245 replies to this topic

[Galenit]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

This may actually a reasonable point. But what is ''average'' in this context? Is it the informed LRM boat making use of TAG or NARC, Artemis and Target Decay and holding locks? Or is it the uninformed PUG standing at the back of the map spamming blindly at remote locked targets? It would be interesting to know the hit percentage of an experienced LRM user, who is playing the weapon system correctly.

Around 35% prepatch with a 80kph, 2jj c1, selftagging, (Doing 1.14 damage with each missile that has hit, but only 0.37 damage for each missile fired, fired around 470000 missiles from the 2 alrm 15. 1.15W/L, 1.36K/D never in group)

After patch 21 matches (but with 1 or 2 crashes):
38.01%, doing 1.14 damage with each missile that hit but only 0.43 damage for each missile fired, fired around 18000 missiles. 1.33W/L, 2.0K/D, never in group

Thats 3% more accuracy,
same damage for each missile that hit,
but 0.06 more for each missile fired

But that all says nothing, because we compare 21 to 700 matches and 18000 to 470000 missiles that were fired.
Would be better to wait a year and then talk again about compareable numbers ...

Edited by Galenit, 20 March 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[Varent]

Shredhead, on 19 March 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

It's funny how all those who see the problems with the LRM buff are all "PPC/AC poptarters", "metahumpers" and what not, called that by people that rely on no-skill crutches to feel "competitive" at least once in this game.
Fact is, LRMs are a low skill weapon that should never even be remotely comparable to any weapon that needs proper aim. Period.

Right now they are not. You will still as a skilled player put up larger numbers and get more kills with pin point weapons. You may hwoever be able to get more damage 'somewhat' with lrms but you have no major kill potential since you cant focus down weak areas. In addition to this saying that LRMS should not be comparable in what is suppossed to be a tactical and thinking mans shooter is somewhat silly. LRMS are used for supression and are great for taking out people trying to rush across an area. That said they are a trade off since at close range they do diddly. You also have to be aware of terrain or you will toss your missles into a mountainside.

They have balance.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 19 March 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

lrms was clearly overdone, anyone that dont see this is insane, thay should fire thair gameplay testers inmediataly and hire some more reasonable ones

cover.

Since the dawn of time.

Now available in a MWO game near you.

[Appogee]

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

what relevance is the 'potential' damage of the LRM cloud when not all of them are going to hit, and the ones that do splatter themselves all over the target.

For those who came in late... someone else claimed that ghost heat applies equally to LRMs, and that boating LRMs is constrained by ghost heat. I made the factual observation that LRMs potentially deliver a lot more damage before hitting the ghost heat cap than other weapon systems do.

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

On a side note, anyone who overheats using LRM's is an idiot, but the weapon system is already so fundamentally penalized in its ability to deliver its damage payload the last thing it needs are more heat penalties.

I didn't raise ghost heat, someone else did. I responded to it. Don't misunderstand who made a silly claim, when all I did was respond to it..

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

you're still only maximizing the probability that your weapons are going to do damage, part of the equation is always out of your hands. If you're doing everything right with a PPC, you're hitting your target and dealing direct damage to individual components, and its direct damage that kills and disables mechs the fastest.

That's simply incorrect and I'm surprised you would make this claim. The PPC user is being buffeted by missiles, has to lead their target by varying amounts depending on which direction their opponent decides to turn, etc etc etc. Both systems are to an extent at the mercy of what their target decides to do.

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Well the problem with your posts on this subject Appogee is that you're dragging out a few facts, like weapon damage numbers but applying little logic in how those numbers are represented in the field.

Feel welcome to respond factually to any statements I make that you think are factually incorrect. I will do the same.

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

I'm baffled how one could compare a frontloaded weapon like a PPC to an LRM salvo...

Yes, people are often baffled until they think things through. By considering alternative data - eg the DPS delivery of different weapon systems before ghost heat kicks in - reality can be revealed. Case in point: the claim that "ghost heat prevents boating of LRMs" is wrong, when you consider the amount of potential damage delivery before ghost heat kicks in for LRMs vs other weapon systems.

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

I use Target Decay and Sensor Range, JJ's a fast XL, Artemis and pack my own TAG as I prefer firing at targets I can actually see.

Good, you are clearly a knowledgeable LRM user... as indeed am I. Maybe your opponents were experienced LRM defenders too, and packing AMS and using cover intelligently, too.

