383 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

I'm not sure what you consider tier 1 and tier 2 tech but I've already outlined it for you. Anything that was post-SLDF exodus and pre-3050 is tier1. Anything after the Grey Death Legion cache (ie 3050) is tier 2. You can start talking about tier 3 once you go 3060 and beyond but that is all non-FASA BT and isn't what I consider to be part of the game. Regardless, we have had LRMs since WWII with the American Calliope (http://en.wikipedia....rocket_launcher) and the Russian Katyusha (http://en.wikipedia....ki/T34_Calliope). We have similar technology, albeit guided now, today. That is the basis of tier 1 tech. Things like ECM are tier 2 tech which means if you want to play in the tier2 world, you'd better bring the tier2 upgrades which include Artemis IV, TAG, and NARC. Doing anything other means you're playing on the cheap, rolling the dice that you won't go up against counters, or just not playing hard enough.

[Willard Phule]

Trauglodyte, on 28 February 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you consider tier 1 and tier 2 tech but I've already outlined it for you. Anything that was post-SLDF exodus and pre-3050 is tier1. Anything after the Grey Death Legion cache (ie 3050) is tier 2. You can start talking about tier 3 once you go 3060 and beyond but that is all non-FASA BT and isn't what I consider to be part of the game. Regardless, we have had LRMs since WWII with the American Calliope (http://en.wikipedia....rocket_launcher) and the Russian Katyusha (http://en.wikipedia....ki/T34_Calliope). We have similar technology, albeit guided now, today. That is the basis of tier 1 tech. Things like ECM are tier 2 tech which means if you want to play in the tier2 world, you'd better bring the tier2 upgrades which include Artemis IV, TAG, and NARC. Doing anything other means you're playing on the cheap, rolling the dice that you won't go up against counters, or just not playing hard enough.

Which is why I say the LRMs seriously need to be sped up.

Today's modern MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) is impressive as hell. When I was Artillery (pull string, go boom), we had MLRS set up behind us a couple of times and I got to see them shoot. They were just firing Practice Rounds (which were, oddly enough, telephone poles with rocket engines) but they were incredible. And WAY faster than any vehicle. The LRMs in game are sluggish by comparison.

[Trauglodyte]

The speed definitely needs to be addressed. My concern, though, has more to do with their pathing. At 100m/s, it would take 10s on a flat trajectory to reach a target at max distance. At 120m/s, it takes 8.3s. If they increase the speed to 150m/s, it would only take 6.7s. Is 1.6s that big of a difference? Yes and no. It is because it gives your target more time to take cover or move out of range. The problem, though, is that you can add another 0.5-1.5s on that due to the pathing that missiles take. If you're in the open an in line of sight to me, why am I arcing my missiles? On the flip side, if you're within, say, 200m of me but you're at a higher elevation than I am but aren't in LOS, why am I taking such a shallow angle to fire my missiles? That is the one thing that a lot of people don't really realize. It isn't hard to get out of the way of missiles because of their speed and the stupity of the firing mechanics. The second that I get a "missiles inbound" warning, I always look up to see how many missiles are coming - I don't much care about LRM5s but I care a lot about LRM50s (not that I want to absorb 5 points of damage but you get the point). If I can take the time to stop what I'm doing, pan up and scan the horizon for LRMs, and then take cover, that is too much time.

On the flip side, people use LRMs all freaking wrong. Too many people use them as dumb dumb weapons because most of the users are, in fact, dumb dumbs. Indirect fire wasn't the primary use of LRMs in Battletech. In fact, it was more likely that you'd miss outright with indirect fire then you'd ever land. It was akin to landing a called shot and that was freaking hard without pulse lasers and targeting computers. LRMs should always be LOS weapons but people spray and pray with them and then complain when they only hit 30% of the time. And bads complain about LRMs cause they suck at piloting, get caught out in the open, and then die to a rain of LRMs from an Artemis and TAG toating LRM40+ boat. LRMs are the primary weapon in the game where the swings are so massive. You either get all or nothing and that is a shame. But, to get the most out of them, you need to use them the smartest. Taking 10 tons of ammo to do it means that you're doing it really wrong.

