31 replies to this topic

[Nick Summers]

Hello.
To be honest i don't understand why PGI guys rebalance LRM from patch to pacth, trying to turn it into a real primary weapon system. And the history goes the same again. I understand that LRM hysteria will settle down in few weeks. But. Should it be this way?
In my humble opinion LRM's must be a support weapon system. Why? Because there is no balance in mech, that can stand hundreds of meters away behind any building or hill and able to kill enemy by pressing only left mouse button. I understand that in the other way we can get poptarts' preponderance back. But. When you shoot PPC or gauss, you know, you need to aim actually, and your mech can't hide behind cover during volley.
Over.

[stjobe]

And why did this "humble opinion" not fit in one of the gazillion other LRM whine posts?

[151st Light Horse Regiment]

There has never been an MW game where LRMS have been the primary weapon for everyone.

PGI need to find a playstation, play MW2, then redesign their whole, piss poor effort at a game.

[Mcgral18]

People are saying it takes skill to use the pinpoint convergence of weapons...I'm rather confused by that one. If you've played any shooter, you can play MWO in the PP FLD meta without any difficulty.

Missiles take a diffent type of skill, and neither of them are very hard. It just seems some people never experienced lurmageddon and don't realize LRMs can actually hit them. They should really learn.

[stjobe]

151st Light Horse Regiment, on 23 March 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

There has never been an MW game where LRMS have been the primary weapon for everyone.

And there still isn't.

But what we have since the patch is a much more BattleTech-like game where multiple weapon systems are viable, not just direct-fire instant-damage weapons.

If you're an average pilot, like me, try this: Build your 'mech like it was a BattleTech game; a main direct-fire weapon or two, a LRM or two for long-range harassment, and some close-in weaponry for the inevitable brawl.

Works wonders and is so much more BattleTech than the previous incarnations of MWO.

[Falcon554]

Its just a damn mess now, why why why why why they did this ill never understand

[Wintersdark]

stjobe, on 23 March 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

And there still isn't.

But what we have since the patch is a much more BattleTech-like game where multiple weapon systems are viable, not just direct-fire instant-damage weapons.

If you're an average pilot, like me, try this: Build your 'mech like it was a BattleTech game; a main direct-fire weapon or two, a LRM or two for long-range harassment, and some close-in weaponry for the inevitable brawl.

Works wonders and is so much more BattleTech than the previous incarnations of MWO.

This.

It baffles me, there's endless tears because everyone and their dog has an LRM rack on their mech, like this is some terrible problem. Most - hell, nearly all - Battletech Mechs sport a LRM rack - they soften targets at range. Just look through our own mech's stock loadouts - nearly all of them have LRM's.

There are some boats, but I'm definitely seeing as time progresses post-patch there's far fewer. This is rather simple, really: LRM's do soften opponents before you get into directfire ranges, but they splatter damage everywhere and are grossly inefficient at actually killing mechs (well, at least ones that are not already badly damaged). There's tons of passive and active defenses against LRM's, too, something no other weapon system suffers (well, except SSRM's, but who cares about them).

Complaining that it's a mess because everyone has an LRM rack is like complaining that the game is a mess because everyone has a laser, or an autocannon.


I don't play LRM boats. I don't like them. Not because "OMG I'm so gud and they require no skill", because that's stupid - using LRM's effectively requires it's own skillset. Skill isn't just clicking a specific pixel (something any FPS player can do in their sleep). But rather because I like staring down an opponent and unleashing the sweet, sweet dakka, carving off their limbs with corruscating beams of energy, that sort of thing.

But it's very important to me that LRM's are actually usable, and despite what some bad players like to think, they were absolutely NOT usable before. They were utter garbage. They're still not particularly good, but they have a role to play in a balanced loadout now.

[Nick Summers]

stjobe, on 23 March 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

And why did this "humble opinion" not fit in one of the gazillion other LRM whine posts?

Let me think. Hmmmm. Maybe because it's not the whine post?

Mcgral18, on 23 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

People are saying it takes skill to use the pinpoint convergence of weapons...I'm rather confused by that one. If you've played any shooter, you can play MWO in the PP FLD meta without any difficulty.

And still it's more tricky than LRM shooting.

