43 replies to this topic

[Charons Little Helper]

1. The main complaint of the LRM buff is indirect fire.

2. Most people who seriously used LRMs don't use indirect fire consistently. (otherwise they wouldn't bother with Artemis)

3. So - the simple solution is to make LRMs when fired while the target is in LOS fire at 175m/s, while those fired indirectly move at 120m/s(perhaps a smidge more)

4. Done

This would stop those 'spamming' LRM boats behind cover whom elite players claim are everywhere (but I see rarely) from being any better than they were pre-buff. (pretty bad)

While preventing LRMs from going back to sucking.

edit: spelling / grammar reasons

Edited by Charons Little Helper, 25 March 2014 - 01:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

Charons Little Helper, on 25 March 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

This would stop those 'spamming' LRM boats behind cover whom elite players claim are everywhere (but I see rarely) from being any better than they were pre-buff. (pretty bad)

I've given up, there's no point in making suggestions like this anymore.

When Paul flat out states that collecting data over 6 days, from a handful of selective matches, during a tournament, while they're still being used in high numbers due to the new toy factor, and that the ones who had trouble adjusting were the higher elo players is the basis for making any kind of adjustment to the game it's quite apparent that they have no idea whatsoever on how to collect and review data.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sandpit, on 25 March 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

I've given up, there's no point in making suggestions like this anymore.

When Paul flat out states that collecting data over 6 days, from a handful of selective matches, during a tournament, while they're still being used in high numbers due to the new toy factor, and that the ones who had trouble adjusting were the higher elo players is the basis for making any kind of adjustment to the game it's quite apparent that they have no idea whatsoever on how to collect and review data.

I fail to see the problem with any of this. How long do you want? Why does a tournament matter? Do you really assume that they're really stupid enough to make no per-capita adjustments to their telemetry?

[Sandpit]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

I fail to see the problem with any of this. How long do you want? Why does a tournament matter? Do you really assume that they're really stupid enough to make no per-capita adjustments to their telemetry?

If you agree that 6 days of selective match observation, during a tournament, while players are using them in extremely high and unusual (as in not the norm) numbers, is "good" data collection method and how anyone who understands statistics would do it, well then ok.

I'm not going to bother pointing out exactly why each and every single one of those factors skews the data, let alone how they all combine to make it even worse.

Edited by Sandpit, 25 March 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Sandpit, on 25 March 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

I've given up, there's no point in making suggestions like this anymore.

When Paul flat out states that collecting data over 6 days, from a handful of selective matches, during a tournament, while they're still being used in high numbers due to the new toy factor, and that the ones who had trouble adjusting were the higher elo players is the basis for making any kind of adjustment to the game it's quite apparent that they have no idea whatsoever on how to collect and review data.

So you have come around to what most of us have known for quite some time.

I make suggestions more for the intellectual challenge of putting forth an idea and seeing if it has legs with the community for sheer interest now rather than actually thinking the Devs pay any attention.

I agree with the OP that indirect fire is the main problem with LRMs though, you cannot balance the same weapon with the same stats for indirect and direct as th risk/reward of the two modes are vastly different.

Though i propose making it even more simple - having the spread of indirect be much much worse and the spread of direct better.

Indirect becomes a sand blaster and very ammo intesnive for the ease of the method while the risk of being shot back with direct fire is helpd by making your shot a hammer with less spread and more missiles hitting.

It wont happen but it is amuising to see good and interesting ideas come from the community completely ignored by the devs - it becomes almost funny

[Aluminumfoiled]

Like this idea. As a pilot that was using them direct fire before, there should be a payoff for the risk and a penality for the safety of indirect fire. Not likely but a good idea.

Rebas Kradd, on 25 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

I fail to see the problem with any of this. How long do you want? Why does a tournament matter? Do you really assume that they're really stupid enough to make no per-capita adjustments to their telemetry?

Tourney weekends are very nontypical in playstyles high meta use and a weekend grind that is not normal. Few of the tourny players were using lrms i would think. Not the highest payout loads. (high Elo not adjusting? no ams tax paid either? DAMAGE!) Maybe a major effect or none, but for accurate telemetry reduce unknowns not increase them.

[Lyoto Machida]

Charons Little Helper, on 25 March 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

1. The main complaint of the LRM buff is indirect fire.

2. Most people who seriously used LRMs don't use indirect fire consistently. (otherwise they wouldn't bother with Artemis)

3. So - the simple solution is to make LRMs when fired while the target is in LOS fire at 175m/s, while those fired indirectly move at 120m/s(perhaps a smidge more)

4. Done

This would stop those 'spamming' LRM boats behind cover whom elite players claim are everywhere (but I see rarely) from being any better than they were pre-buff. (pretty bad)

While preventLRMs from going back to sucking.

This is what I suggested in another thread, except it was 120m/s for indirect and 180m/s for direct.

We could also try getting rid of indirect unless the target is TAG'd, NARC'd or UAV'd.

[Aluminumfoiled]

Sandpit, on 25 March 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

If you agree that 6 days of selective match observation, during a tournament, ...

Exactly what I thought too.

[Solahma]

Very interesting proposal. It reminds me of how some weapons work in TT Warhammer 40k. The option to fire "indirect" at anything in range or "direct" with benefits if you have LoS. It would be a change of pace for sure and require more planning and skill on the part of LRM boats. I would welcome that sort of challenge with open arms. Nice idea!

[Asmudius Heng]

Just another thought to this - the old speed for indirect was hardly ever used because it was so easy to dodge. Too slow means it becomes a hit or miss weapon with mostly miss leading to frustrating and lack of use.

Increased missile spread but the same speeds would mean there would be a lot more hits, but they would be far less punishing leading to missiles users feeling justified in thier ammo burn that they are causing some harm and also forcing enemeies to cover as well.