But the point is: hit percentages don't just apply to LRMs. I am sure that you take some speculative shots with your LRMs, of have the misfortune of having a team mate get in the way, or all the other things that stop LRMs hitting their target. LRMs aren't alone in this. PPC users get buffeted pre-shot, their target jumps or moves unexpectedly, they take speculative shots in the hope they might hit that Firestarter that circling them, etc.

Szegedin, on 20 March 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Do you run any LRM machines Appogee?

Yes. And the day after the patch I took my LRM boat Highlander out for two games, averaged 800 damage in each, and got four kills total across the two games. LRMs were easier to use because they arrived at their target faster than the target could get to cover.

They're better now. I don't actually have a problem with that. I actually think they're a little too advantaged now, and that the game doesn't seem quite as fun because we're spending less time fighting and more time, covering. But that's just a personal preference.

Edited by Appogee, 20 March 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Varent]

Appogee, on 19 March 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

As it stands, LRMs aren't a problem... multiple Mechs boating them is the problem.

launch module.

That said its not really a problem. It just changes the flow of the game overall.

Welcome to non jump sniper online.

[Varent]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

The vast majority of your post is a rant about there being a 'non skill' weapon in the game.

Unfortunately in futuristic warfare and in modernistic warfare these weapons already exist. You dont need to have a weapon in the game that requires you to perfectly aim. They are balanced because of spread, in ability to focus on where you want the missles, travel time, size, weight, heat, ammo, minimum range, etc, etc, etc.

In a thinking mans and tactical shooter they are a good weapon with a purpose and place.

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

Of course they are. A huge number of players are bad and don't care about getting good. I bet they're just fine sticking with Easy mode.

Or they just despise meta humpers and are happy there is a weapon in the game that is viable that isnt just for twitch shooters. Twitch shooters still are pretty much king. Get off your high horse.

[Zerberus]

In the days since the patch, the only people I`ve spoken to that dislike the tweak are "(highly) skilled direct fire specialists".

That "don`t mount AMS becasue LRMs suck anyway".

That still think they can run around out in the open with impunity "Becasue LRMs suck anyway".

That are now raging because LRMs don`t suck anymore and they now have to either play intelligently or decide between their single jumpjet and AMS, "becasue mounting a larger engine would cost me a PPC/AC"

Somehow, I have a problem believing this is all concidental, and TBH I think those people would still whine if the buff were .0000001 m/s increase, because LRMs have always been the direct counter to their mindless playstyle and they`ve managed to keep them useless for half an eternity with whining already.... So, "never touch a running system" immediately applies, and tehy start to whine... ironically, entirely because their own mental constraints about what definies skill and good gameplay are too rigid to allow them to adapt.

Except that PGI has finally gotten wise to them and isn`t listening anymore.

I personally feel that they`RE just about right, I still almost never die to them unless I do something really stupid, but they`re actually a viable weapon now usable (like everything else in the game) with varying degrees of success against all targets.

But the basic rule remains: The slower and dumber the target is, the more effective LRMs will be against it.

Edited by Zerberus, 20 March 2014 - 07:50 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 20 March 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

To add, ams, narc and the "spotting" role also added as being more purposeful with the LRM change.

actually noticed that alot recently. been running with a few friends that are LOVING using narc on lights now. its creating a whole new playstyle.

[Bagheera]

Mcgral18, on 19 March 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Seeing as this is your second post, and we've been here over a year, I think we have a better understanding about balance than you.

Do you remember Lurmaggedon? This isn't even close.

There were 3 LRMageddons. This could have been the 4th, but it isn't.

[Appogee]

Sybreed, on 20 March 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Kill LRM boating, buff LRMs dmg a little.

I agree, and what I said. Kill all boating, actually. I think though that some people are in love with their LRM boats and won't countenance limits being placed on their tubes.

[Varent]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 02:50 AM, said:

I'm not sure I buy into the ''it's our job to get you targets" idea.

No more than I think it's your job to save me by LRMing the guy I'm in a brawl with.

Its a little bit of both. You are more of an asset to your team the longer you stay alive and stay viable for lrm support. If you are in the front tagging for yourself your usually fragile and opening yourself up to more damage then you should. A good LRM boat is one that clicks empty by the end of the game or when there is only a few minutes left and has sent every missle flying.

Also I DO definetly think the good lrm boats will see a friend in a brawl and start laying into the person they haev locked, or if someone calls for support and gets a lock for you you should unleash hell for them.