[stjobe]

Nick Summers, on 23 March 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Let me think. Hmmmm. Maybe because it's not the whine post?

Nick Summers, on 23 March 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

there is no balance in mech, that can stand hundreds of meters away behind any building or hill and able to kill enemy by pressing only left mouse button.

That's not a whine?

That's a whine.

[Sandpit]

my thoughts on LRMs were posted in the first 10 or so threads about them. Now it's just a matter of the same people repeating the same thing in different threads.
lrm 1000 damage = op weapons and pgi needing to fix something
ac and ppc 1000 damage = high fives and awesome round bro!

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 23 March 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

my thoughts on LRMs were posted in the first 10 or so threads about them. Now it's just a matter of the same people repeating the same thing in different threads.
lrm 1000 damage = op weapons and pgi needing to fix something
ac and ppc 1000 damage = high fives and awesome round bro!

This, exactly.

Are LRM's an objectively better choice than autocannons and PPC's? No, absolutely not.

Yet people cry like there's no tomorrow when they get killed by LRM's, or because everyone has LRM's on their mechs... But when everyone has autocannons on their mechs, that's ok.

While I certainly see lots of LRM racks around, I don't see substantially less PPC's and Autocannons. LRM's are getting decent damage numbers, but PPC's and Autocannons are still what's actually getting the kills.

[ManaValkyrie]

Wintersdark, on 23 March 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

While I certainly see lots of LRM racks around, I don't see substantially less PPC's and Autocannons. LRM's are getting decent damage numbers, but PPC's and Autocannons are still what's actually getting the kills.

This is the major point, right now, the Faction tournament is a good proof, yes there are lots of people spamming away with LRMs to get major damage points, but the guys that are at the tops of the tables are using mostly high alpha builds. Simply because they are more reliable at pinpoint damage and consistently get more kills.

LRMs are relatively easy to use, but actually doing really well on ALL the battlefields is actually a lot harder, You have to learn the maps well, know when and when not to fire on 'targetable' mechs when operating in fire support/suppression mode. The fact that at the LRMs extreme ranges, sensible players can actually get out of LoS, and under some form of cover.

LRM's are actually the most effective at 200-500 meters, with direct LoS, to utilize artemis effectively for more accuracy, which puts a missile heavy mech well inside autocannon/energy range. Boats are still easily flanked and overwhelmed by lights, mediums or well placed flank charge.

So rather than play pop out of cover a really good missile mech jock is actually generally pretty mobile, and prepared to close the distance.

-Note- Also plenty of weapons actually fire further than LRM's do, and for those that are heavily boating missiles can actually be outranged by direct fire weapons.

Also, once people realise that actually, they aren't 'killing' as much in missile mechs they will drift back to direct fire mechs, especially when a missile mech and a direct fire mech are engaging the same target the direct fire mech normally will score the kill.

[Nick Summers]

stjobe, on 23 March 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

That's not a whine?
That's a whine.

So, every opinion about game balance which doesn't fit to your or majority's opinion is a whine?

[stjobe]

Nick Summers, on 24 March 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

So, every opinion about game balance which doesn't fit to your or majority's opinion is a whine?

No, the hyperbolic exaggeration makes it a whine.

[Asmudius Heng]

Just make LRM indirect fire far less accurate by making its missiles spread horrible.

Make direct LoS LRMs really tight though

Then you have a better risk vs reward system.

Problem solved ... this has always been the issue - trying to balance for direct and indirect fire - when one is balanced it unbalances the other.

[stjobe]

Asmudius Heng, on 24 March 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Just make LRM indirect fire far less accurate by making its missiles spread horrible.

Make direct LoS LRMs really tight though

Then you have a better risk vs reward system.

Problem solved ... this has always been the issue - trying to balance for direct and indirect fire - when one is balanced it unbalances the other.

Someone has to have LoS to the target for indirect fire to work (unless the target has a big signal emitter strapped to it, e.g. Narc). With no LoS to the target and no Narc, indirect fire isn't possible.

And if a 'mech has LoS to the target, its targeting computer can work out grid coordinates (even if just using range and bearing for basic triangulation). So given that, why shouldn't a LRM 'mech be able to receive those coordinates and fire on that target?