[Willard Phule]

Trauglodyte, on 28 February 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

The speed definitely needs to be addressed. My concern, though, has more to do with their pathing. At 100m/s, it would take 10s on a flat trajectory to reach a target at max distance. At 120m/s, it takes 8.3s. If they increase the speed to 150m/s, it would only take 6.7s. Is 1.6s that big of a difference? Yes and no. It is because it gives your target more time to take cover or move out of range. The problem, though, is that you can add another 0.5-1.5s on that due to the pathing that missiles take. If you're in the open an in line of sight to me, why am I arcing my missiles? On the flip side, if you're within, say, 200m of me but you're at a higher elevation than I am but aren't in LOS, why am I taking such a shallow angle to fire my missiles? That is the one thing that a lot of people don't really realize. It isn't hard to get out of the way of missiles because of their speed and the stupity of the firing mechanics. The second that I get a "missiles inbound" warning, I always look up to see how many missiles are coming - I don't much care about LRM5s but I care a lot about LRM50s (not that I want to absorb 5 points of damage but you get the point). If I can take the time to stop what I'm doing, pan up and scan the horizon for LRMs, and then take cover, that is too much time.

On the flip side, people use LRMs all freaking wrong. Too many people use them as dumb dumb weapons because most of the users are, in fact, dumb dumbs. Indirect fire wasn't the primary use of LRMs in Battletech. In fact, it was more likely that you'd miss outright with indirect fire then you'd ever land. It was akin to landing a called shot and that was freaking hard without pulse lasers and targeting computers. LRMs should always be LOS weapons but people spray and pray with them and then complain when they only hit 30% of the time. And bads complain about LRMs cause they suck at piloting, get caught out in the open, and then die to a rain of LRMs from an Artemis and TAG toating LRM40+ boat. LRMs are the primary weapon in the game where the swings are so massive. You either get all or nothing and that is a shame. But, to get the most out of them, you need to use them the smartest. Taking 10 tons of ammo to do it means that you're doing it really wrong.

+1

Couldn't agree more. Until Level 3 rules that negated a target's movement if it was TAGged, it was virtually impossible to hit anything with indirect fired LRMs. Target number = Your gunnery skill + your movement + spotter's movement + target's movement + range modifier. If you ever saw a 10 for the target number, you were lucky. Most of the time, it was 12.

LRMs are, at least in BT cannon, primarily LOS weapons. They don't arc....which also explains the minimum range factor. IS LRMs have a minimum range because they have to have time to arm, without that range, it's a telephone pole with a rocket engine. Level 3 rules allow for "hot loading," but it has the drawback of the missiles being armed while in storage and in the launcher. Launcher takes a hit, BOOM. Clan LRMs don't have the minimum range because the figured out how to set the missiles up to arm once they've been launched. Fair enough.

As far as the hit percentage goes....I don't think a 30% hit rating indicates you're "spray and pray" all that much...I've got a hunch it represents the percentage of missiles that have actually hit the target. If the target backs behind a rock, has AMS, Jumps over them, etc...it's all going to effect that percentage.

[GeneralArmchair]

Cimarb, on 27 February 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Imagine I could equip 1.5 tons of equipment to make myself immune to PPCs and ERPPCs - do you not think that would have a huge impact on the balance of those weapons?

Shhhh, you're going to spoil PGI's surprise when they introduce the blue shield to 'fix' ppc sniping.

[Willard Phule]

Cimarb, on 27 February 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Imagine I could equip 1.5 tons of equipment to make myself immune to PPCs and ERPPCs - do you not think that would have a huge impact on the balance of those weapons?

Right...but ECM isn't the end all/be all of messing up the LRMs.

Sure, it sucks to be the LRM boat and be unable to lock on and launch....but, shutting down ECM isn't your job. That requires a forward unit with either BAP, TAG or NARC to help you out. You're kind of like "onboard artillery"....you provide fire support.

If your team doesn't provide you with the ability to shut down the ECM, then they obviously don't want your support fire. Find another target. If you lose, well, you lose. Looks like there's issues with the learning curve.

Here during the tournament, I've been playing a Streakhawk with BAP. I chase the lights...and I've noticed that our LRM boats could care less that I've shut down ECM. I never, ever get any fire support from them. They're just shooting at the other, easier targets. It's not as if I can stop chasing an ECM Spider long enough to type "F...LRMS to F, please...COME ON, HELP"...I just don't have time.

