perfect.

Then again, I'd also be game to allow indirect AC fire if we could 'howitzer' the shots in.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Well, read the whole thing, feel like I want to weigh in.

Those who are familiar with my posting habits- yeah, I'm about to drop a big one in your laps here.

Everyone else- if you're going to ignore most of my post or make an argument based on how you feel about me, please do the rest of the boards a service and just don't reply to this. I know you're probably going to ignore this plea, but I'm making it anyway.

Anyhow.... LRMs. Yeah. Big long issue (or nonissue, depending who you ask). Interlocked with several other issues (most notably, boating and ECM) that there is a lot of disagreement about. Bear with, I'm gonna try and organize my thoughts as I go, so this may be slightly scattered.

LRMs and the Tabletop Game (and why you should care)

This isn't the tabletop game. I know this isn't the tabletop game. You know this isn't the tabletop game. You don't need to remind me, because clearly I know, I know that you know, and I now know that you know that I know.

BUT.

'Mech construction in terms of critical hit slots and tonnage is directly pulled from the tabletop game. Weapon function, heat, ammunition (comparative), and ranges are all derived basically from the tabletop game with varying degrees of alteration.

Probably the most important thing here is weapon function- what is this weapon system for, and how does it act to fulfill that?

In the tabletop game, LRMs give you your largest-damage long-range weapons (even after the Gauss Rifle is introduced, the LRM-20 can- not does, but can- deal more damage than any standard 'mech weapon outside of AC/20s, and later on UAC10s and the Heavy Gauss Rifle).

They are intended only for use at range (minimum range of 180 meters or 6 hexes), generate considerably less heat than long-range energy weapons, and occupy less tonnage than long-range ballistics. Which makes them kind of a 'middle value' for that.

LRMs are intended to be capable of (but not very good at) indirect fire- by indirect fire rules for the tabletop, trying indirect fire without some form of targetting boost via TAG, NARC, or C3 is very hard, and missiles that can take advantage of TAG or NARC are rarer and more expensive (which discourages use in-universe, although it usually isn't an issue for most players... meh).

LRMs are intended to be primarily used for direct fire, at ranges where other high-damage weapons simply cannot reach, or your alternatives involve much higher tonnage investment (autocannon), heat (ER lasers), or both (PPCs).

This is their niche, their slot, their reason for existing in the game. They give a long-range option that is lower in tonnage than ballistics and lower in heat than energy weapons. It is what they are there for in tabletop, and since this game is derived from tabletop, it is what they should be there for in MWO, regardless of the specific numbers involved. This is why you should care: they are intended to fill a niche that fits carefully in between other weapons, and even if you don't care about the raw numbers of the tabletop game rules, you should care about that because it's a niche that exists and would be otherwise empty, resulting in less options for players.

Having a weapon that fills this niche allows for the mounting of an ancillary long-range weapon, permitting close-combat focused 'mechs a way to support their long-range bretheren while the engagement distance is large, and giving them a potential alternative to 'run over there' for supporting distant allies in close engagements. It also allows for less-expensive (in tonnage of either weapon or heat sink) 'just in case' long range weapons and weapons to fire while closing a range gap.

The main source, as I see it, of the current debate around LRMs is that they are not filling their intended niche.

One of the best examples of this is the Cataphract- the two Cataphracts that have missile hardpoints nearly never see them used. One of them because the hardpoint is on the head and a single one-slot missile rack is, by current game mechanics, a borderline useless investment on an otherwise direct-fire 'mech, and the other.... I'm not sure. Maybe it's having only four tubes on that arm, 2X is not a frequently-seen Cataphract.

There are any number of reasons (or possible reasons why) LRMs are not filling this niche.

One thing that I would like to point out is that in the original rules, LRMs were not any harder nor easier to use in any way than any other weapon. Could you see it? Then you could shoot it with your LRMs and have the same hit chance as any other weapon (a simplification, a bit, yes, but still true enough for the sake of argument). Nothing the pilot did while using the weapon had to be any different from an autocannon, laser, machine gun, flamer, SRM, or any other standard weapon.

PGI has decided not to go with this- the low travel speed of LRMs means that they simply cannot be direct-fired in this manner, especially with the missiles always using an arcing flight path that depends only on the range to the target to determine angle and ignores all concerns of intervening terrain or relative vertical location.