[Varent]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 03:12 AM, said:

Wait.

I didn't ask you to missile boat.

You do have other options... just saying.

However, if I do get a say in what you drop in... please bring some heavy hitting direct fire weapons as well as your LRMs, so that you can contribute to the fight for the first 8 minutes AND defend yourself more capably.

I tend to find this works out better for the team than a bunch of LRM boats standing at the back of the map hoping their missiles get a lock and hit something.



Really? I don't remember any mention of these during the interviews?

If the LRM boats got a say Im sure they would ask you to sacrafice some of your Direft fire for some streaks to deal with light mechs, or maybe some srm to brawl. Im sure they could request the lights to have tag.

Its not all about you, or them.

Its about everyone working together as a team. They have a roll. So do you. Defend each other, work together, prosper.

LRM boats need locks. If you want support, find them. If you dont then dont, but dont expect the support and dont blame them if you cant find them targets.

El Bandito, on 20 March 2014 - 03:37 AM, said:

You do realize that LRMs are also affected by Ghost Heat, right?

You can't fire a 50+ volley more than 3 times before you shut down.

TBH, chair firing them is more effective anyways and more in line with a supportive roll they are good at.

[Turist0AT]

Have you guys seen the new Mech Detail button they added, its F*cking great!

If you havent: Pic1, Pic2.

[Varent]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

It's amazing how many sub 200 post terribads have come out of the wood works for this.

Where were you guys when we had the poptart meta killing this game for a year?

Hypocrites.

They were humping the meta and loling about it.

Welcome to a game with an actual tactical weapon in it.

Huzzah.

Voivode, on 20 March 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

LOL at the whiners in this thread.

1) AMS exists. Use it.

2) Cover exists, use it.

3) LRMs are ineffective under 180m. Get in a *GASP* medium brawler/striker and lay into them.

I know, I know. Adapting is hard. Complaining is easy. Carry on,

This.

[Varent]

Zerberus, on 20 March 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

In the days since the patch, the only people I`ve spoken to that dislike the tweak are "(highly) skilled direct fire specialists".

That "don`t mount AMS becasue LRMs suck anyway".

That still think they can run around out in the open with impunity "Becasue LRMs suck anyway".

That are now raging because LRMs don`t suck anymore and they now have to either play intelligently or decide between their single jumpjet and AMS, "becasue mounting a larger engine would cost me a PPC/AC"

I agree. In fact im noting specific names on the forums that ive seen run the PPC AC jump snipers crying quite whole heartedly about the change. Wich amuses me to no end. Its akin to a child having there favorite toy taken away and crying in the corner.

[Appogee]

Varent, on 20 March 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

If the LRM boats got a say Im sure they would ask you to sacrafice some of your Direft fire for some streaks to deal with light mechs,

Actually my most used Mechs use AC5, ERLs and SSRMs.

Varent, on 20 March 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

Its not all about you, or them. Its about everyone working together as a team. They have a roll. So do you. Defend each other, work together, prosper.

I agree. As I said I do try to make the team win.

[Roachbugg]

honestly the lrms feel more useful now on my mechs that can only run a couple launchers its just bloody insane with the amount of tubes flooding into every match when you have like 8 or 9 lrm mechs per team its just terrifying. Although my Jenner k has been making mad moolah narcing folks

[Kilrein]

Varent, on 19 March 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

If you dont see the majority of main posters are for the buff, then there is nothing I can do for you. Good day.

I think that you are counting the posters who favored a buff but think this one is WAY too much as blindly in favor.

I was in favor of a buff, LRMs needed one but a 48.3% increase in velocity? Nope, that's not just a buff, that there appears to be PGI wanted to get a HUGE influx of game data on LRMs.

Everyone talks about hitting lights with LRMs and how lights can outrun them. That's such BS. The fastest light is 160 kph. Which is 44m/s. Pre-patch, LRMs are still almost three times the speed of the fastest mech. Sure if you launch LRMs at that light mech from 700m away, odds are pretty good a smart light pilot will extend the range so the LRMs detontate. The light mech needs to move 301 meters in the time that the LRMs travel 1000m. Simple physics and real easy to pull off.

LRMs are NOT LASER WEAPONS!!!!! They have a travel time.

Using the 'LRMs are too slow compared to light mechs' argument just shows a fundamental lack of understand of the relationship between range to target and velocity of the weapon system.

TL:DR - too fast and no LRMs should never be LOS instant hit weapons.