[Wolfways]

While i still believe that ECM needs reworked imo the best "buff" to missiles is simply to remove the incomming missiles warning.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

The biggest problem with LRMs (and I'm going to try and keep it short so I don't write another thesis on the subject) is that they are so radically different from past Mechwarrior implementations and they've been pigeon hole'd into someone's own idea of how they should work instead of what they have worked like. Essentially, someone got very attached to how they believe LRMs should function, which has led to a over complicated mess.

Granted, I will give PGI this: that LRMs and missile flight patterns are VERY difficult to program correctly. Evident by Thomas D. spending more than his fair share of time tweaking flight patterns over and over and over again, plus the MW:LL dev team also doing the same frustrating dance until they worked remotely fine.

However, the biggest issue in MW:O is that they are NOT fire and forget, and have a MASSIVE minimum range. This is where and why things start to go haywire.

In MW4 and MW3: the minimum range was implemented indirectly, have having LRMs have an initial acceleration speed of a lazy gorilla. they moved in mostly a straight line from when fired and only really began to track a target once they sped up after a couple hundred meters. So while it was possible to deal damage with them at point blank, but it was far more easily dodged. Fire and forget also allowed smaller groups of LRMs to be completely viable.

In MW:LL, they acted slightly different. They fired at a quick initial acceleration period BUT went mostly to the skies in the first 200 meters or so, meaning that if you attempted to fire at a target in CQC, they went straight over them, then attempted to strike the target behind them, meaning they plummeted to the ground doing mostly nothing.

You know what, I think I should end this post prematurely before this becomes another thesis. I'll just quickly sum up the other issues...

ECM is bad and shouldn't have ever hard counted missile lock. LRMs need to be fire and forget when you have LoS, Indirect fire should be much more inaccurate when firing over terrain. AMS needs to respond to point blank missiles, LRMs DO NEED to travel faster, BUT MUST ACCELERATE over a period of time to achieve that speed.

LRM travel distance to time on target needs to be an exponential curve. It should take some time for LRMs to reach ~500 meters, but due to them accelerating, they should be able to reach ~800 meters without much more time required. The fact it takes LRMs so much time to reach a target ~750 meters away is a problem. it is also Paul's incompetence if he makes a change to LRMs that strictly makes them faster with out this acceleration period, so that it takes even less time for LRMs to hit a target within 300m or so.

TL;DR, LRMs are really f'k'd up because of how someone WANTS them to act instead of how they should. They also need to slow accelerate to some max velocity so that they are effective at longer ranges without making them unavoidable closer up.

Edited by mwhighlander, 05 March 2014 - 07:13 PM.

[Daekar]

I loved the LRM implementation in MW3. That slow initial acceleration might've been a tad excessive, but I think it was the right idea. Start then slower and have them speed up til they're faster than they are now.

[Trauglodyte]

I'm cool with them being slower at the start and accelerating. I just want to avoid the damned sky high curve when I have a target in LOS and I want to get away from slamming missiles into the ground when I have a target out of LOS but really close.

[Kommisar]

I'll largely agree with Highlander up there.

Right now, beyond a player wanting to use LRMs for personal reasons, there is very little reason to do so. Ballistics have:

• Equal or better range.
  
• Are pinpoint damage dealers.
  
• Fire faster (cool down and time on target for the damage)
  
• With less Heat
  
• Significantly less logistics needed to work (holding lock)
  
• Are fire and forget (it's a bullet)
  
• Do not require extra modules and equipment to be effective (BAP, modules)
  
• Are not hard-countered by anything
  
• Have no minimum range
  
• Light Mechs cannot out-run your rounds

About the only thing the LRM has going for it is that they can track a target. In use, though, I will say that this does not make up for all the other downsides. The fact remains that if you are serious and want to deal 5 points of damage to a target at range, you go with an AC/5 every time over an LRM5. Or, even an AC/2 given rate of fire.



In my experience, LRMs become their most effective in the ranges of 400m to 200m. Typically firing into a brawl, with LOS for Artemis support, while Tagging, taking advantage of the decreased flight time due to shorter distance. But for all of that, a Medium laser (or group of them) is far better at those ranges since you can target individual locations on the target.