Other Systems that Interact with LRMs

Most players, by now, are familiar with the systems that, while not necessarily made specifically and only with LRMs in mind, interact with them in various ways.

ECM: The big one. ECM is possibly the nastiest thing that an LRM-carrying 'mech can have to face. Being within the radius of ECM prevents LRMs from locking on to you. In fact, it prevents anyone from locking you as a target at all. It also prevents 'mechs in an ECM bubble from locking on to anything. Regardless of whether or not this is the way it works in tabletop (it isn't, incidentally), this does not make sense to me from a game design perspective.

One tenet of game design that I may or may not share with anyone (I don't get to have nearly as many discussions on the subject as I would like) is this: Having a mechanic in place that grants or creates complete (even situationally complete) immunity to another mechanic is bad. Mechanics like this easily lead to abusive use, and it's completely excusable abusive use too, from a player perspective. Having X prevents me getting hit by Y, which then means I'm not (taking as much damage, forced to avoid areas, at risk of stopping moving), so why wouldn't I take X?

This is mostly because it relates to a more important game design tenet, which is that offering a player a calculation is worse than offering them a choice. It's a problem that World of Warcraft has run into, it's a problem that Dungeons and Dragons has run into, it's a problem that lots of games run into, and it always says something about the game's designers and developers to examine how they react when they discover they've offered a calculation. In this case, PGI has adopted a somewhat clumsy method- restricting who can use the calculated-'best' option.

But I'm on a tangent here.

Point being, ECM is a mechanic that functionally grants complete or near-complete immunity to a key mechanic of the game- locking onto a target. And because LRMs are heavily dependent on target locking (as I noted with the earlier mention of slow travel speed), ECM causes them serious problems.

Beagle: This interacts with LRMs on two levels- first of all, it improves the target lock speed, reducing the time to lock. Secondly, a 'mech with Beagle can cut through a single layer of ECM per Beagle area it is in to lock onto an enemy 'mech.

Frankly, I consider this a game design no-no. As Beagle currently exists, it is a mechanic that creates an immunity to another mechanic. Whether or not you feel that Beagle granting a form of immunity to ECM's immunity is necessary, I cannot see any way in which this is a good thing. By having Beagle exist as a hard-counter to ECM, PGI is effectively saying that ECM is too powerful. A hard counter to a mechanic should be a last resort in game design, because you are effectively saying that you cannot fix the existing mechanic without removing it entirely, even if only by forcing a player to pay a 'tax' to overcome that existing mechanic (in this case, a tonnage/CHS[Critical Hit Slot] tax). A mechanic that cannot be fixed without removing it should be removed to fix it. Does this mean that I consider ECM 'broken'? Well, yes and no (for differing meanings of the word 'broken'), but that's really not the issue here anyways, and if I wanted to have a discussion about ECM specifically (I don't, actually), I would go find one of those threads.

Artemis: This is the third piece of equipment that interacts with LRMs but is not made specifically for use with LRMs. Artemis institutes a CHS and tonnage tax on your LRMs- one of each per rack- to improve missile agility and cluster tightness. The first fits quite well with what it's described as doing in the original interperetation, the second... not so much, but it makes sense in the forum of MWO. If I'm going to be completely honest, I don't see any reason for anyone to currently take issue with the Artemis IV FCS. Personally, I don't see much use for it (I actually have better accuracy with non-Artemis LRMs except for the LRM-10), but others swear by it, and that means it's in a pretty good place balance-wise (as a choice, not a calculation).

A note: Of these three systems, Artemis is used primarily with LRMs, but all three are currently in use for other reasons- ECM because ECM, Beagle because Streaks, and Artemis because Streaks and because SRM spread is abysmal with larger racks.

Other Systems Intended for Use with LRMs

It should be considered noteworthy that the two pieces of gear that fall under this heading were both originally intended for use with the Arrow IV guided artillery missiles and not LRMs. Not to say that being able to use them with LRMs is somehow wrong or bad, it's just an interesting note and relates to some of how they function.

Target Acquisition Gear: Yeah, that's what TAG stands for. Not 'tag, you're it'.

Right now, TAG does three things- two of them part of its function, and one of them... well, I'll get to it.