[RG Notch]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Do you really assume that they're really stupid enough to make no per-capita adjustments to their telemetry?

I don't think it's an assumption that these people are stupid, the only thing up for debate is exactly how stupid. I personally go with pretty damn stupid.

[VanillaG]

Charons Little Helper, on 25 March 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

1. The main complaint of the LRM buff is indirect fire.

2. Most people who seriously used LRMs don't use indirect fire consistently. (otherwise they wouldn't bother with Artemis)

3. So - the simple solution is to make LRMs when fired while the target is in LOS fire at 175m/s, while those fired indirectly move at 120m/s(perhaps a smidge more)

4. Done

This would stop those 'spamming' LRM boats behind cover whom elite players claim are everywhere (but I see rarely) from being any better than they were pre-buff. (pretty bad)

While preventing LRMs from going back to sucking.

edit: spelling / grammar reasons

What happens if a LRM obtains a lock via LoS , launch your LRMs, and you lose LoS; do the LRMs slow down?
What if you obtain a non-LoS lock, launch the LRMs and then you get LoS before they hit; do the LRMs speed up?

What you are essential proposing is "Ghost LRM speed" since there is no way to know exactly how fast your LRMs are going to be. The easiest solution is tone back the speed a little without introducing yet another overly complicated mechanic to the game.

[Solahma]

Easiest isn't always the best though. There is already a LoS detection mechanic in the game, it would simply call on that mechanic to determine what the travel speed is. The two scenarios you mention could be handled either way, but I think it makes more sense that it would be a parametric speed that changed in real-time. So you would have to maintain LoS for it to continue traveling at that speed or else it would slow down. On the other hand, it would make Jump Jet mechs like the Catapult and Highlander different and more effective if the speed held regardless of maintaining LoS. They could jump, lock/fire, drop down and maintain the faster speed if it was set-up like that.

The only issue I have is justifying it from a fluff view... The missiles travel at different speeds... why? to better acquire a target and track better? Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to have a missile, with a pre-set engine that provides a set amount of thrust to change depending on the condition like this. I'm fine with writing that off for gameplay, but still makes little sense for reality.

Edited by Solahma, 25 March 2014 - 02:27 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Also, give direct fire a very low arc (almost parallel to the ground). I use direct fire most of the time but have gotten a bit lazier since the patch, as it's easier to hit with indirect now (but I'm still not firing from 900m away).

VanillaG, on 25 March 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

What happens if a LRM obtains a lock via LoS , launch your LRMs, and you lose LoS; do the LRMs slow down?
What if you obtain a non-LoS lock, launch the LRMs and then you get LoS before they hit; do the LRMs speed up?

What you are essential proposing is "Ghost LRM speed" since there is no way to know exactly how fast your LRMs are going to be. The easiest solution is tone back the speed a little without introducing yet another overly complicated mechanic to the game.

I'd say the speed is dependent on when you initially locked them.

In your first scenario, they're gonna fly at whatever they were going towards at the time they lost lock with the faster speed...they'll probably miss if the target moves a bit.

In the second scenario, they'd still have that slower indirect fire speed (but maybe the grouping tightens up due to LoS).

[No Guts No Glory]

VanillaG, on 25 March 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

The easiest solution is tone back the speed a little without introducing yet another overly complicated mechanic to the game.

Sorry, but PGI has shown time and time again, that they prefer the most complicated solutions they can manage.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Paul’s comments lead me to believe that he was seeing hill-humpers and pop-taters (high Elo players) taking the brunt of the missile strikes (players less inclined to change their tactics), while players with less specialized builds avoided the LRMs in cities and tunnels. If this is the case, then of course PGI is going to attempt to build on this rock-paper-scissors dynamic. This also means they will probably not have separate speeds for direct and indirect fire, otherwise the LRM advantage is lost.

[LauLiao]

What about a speed curve. Have launched LRMs start out slow, then accelerate speed over the next few seconds until they plateau at a designated speed?

[Sandpit]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 25 March 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Paul’s comments lead me to believe that he was seeing hill-humpers and pop-taters (high Elo players) taking the brunt of the missile strikes (players less inclined to change their tactics), while players with less specialized builds avoided the LRMs in cities and tunnels

More than likely. That's exactly how you should make balancing decisions for a game right?

As to the OP's idea, wouldn't it just make more sense to increase the spread of LRMs fired as indirect weapons to duplicate the to hit modifiers from TT if you fired using a spotter? Less missiles hit (increasing the loss of accuracy based on being fired indirectly) and they're still just as effective as far as being able to be fired off.

Isn't that much simpler than a "ghost speed" mechanic?

[Solahma]

LauLiao, on 25 March 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

What about a speed curve. Have launched LRMs start out slow, then accelerate speed over the next few seconds until they plateau at a designated speed?

I've always liked that idea, but not worth the time for them to look into it or implement it. It doesn't change how fast it travels from Point A to Point B if it is still a designed speed, just on a curve.

[FupDup]

What I would like is...

DIRECT FIRED LURMS
If target is within your LoS at the time of impact (or maybe just time of launch? IDC), the missiles would form a cluster around the hitbox you were aiming at. Note that this doesn't mean all damage will pile into one location, it just means it would focus around that spot with some spread to adjacent areas.

If the missiles hit while your reticule was not touching the target, the missiles would inherit a random targeting system like SSRMs.


INDIRECT FIRED LURMS
No spotter/spotter without TAG or Narc: The missiles would use a random spread system like that of SSRMs.

Spotter with TAG and/or Narc: Missiles would form a clump around the designated hitbox (designated by the spotter that is), while still spreading a bit of damage to adjacent locations.

Edited by FupDup, 25 March 2014 - 02:53 PM.