LRMs are a mess. Increased speed is a good first step; but it will not be the last if they want to be more than a weapon guys take because they WANT to use LRMs for lore/nostalgia reasons.

EDIT: I should note that LRMs do have one extra advantage against newer pilots. Psychological. The alarms and warnings can cause inexperienced pilots to panic, move, disengage or whatever. Even if it is just a single LRM5 launch which their (or a teammate's) AMS will eat. Against better, veteran players, however, this effect drops off.

Edited by Kommisar, 02 March 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[GeneralArmchair]

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

I'm just curious about something

For all those saying LRMs are rare, why is it we have threads talking about how LRMs are ruling the battlefield?

Because LRMs aren't really ruling the battlefield. They're just extremely obnoxious and do everything in their power to let you know you're getting hit by LRMs.


BWOOP, BWOOP, MISSILE WARNING!! MISSILE WARNING!! MISSILE WARNING!!
*VOLLEY IMPACT* SCREEN SHAKE SCREEN SHAKE SCREEN SHAKE
MISSILE WARNING!! MISSILE WARNING!! MISSILE WARNING!!
BOOM BOOM BOOM SCREEN SHAKE!!
WARNING!!

^That goes on for a good minute as the LRMs slowly sandpaper your armor down and take the longest route possible to your engine.

Compartively, against high-alpha PPC/AC/Gauss boats, all you hear is.
THUNK, my CT armor is gone. THUNK, oops, I'm cored.

For every time I get killed by LRMs, I get killed by direct fire weapons a dozen more times and in a fraction of the time.



As for the topic of increased LRM speed reducing the effectiveness of AMS, does anyone really object to buffing AMS so that it maintains parity with its current effectiveness against LRMs? I'd personally be ok with AMS being buffed to be better against LRMs than it is now (on the assumption that ECM loses its non-canon ability to hard-counter LRMs). AMS should be the primier way to counter missiles. ECM should really only be negating the fancy electronics, it should do nothing at all against vanilla missiles.

Edited by GeneralArmchair, 02 March 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[Abivard]

Oh, I missed the Part where ECM can now be mounted on any mech instead of AMS? tell me, how do you manage to do that?

[Randalf Yorgen]

The real problem with LRMs is the people firing them. Some of them wait for a lock but lots out there don't but that's not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the guy who fires 60 missiles at a moving target and then switched targets before his missiles get even half way to the target. the target simply keeps moving and the missiles miss all together.

I skilled spotter is very helpful as well. I know if I can I will report whether or not the missiles are effective. "Missiles good hits" or " Missiles ineffective" with the target letter. Speed them up, sure if you want to.... wait they did that before... ok I wont rehash that one (LRMAGEDDON) Heck they even extended the range from 750 to 1000m.

The biggest things that have screwed up the LRMs are all the players who have been bitching and trying to force changes down PGIs throat. PGI tried when closed Beta first started to please those people but then they changed their mind and said for get that. No more.

Let them do what they are going to do and we will adapt.

[GeneralArmchair]

Abivard, on 02 March 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Oh, I missed the Part where ECM can now be mounted on any mech instead of AMS? tell me, how do you manage to do that?

I guess I missed the bit where I need to equip ECM at all to benefit from it.

1.5 tons per 12 mechs for a fail-proof shield against an entire weapon class.

Only ways to breach it is if an ECM/BAP mech moves into suicidally close range, a mech exposes himself to TAG a target for extended periods of time (to get murdered by AC/PPC/Gauss mechs that only need to exposes themselves for an instant), PPCing the ECM mech to grant a window so short that the missiles will lose lock mid-flight, or praying for dumbfire rounds at long ranges with the slowest projectile velocity in the game.


All that effort to even FIRE a long range weapon that is outperformed by AC's/PPCs/Gauss weapons under ideal conditions.

Yep, nothing else even comes CLOSE to the value that 1.5 tons of equipment per 12 mechs.