First of all, TAG improves the lock-on speed of LRMs and the missile turn radius when LRMs are being used on the target that is TAGged. Personally, I think this is not really right. It's Target Acquisition Gear, not Target Retention Signal Boosting Gear. (And what the heck kind of an acronym is TRSBG? I can say it, but I don't think I know anyone else who can.) TAG, as intended, is used to turn LRMs from semi-guided fire-and-forget missiles into fully-guided indirect-fire/fire-and-forget missiles (in combination with the right ammo) and to designate targets for Arrow IV artillery. That said, it has to be allowed that as things are in the game currently, we can all share targeting information anyways, so that original purpose of TAG is suddenly inherent to every 'mech at no cost in tonnage or CHS. Whoops. (In fact, I would consider equally accurate to say that TAG is what we have free in every 'mech instead of a C3 computer....) Given that, I'm not going to complain about what TAG does right now with the way things currently stand, as that's an Information Warfare sort of a discussion, which is not what this topic is for.

Secondly, TAG- brace yourselves, here it comes again- nullifies ECM on a 'mech that it is hitting. Hey, look, here's a mechanic that is creating an immunity to a mechanic again! Just in case it hasn't been clear before, I don't like this because having a mechanic like this is essentially admitting that something somewhere is not put together right, but nobody is fixing whatever the problem is. That said, moving on to NARC.

Thirdly, TAG tells everyone where you are, because there's this bright red beam of light reaching from you to your target. I'm not sure how to feel about this other than that it's kind of hilarious that you can see a TAG beam when modern-day laser sights and even laser pointers don't have that trait without being shone through an area seriously in need of dusting (or an industrial-strength fan).

NARC: I know, I know, I -still- don't know what this acronym stands for. I'm really falling down on the job when it comes to this, yeah?

NARC currently does two things. The first thing NARC does right now is suck. It falls off after a certain time period, it falls off after a certain amount of damage (a carryover from tabletop where it was initially expected said damage would come from a direct artillery impact so why would it matter that it fell off?), it comes with only six shots per entire ton of ammunition (one of the rare cases of an MWO weapon using tabletop ammunition values), and it occupies a missile launcher slot. It also goes WHUNGK when it hits someone, which is kinda fun.

The second thing NARC does is improve missile lock and turning rate when LRMs are used on the 'mech that has the NARC beacon stuck to it. I'd reiterate what I said in the first point about TAG, but you can just read that paragraph anyways.

NARC has some incoming buffs (although there's some lack of clarity on what, exactly, it's going to do when you stick it on a 'mech that's got ECM mounted), and some of these are super important (like not falling off because the 'mech got shot).

Reminder Text is Reminder Text (text that reminds you of a rule or mechanic)

Yeah, I just typed a lot. Most of it's even true (or at least true from my perspective)! But why?

Well, something I really want to highlight- Without even touching AMS, the one piece of gear intended primarily to counteract LRMs, there is more gear and a higher number of game mechanics interacting with LRMs than with any other piece of weaponry in the game.

I'm not sure what, exactly, is the original reason that a larger portion of the game has some degree of involvement with LRMs than any other weapon. But I can already tell you some of what it means.

First of all, LRMs are just generally a pain in the hip actuator.

When deciding to use LRMs, you are immediately adding at least three more equipment decisions into building your 'mech- Beagle, Artemis, and TAG. Even Streak SRMs only include two of those. Something about this smells wrong to me.

What's more, considering how you're going to deal with LRMs can be equally bad- while a fast enough 'mech can get to cover or break locks, that makes speed more important than it already was. On something slow, like a heavier assault 'mech, you suddenly have to consider things like 'Do I have ECM?' 'How well will I stay with the group?' 'Do I mount 0/1/2 AMSes?' 'How much do I trust that my allies will have AMSes/ECM?'

On top of that, with how easily LRMs are counteracted (two pieces of gear, moving while the missiles are en route, moving while the missiles are trying to hit, getting within minimum range, standing behind anything taller than you if you're within about 500m), it's functionally true that you have to have supporting equipment for LRMs in order to make them worthwhile. Not absolutely true, mind- it's possible to do okay with LRMs sometimes without any supporting gear- but you'll have a lot of problems if you don't, because there are so many situations in which those LRMs are not going to be performing comparably with the same weight of virtually any other weapon in the game.

If you're getting hit with LRMs, they're coming in from above and exploding around your cockpit. Constant hits generate shake comparable to an AC/20, and heavy hits generate visibility obscurement comparable to a flamer in the face. If you've gotten yourself in a position where LRMs are starting a serious rain on you, you're pretty much screwed and it's unlikely you'll be able to do anything about it. This is no fun for you.