[Varent]

Kilrein, on 20 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

TL:DR - too fast and no LRMs should never be LOS instant hit weapons.

Its really not. If you are using cover effectively in your advances you can easily get out of sight or get to cover still after maybe taking a volley from 1-2 launchers. Having a spread of damage over your mech once in awhile as your making an advance is not OP. In fact its (gasp) less op then having a solid 30 chunk of damage to one area that you were getting from jump snipers.

So lets evaluate.

We have a weapon thats spreading damage that will occassional hit you as your making an advance. as upposed to one doing a solid chunk of damage to one area in an advance. So the major META is still strong.

But lrms speed is op?

I have my doubts good sir.

Also, they most certainly are not instant weapons by any means, thats simply a falacy.

[AlmightyAeng]

Appogee, on 19 March 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

I hardly ever use LRMs (I find them boring) but I agree some LRM speed buff was needed, so they could hit Lights once again.

As it stands, LRMs aren't a problem... multiple Mechs boating them is the problem.

In a PUG match, it's rare to be able to get together enough of a posse to successfully go back and take out the LRM boats spamming remote locks from on the opposite side of the map. And one player usually can't take out say three boats by themself.

But hopefully the casual boaters will get bored with them and the game will go back to something more approaching normal within a week or two.

Here's the thing though...instead of a spotter and 3 LRM boats...take 4 Cataphracts 4X's boating AC5's. You're dead even faster. Take 4 Victors with 2 PPC and 2AC5...you're dead faster.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that missiles should have deficiencies that make them vastly less preferable compared to other weapons systems.

Yeah, you can indirectly fire them. And spread your damage. They're still slower than direct-fire weapons, and there's a variety of pieces of equipment that can go from negating them partially to fully.

Missiles aren't my weapon of choice...but I like that now they're more than a slight irritant.

Pre-patch I DID see lances uses coordinated LRM's to decent effect. Anytime those same lances switched to ANY OTHER weapon system and coordinated, they rolled face by comparison.

[AlmightyAeng]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

Foremost, acquiring and keeping a lock needs to be more difficult, especially where "piggybacking" other locks is concerned. Direct line of sight should be speedy, sure, but there needs to be some form of penalty when locking someone else's contact.

I'm not advocating the removal of LRMs from the game, as much as I personally bear a distaste for indirect fire tactics. I really do. But I am aware they have a rightful place in the game, and they should not be useless or ineffective. I merely advocate that they require a little more skill than "hover cursor over red box, hold LMB until dead." That's where they are right now, and making them even more effective in that role is insanity.

I don't really give too much of a care regarding canon, as BT rules were made for a tabletop board game. This does NOT in its purest form make for a good real-time simulation. So, that being said, I'm all for the idea of, say, increasing LRM damage so that the weapons are more powerful, and less about spam. They could require a steady hand, a degree of patience, and good timing with shots. If you're going to take a support role, then you need to coordinate with your spotters, because piggybacking should take a bit more time to get tone than direct line of sight. The tradeoff should be improved accuracy and better damage.

Now, again I repeat - I SAY AGAIN - LRMs should be a part of the game. They should be powerful, even if TT says that they're only for "softening up mechs." This is a combat simulation, and nobody really wants to be a paint scratcher. That sucks. So buff 'em up. Make them powerful. I've got no problem with that. The endless, constant, thoughtless missile spam is and always has been detrimental to the game, and that's the real problem. That barely-interrupted constant stream of cheap, easy damage. Give aiming, locking on, and letting rip with missiles some meaning.

You make some good points here. I disagree with the level of skill you seem to think isn't required to use LRM's. They're easy to use...not as easy to use really well. Just like direct fire. How often did we see complaints of Boomjager cheese, poptart cheese...etc. Higher skill is higher skill...and if a mech can mount it, use it.

That said though, the skill threshold you're arguing for isn't centered around the speed increase. It sounds like you're annoyed that speed increase make them more effective without changing the skill required.

It seems to me that the ease of use involved in targeting stems directly from the lack of any meaning information warfare from PGI...not from the arbitary speed of the missiles.

There have been a number of suggestions regarding C3, target sharing and tossing this idea of "everyone shares a radar." THAT would be far more interesting.

I'm like the change putting missiles effective on par with direct fire (with different detractors for said indirect advantage). I'd like it even more if information warfare was more involved.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 20 March 2014 - 08:38 AM.