Edited by GeneralArmchair, 02 March 2014 - 05:11 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Randalf Yorgen, on 02 March 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

The real problem with LRMs is the people firing them. Some of them wait for a lock but lots out there don't but that's not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is the guy who fires 60 missiles at a moving target and then switched targets before his missiles get even half way to the target. the target simply keeps moving and the missiles miss all together. I skilled spotter is very helpful as well. I know if I can I will report whether or not the missiles are effective. "Missiles good hits" or " Missiles ineffective" with the target letter. Speed them up, sure if you want to.... wait they did that before... ok I wont rehash that one (LRMAGEDDON) Heck they even extended the range from 750 to 1000m. The biggest things that have screwed up the LRMs are all the players who have been bitching and trying to force changes down PGIs throat. PGI tried when closed Beta first started to please those people but then they changed their mind and said for get that. No more. Let them do what they are going to do and we will adapt.

Well, in PGI's defense, the thing that really unsettles weapon balance in this game is people taking multiples of the weapons that obsolutely decimate people. LRMpocalypse was what it was because the missile mechanic was broken but, when people realized it, they went out with LRM80 builds. You can't really survive that when you can't get away from the problem. So, now we've got LRMs that don't do anything on top of a population full of ADD bads that can't hold a target for 5s and maps that are especially built to negate 99% of an LRM volley. I really laugh at LRM boats because I know that they won't do anything to me if I pilot properly and that I've got ample opportunity to avoid any and all of the damage incoming. On the flip side, I weep every time that I take LRMs because I know that I'm wasting tonnage for a heat safe weapon that really only does 33% of the listed damage.

The real kicker is that you need to take at least 2 additional tons worth of added equipment (Artemis and TAG) to make LRMs more effective while also needing a dedicated spotter, IF you're running a major missile boat, and need at least 3 tons of ammo per 15 missiles taken. That is 12 tons and 9 slots dedicated to one weapon that takes 1s+ to acquire your target and another 9-10 seconds to reach its target. And, if that wasn't enough, your real effective range is like 500-600m due to obstacles and ECM. Oh, and even if you take that ALRM15 w/ TAG and fire on a close in target in LOS, you're still not doing 15 damage cause some of the missiles will outright miss and any AMS in range will hose your payload.

[Lyoto Machida]

Trauglodyte, on 03 March 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Well, in PGI's defense, the thing that really unsettles weapon balance in this game is people taking multiples of the weapons that obsolutely decimate people. LRMpocalypse was what it was because the missile mechanic was broken but, when people realized it, they went out with LRM80 builds. You can't really survive that when you can't get away from the problem. So, now we've got LRMs that don't do anything on top of a population full of ADD bads that can't hold a target for 5s and maps that are especially built to negate 99% of an LRM volley. I really laugh at LRM boats because I know that they won't do anything to me if I pilot properly and that I've got ample opportunity to avoid any and all of the damage incoming. On the flip side, I weep every time that I take LRMs because I know that I'm wasting tonnage for a heat safe weapon that really only does 33% of the listed damage.

The real kicker is that you need to take at least 2 additional tons worth of added equipment (Artemis and TAG) to make LRMs more effective while also needing a dedicated spotter, IF you're running a major missile boat, and need at least 3 tons of ammo per 15 missiles taken. That is 12 tons and 9 slots dedicated to one weapon that takes 1s+ to acquire your target and another 9-10 seconds to reach its target. And, if that wasn't enough, your real effective range is like 500-600m due to obstacles and ECM. Oh, and even if you take that ALRM15 w/ TAG and fire on a close in target in LOS, you're still not doing 15 damage cause some of the missiles will outright miss and any AMS in range will hose your payload.

Hence why LRMs take the most skill to use (and I'm not just referring to twitch skills).

[DocBach]

Lyoto Machida, on 03 March 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Hence why LRMs take the most skill to use (and I'm not just referring to twitch skills).

more or less, against a competent opponent, LRM's require the stars to align perfectly to be effective

[Lyoto Machida]

DocBach, on 03 March 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

more or less, against a competent opponent, LRM's require the stars to align perfectly to be effective

Pretty much...I'm sure someone out there has already but I haven't personally seen a screenshot of someone with 40% or more accuracy with LRMs. I'm sure these pilots exist, but I haven't seen it.

[Trauglodyte]

37% for me on LRM10s but I use them mostly on my "ranged brawler" builds. I don't fire at anything further than 500m cause speed and targeting are such an issue. It is really too bad too cause the LRM should be a fearful weapon. I'm ok with some missile loss cause it makes sense. But, when you see the ineptitude of its use and just the failings of the weapon, it is a wonder that you see them at all.