If you note LRMs incoming and are in a decent position to avoid it, then any enemy who's acting as a missile boat is not going to be able to do anything about it. This is no fun for them.

Second of all, LRMs are not fulfilling their original role.

Right now, the only role LRMs fulfill is that of bombardment (direct or indirect). This is not only not a very good role (in terms of mechanical rewards) for the person using it or anyone hoping to work with them, but is also not a terribly useful one.

The role they are supposed to fill (a long-range weapon alternative to hot energy weapons and heavy ballistics) is currently sitting empty, partly because engagement long-range is a range at which the missiles take well over four seconds to land. More than four seconds, even on our big stompy armored metal hulks battlefield, is forever.

Additionally, since they require target locks and must stay locked the whole time they are in the air, LRMs make a terrible direct fire weapon by comparison to their competition, who deal their damage within instants of firing, if not while firing. Instead of being a middling alternative, they're a completely different creature that requires vastly more self-exposure and will often land far too late (ask any missile boat or even just any player who regularly carries LRMs how frequently a target dies while they have two or more missile volleys still in the air en route). They absolutely cannot be snap-fired like other direct-fire weapons, because not having the target lock means they won't hit unless your target is standing still for a very long time (and anyone who's played any Mechwarrior game any amount of time can tell you that standing still is a great way to die). Even if they have a lock, any target out at the ranges LRMs should be filling in is liable to have either died or gotten to cover well before the missiles arrive.

Third of all, LRM pathing is horrible.

LRMs have the same path, no matter the intervening terrain, no matter the intervening 'mechs, no matter the relative positions of the 'mechs involved- the only thing they take into account is distance, and even that only affects their angle of ascent.

Allies who learn not to step in front of ballistic and energy 'mechs while they're shooting learn nothing and still block LRM shots, because the missiles bounce off harmlessly.

If an LRM-locked target is within 300 meters but not visible, the LRM-user may as well not fire- the missile arc will always be shallow enough that the missiles bounce off of the obstruction.

If an LRM-locked target is over 250 meters away but there is a ceiling overhead (280 if you want to push it under the Terra Therma plate or the upper loading dock in Crimson Strait, and 300 if you can find a non-horizontally-blocked shot under the HPG) the LRM-user may as well not fire- the missile arc will slam the missiles into the ceiling where they do precisely nothing.

If an LRM-locked target is up a steep slope, the LRM launcher may be okay, because the distance may be high enough for the LRMs to ascend above the enemy before falling on their head. But don't count on it.

If an LRM-locked target is moving over 150 kph, the LRM-user probably shouldn't bother because most of their missiles will descend from above, fail the turn, and make a pretty fire trail on the ground.

If an LRM-locked target is a Light and the missile volley size is over 5, the LRM-user is going to lose missiles to the space around the light 'mech, because the clusters are too big. Artemis/Narc/TAG will alleviate this by around 5 missiles.

If an LRM-locked target is a Medium and the missile volley size is over 10, the LRM user is going to lose missiles to the space around the medium 'mech. Artemis/NARC/TAG will alleviate this by around 5 missiles.

If an LRM-locked target is a big Heavy or an Assault, the missiles are primarily going to be damaging the center torso, with a stronger disposition the smaller the volley size. This means concentrated damage, which has already been seen to be the bane of balance in any number of other iterations. (Poptarting to varying degrees, the earlier higher-rate UAC/5, boomjaegers, the need to double armor numbers, etc.)

Fourth, LRMs are constantly looked down on.

Because of the first three things, LRMs get a lot of hatred. A lot of hatred. Just check out some of the earlier posters in the thread. A lot of them are super angry. A lot of them are super angry because they feel LRMs are garbage, a lot of them are super angry because someone else thinKs LRMs are garbage. A number of people are super angry that LRMs are 'too easy', there are people super angry that LRMs are 'too hard', and everyone who's super angry is so angry because of something to do with LRMs not being 'good' in one way or another (whether the belief that LRMs aren't 'good' is theirs or someone else's).

LRMs. Grrr.

But all of it is about LRMs being 'bad', for one reason or another.

Which is an indication that something needs changing.