It is specifically mentioned in the Tech Manual that one of the big differences between IS and Clan LRMs is the ballistic trajectory of IS LRMs:


(Tech Manual, page 229)

Please note the lines saying that LRMs are "capable of indirect fire" and that IS LRMs have "solid reliability at long distances".

Furthermore, indirect fire in TT only incurred a +1 to-hit modifier:


(Total Warfare, page 111)

Make special note of the last sentence: "The spotter can spot for any number of attacking units to a single target".

Given these things, why should LRM indirect fire be made "far less accurate by making its missiles spread horrible"?

[Asmudius Heng]

stjobe, on 24 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

snip

Because of the balance of mechwarrior not TT.

Indirect firing is a major advantage in MWO due to the mechanics of how the entire game operates.

If it were just a few LRMs here and there it would not be so bad, but the more you stack LRMs the easier it is for a single target to be locked up and hammered very hard in a way that actually requires less teamwork than a group of direct fire mechs moving to gain LoS at the same time.

You can remain hull down while people spot for you - previously this was too damned hard due to low speed so the spotters were hammers before they could keep locks long enough.

Now you retain lock long enough to hit via indirect pretty well.

It is still not a massive problem with the damage of LRMs now but when you look at the risk/reward of the situation when you fire directly you have to face return fire, when firing indirectly you are letting your team do that risk bu they can also shoot back ... you have a multiplication of damage.

IT never was a problem under the old speed as you could dodge so easily but now it is showing.

Forget your TT rules they cannot apply to this situation.

[stjobe]

Asmudius Heng, on 24 March 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

snip

Well, I obviously disagree. I don't think indirect fire is in any way a problem, and I outright reject your premise that you get hammered harder by indirect LRM fire than even a couple of direct-fire 'mechs focusing you.

I've died 28 times since the patch, and of those only about 3-4 are by being "hammered" by LRMs (read: Me being stupid and stepping out in the open in LoS and range of three-four LRM boats). The rest are by direct-fire weaponry. And this is during the so-called "LRMpocalypse" (which is anything but).

Sorry, but I just don't see nerfing the only weapon capable of indirect fire as something that benefits the game. In fact I believe we need effective indirect fire, or everything just becomes direct-fire blandness where the AC+PPC rule supreme and unmolested.

The fact that it's also in accordance with BT lore and TT rules is just icing on the cake.

Edited by stjobe, 24 March 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Nick Summers]

stjobe, on 24 March 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

No, the hyperbolic exaggeration makes it a whine.

The fact of present exaggerated reaction doesn't make.
Should we continue?

[Asmudius Heng]

stjobe, on 24 March 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

Well, I obviously disagree. I don't think indirect fire is in any way a problem, and I outright reject your premise that you get hammered harder by indirect LRM fire than even a couple of direct-fire 'mechs focusing you.

No no, thats not what i said ... i said its EASIER to get hammered by multiple indirect fire mechs than take a pounding by multiple direct fire mechs all at the same time.

If you got three assault mechs all lined up and cresting a ridge and focusing down on a single mech with thier direct fire that mech would be insta-gibbed as it should.

However, getting all those players to have direct LoS at exactly the same time or a short period of time is actually quite hard to do and requires a lot of piloting co-ordination.

The pay off for focus firing with direct fire is very high, but most pilots are not bad enough to put themself in that situation often, and most people are not co-ordinated enough to have this happen too often.

A single tagged (or just spotted) enemy though allows any LRM boat within 1000m to gain a lock very quickly and fire everything without risk tothemself, and without being terribly co-ordinated either. It was kind of worse when brawling was better too because when you are in a brawl that lock stays on. Right now the speed increase means locks that were not good before are now viable and generally hit.

That being said i do not think that it is terrible right now, but i think a closer examination of ease of co-ordination and risk/reward is better than looking at TT rules.

If TT rules said a +1 to hit that can easily be simulated with a worse missile grouping as the hit modifiers in MWO are generally correlated to weapon accuracy in either travel time, burn time, or damage drop off over range.

So i dont think we are that far apart in being in somewhat agreement - but i prefer to look at things in this game with the TT rules as some direction rather than the other way around.