Why I Care (and what I think)

I don't care because my opinion of LRMs is more important than someone else's (in order to care because of that, I would have to believe it). I do think my opinion of LRMs is based on my experiences (both giving and receiving) and is as accurate as I have thus far been able to make it, but that doesn't mean it's a 'better' opinion somehow.

I don't care because this game is terrible- if I thought this game was terrible I would stop playing it.

I don't care because this game is perfect- not only is nothing perfect, but if I thought the game was perfect I wouldn't care what anyone said about it or bother contributing to a discussion.

I don't care because LRMs are 'bad'. If all I cared about was what was 'bad' and what was 'good', I'd probably be running around in a tri-UAC/5 Cataphract or Jaeger or poptarting in a Victor instead of writing something.

I care because I like the idea of LRMs. I like the idea of providing a third long-range option, I like the idea of semi-guided missiles as a giant robut weapon, I like the idea of a weapon that can be used for indirect fire but is primarily for direct fire, and I like the idea of a weapon that provides a middle ground between energy weapons and ballistic weapons in terms of heat and weight compared to damage.

I think LRMs are kinda okayish. There are a lot of situations in which they're kinda neat. But there are no situations in which they're outright a great option. There are just too many counters and counter-counters and ifs and maybes and it's just utterly a headache and involves way too much dependency on uncontrollable factors.

I like doing fun things with LRMs, like mounting an LRM-15 in a four-tube slot or toting around a quartet of LRM-5s on an otherwise close-ranged 'mech. I had a 2xLRM-5 Commando for a couple of matches, and I did about 300 damage with it a couple of times, which was neat. I like having an LRM-10 on my heavy or assault 'mech to help keep me from charging forth before the 'poke each other from behind rocks' part of a battle is done.

So, what do I think?

I like the idea of speeding LRMs up. They just aren't a good long-range option right now, partly because they're so slow.

I'm not worried about AMSes, because they can be adjusted too.

I -do- think an alternative flight path for LRMs should be tried. Maybe give them a direct line instead of an arc as long as the target is visible to the firer when they launched the missiles? Possibly something conditional on whether the launcher has the target lock themself or has 'piggybacked' it off someone else's lock?

I -really- like the idea of diverting the missiles in clusters to 'bones' as is currently done with the Streak SRM (from a flavor/entertainment perspective), but I only like that idea (from a balance perspective) if something is done to change the current pinpoint damage situation- and I doubt that will happen.

I do think a reexamination of ECM, Beagle, TAG, NARC, etc. is in order, but I don't think that should be considered solely in terms of its relevance to LRMs, particularly because the central element (ECM) definitely affects more than just LRMs.

If you bore with and read this whole thing, I hope you get a slice of your favorite dessert pastry with dinner, and I also hope that something I wrote here either sparks some ideas in you or even just entertains you a bit. People are very opinionated, so I'm not sure which is most likely of the two things, but if you could get both I think that would be awesome.

Cheers!

-QKD-CR0

[wanderer]

Abivard, on 04 March 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Running out of ammo.
Overheating
Poor hit reg
Needs a direct line of sight.

LRMs are the biggest ammo hog in the game, missiles are -dodgeable-, generate more heat per shot than AC's, and can be defeated simply by breaking LOS.

Don't give me a sob story about the autocannon. It's the best weapon system in the game right now, hands down and it's "flaws" are pathetic at this point. There's a reason why ballistic-heavy builds are top of the meta-charts, and it's not because AC's have any discernable serious flaws at this point. Heck, you slap a PPC in to take advantage of the cooling your runs-so-cool AC doesn't need to beef up your firepower!

[Lyoto Machida]

Elli Gujar, on 05 March 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

Well, read the whole thing, feel like I want to weigh in.

Those who are familiar with my posting habits- yeah, I'm about to drop a big one in your laps here.

I hope you get a slice of your favorite dessert pastry with dinner, and I also hope that something I wrote here either sparks some ideas in you or even just entertains you a bit. People are very opinionated, so I'm not sure which is most likely of the two things, but if you could get both I think that would be awesome.

Cheers!

-QKD-CR0

Great post!

[Joseph Mallan]

Lyoto Machida, on 05 March 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

In a group, you can but not always...I still stand by my statement of shooting "Long" Range Missiles from up close. LRMs are hard(er) to use in 12 mans than in PUGs (due to the level of opposition).

Understood, I respect your opinion, even if I do not share it.

[Willard Phule]

Elli Gujar, on 05 March 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

Well, read the whole thing, feel like I want to weigh in.

Those who are familiar with my posting habits- yeah, I'm about to drop a big one in your laps here.

(Omitted-lots of really good stuff)

If you bore with and read this whole thing, I hope you get a slice of your favorite dessert pastry with dinner, and I also hope that something I wrote here either sparks some ideas in you or even just entertains you a bit. People are very opinionated, so I'm not sure which is most likely of the two things, but if you could get both I think that would be awesome.

Cheers!

-QKD-CR0

Excellent post! +10!

Being an avid tatletop player myself (and yes, I realize MW:O isn't tabletop...but it's derived from it) I get what you're saying...all of it. One thing a lot of the people that keep harping about all the references to "TableTop" rules fail to realize is that, over the years, the rules have changed...and changed again...and changed again. I don't know about most of you that play TableTop but, unless you're playing in a tournament somewhere, odds are you have several "house rules" you have come up with for either "ease of play" or "this makes more sense." It seems to me that, in effect, a lot of what PGI has done is their version of "House Rules."

For example, the written rules for "partial cover" have you rolling on the "Punch Chart" if you hit someone that has their legs behind cover. That, in effect, increases the possibility of a headshot. Our house rule is that you use the normal chart and if you hit the legs, you re-roll the hit looking for a valid spot. If you roll legs again, then you shot the terrain. Seems reasonable.

I have a few things that may or may not add to what you've said:

1 ) NARC - I don't know what it stands for,either, and I even tried to look it up...no joy. That being said, the TT rule doesn't have a duration....it DOES, however, have a rule for destruction. Since it attaches to a location's armor, as soon as that location takes a certain amount of damage (ie, the piece of armor it is attached to is destroyed), the beacon is gone. From a tech standpoint, I find it hard to believe that a society that can design a nuclear reactor to power big, stompy robots can't design a battery that lasts for more than a couple of minutes. But, there you have it.

2 ) ECM (more specifically, the Guardian ECM)- Yeah, I know, not the right discussion thread, but this has to be said. In TT, ECM really IS the end-all, be-all of electronic protection (it gets even better with the Angel system further down the line). But the ONLY thing it blocks are the BAP, NARC, C3 and ARTEMIS IV systems. Streaks still lock, TAG still functions and LRMs can still lock...they just don't get the benefit of the ARTEMIS IV. Later on down the line, we see the ANGEL ECM suite come out...and it DOES block streaks.

So...although I absolutely agree with you that PGI seems to have admitted they have a piece of equipment that is broken and have "fixed" it by introducing more broken mechanics to the game.....is this, in fact, just a "house rule" that they've adopted? And, if so, is it a broken "house rule" that needs to be re-thought?

3 ) Beagle Active Probe - You know what kills me about this? All the rules for BAP, both in TT and MW:O emphasize it's ability to "detect powered down units" like that's the big selling point. It isn't. Granted, in MW:O, they also state (almost as an afterthought) that it "increases your detection range by 25%." Yep. Actually, in TT, it goes further than that...but I won't go into that here. Suffice it to say that having a BAP allows you to detect enemies through things that provide concealment bonuses...like smoke or fog....unless, of course, that line of detection takes you through an ECM bubble.

4 ) Flight Pathing/Speed - you hit the nail right on the head with that one. I LOVE the two most important ideas I took from your post....if the target is in line of sight (or the LRM mech locked it first), the path should be straighter....and if you're providing indirect support for a spotter, it should arc more. Beautiful. I also agree that they should be sped up...but the speed has to come by itself. Turning and tracking strength should remain the same (or, perhaps even be turned down a bit). Outrunning a flight of missiles should be based more on the skill of the light pilot than on simple game mechanics.

* I have to add this in here, even though it's only peripherally involved in the discussion *

When the Clans are released, one thing that needs to be addressed are Clan LRMs. There have been a LOT of gripe/whine/cry posts with regard to proposed nerfs to Clan weaponry. Especially with regard to "minimum range." One thing that you HAVE to keep in mind is that the Clans never lost their technological edge due to centuries of fighting the Succession Wars. In fact, they have improved on virtually everything the Star League had since the Exodus.

I don't think a lot of people out there understand that the "minimum range" of the Inner Sphere LRMs is due to arming range, which it is. The IS LRMs have to travel 180m before they are armed (unless you're using "hot loading" rules, which we're not). Clan LRMs are, in effect, electronically armed the moment they leave the tube. Ok, so no minimum range. Easy enough.

But, if they're lockable weapons at under 180m, you have created, in effect, a SSRM20...which is also bad. My suggestion, and that's all this is, is to simply not allow Clan LRMs to lock at under 180m. They can be "dumb fired" at close range...but there will be no tracking to the target.....and, again, at that point it's all down to the skill of the pilot.

Sorry, it would appear I tried to rival the length of your post. That wasn't intended. Yours was, by far, the best one I've seen with regard to lots of things...LRMs not the least...in a long, long time.

Edited by Willard Phule, 06 March 2014 - 05:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Your House rule is for partial cover is more generous than the Advanced rule Phule. TT you can use the full body location chart. If you hit a covered location the shot does no damage.

[wanderer]

Quote

For example, the written rules for "partial cover" have you rolling on the "Punch Chart" if you hit someone that has their legs behind cover. That, in effect, increases the possibility of a headshot. Our house rule is that you use the normal chart and if you hit the legs, you re-roll the hit looking for a valid spot. If you roll legs again, then you shot the terrain. Seems reasonable.

Speaking of "rules that changed"...

The written rules haven't had you use the punch hit chart for the better part of a decade. Partial cover is now +1 to hit instead of +3, normal hit locations- but if you roll a location in cover, you hit the cover instead.

Note: This can be unhealthy when your cover happened to be a building full of ammo boxes you were trying to loot. From experience.

[Joseph Mallan]

I thought that was an "Advanced" rule Wanderer? I guess it has been a while since I played TT!

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

Your House rule is for partial cover is more generous than the Advanced rule Phule. TT you can use the full body location chart. If you hit a covered location the shot does no damage.

Yeah, yeah...I know. That was just an example...I didn't really want to derail the thread. We've got lots of other house rules that were made to simply speed up the game play or because the rules as written simply appeared to have not been thought out real well....the first one that comes to my mind (I haven't finished my coffee yet) were rules with regard to fire/heat/incendiary lrms/em lrms/infernos. The rules as written work fine but get complicated and bog down the rhythm of the game. We simplified them.

You know, I had a thought while dropping the kids off at school with regard to ECM and LRMs....well, with ECM and the way it works here.

The Guardian ECM suite is pretty much the "K-Mart" version of ECM suites in Battletech. Sure, it's useful, but it's not an impenetrable umbrella to hide behind. It interferes with electronic sensing/targeting devices...it doesn't nullify them. The Guardian has a bubble that negates the Beagle, Artemis IV, C3 networks, NARC beacons and the Clan Targeting Computer. The ANGEL ECM Suite, on the other hand, is brutal. It blocks EVERYTHING (except the Bloodhound Active Probe), more or less. It seems that PGI is trying to market an Angel system as a Guardian...which is like trying to sell a Ferrari at a Volkswagen price.

Before I say anything else about ECM, I really need to say something about NARC. If NARC didn't have a duration and stayed active until all the armor in that location was blown off, you'd see it used a lot more in MW:O. It would, in effect, be a "fire and forget" TAG. A light would be running around behind enemy lines, placing as many NARCs as he could, then high-tailing it back to friendly lines to lick his wounds. Right now, it's kind of worthless...even if you take into account the whole negating ECM thing. It's just not worth taking the risk for.

So, in MW:O terms, what it really should be doing is making it harder for you to detect and/or gather target information, disrupting any BAP or Artemis IV advantages and blocking NARC signals.....and, here's the kicker.....blocking the c3 network. No, we don't have a c3 in the game...but, in effect, we do. Since we can lock a target that someone else on the team has locked, even if we don't have line of sight, we do have something similar.

Perhaps allowing LRM boats that have line of sight to be able to lock onto an ECM mech but NOT allowing them to share the target with teammates would be a good balance. You can lock and fire, but you won't gather any target information...ECM should still block that.

As for Streaks...Guardian systems aren't supposed to block them. But, since SSRMs have a longer range than ECM, perhaps allowing streaks to lock in that "no man's land" between where the bubble ends and the SSRMs range begins would be a good balance as well.

I dunno. My brain itches. I need coffee.

Edited by Willard Phule, 06 March 2014 - 06:13 AM.