95 replies to this topic

[Green Mamba]

LRM Fanbois Unite

[Malorish]

Tycho von Gagern, on 02 April 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

You forgot pulse weapons. I don't blame you; everyone else has, too. They should be the brawler's energy-weapon of choice, but they are too heavy and run too hot. PGI should make them one or the other. Both combined make every other energy weapon a better option.

Game decisions should be real choices, and not unneccesary bloat (even if it's "correct" according to lore).

I think they should just get rid of pulse weapons if they can't have a real, functional in-game nitche. Same with LLs . . . they should just remove the "ER" and make all LLs have the same characteristics. Currently the real tradeoff in range/damage vs. heat/weight/crit slots is between ER PPC/PPC/ER LL/Mlaser.

Edited by Malorish, 02 April 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[stjobe]

DocBach, on 02 April 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Spotting was considered a complex action in which the turn the spotter was spotting they couldn't fire any weapons. Every individual LRM launcher on a 'Mech didn't share a single lock; It wasn't as simple as lock target and six 'Mechs could unleash 60 LRM's that all shared the same to-hit roll.

The spotter could both move and attack, but it incurred an extra +1 to-hit modifier to both the spotter's attacks and the indirect fire attack (in addition to the +1 for indirect attacks; and of course the spotter's movement modifiers were added to both attacks as well).

Also, while they didn't share a to-hit roll, any number of 'mechs could fire at the same target designated by a single spotter.

Here's the actual rules:


(Total Warfare, page 111)

As you can see, the only drawback to indirect fire was an extra +1 to-hit. Range modifiers were taken from the firing unit, movement and line of sight from the spotter, all other modifiers as a regular attack.

So really, it wasn't any harder firing indirect than firing while walking (both a +1 to-hit modifier).

[Steel Claws]

I think a lot of the scaling back in LRM use is not necessarily because they were semi nerfed or people were bored with it so much as the champion trial mech flavor of the month changed. A lot of people were running that champion Stalker with it's LRM loadout. Many of those same people are now running the Victor trial.

Edited by Steel Claws, 02 April 2014 - 04:36 PM.

[El Bandito]

Malorish, on 02 April 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

There's a difference between using buildings/terrain as cover in a short range (0-270 m) fight, and the current MWO meta which is much more like trench warfare with about 800-1200 m of "no man's land" in between.

I don't know what game you are playing but most fights happen inside 700 meters. The much cried about LRMs for example, are completely useless in the 800-1200 range you talked about.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 April 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Latorque]

Damocles69, on 02 April 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Whatever. As long as indirect fire remains a thing LRMs will be inpossible to properly balance. The ability to not be able to see a target yet reamaine safely in cover, deal damage, shake screen and blind a target with that rediculose smoke effect with chained LRM 5s is a toxic gameplay mechanic.

Ability to aim needs to be rewarded. Lack luster aim should be punished

This. Pretty much the most well summed-up post on this topic i've seen so far. The ridiculously steep trajectory negates cover on most mechs; and now they're too fast to break LoS on time; unless you want to facehug some steep rock for the whole match.

Charons Little Helper, on 02 April 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

The word you're looking for is 'difficult' not 'inpossible' (which isn't a word).

I think part of the problem is that MWO shouldn't be balanced on a mech to mech basis, but on a team basis. You can't fire indirectly without your team being at risk.

Not to mention that by taking LRMs - you put yourself at greater risk from brawlers in general.

Oh - and LRM5 chaining? Take AMS if it's a big deal - the vast majority of the missiles will be shot down. (and shake was just lowered)

Only if you are a terrible LRM pilot. Seriously; you count brawler mechs as a danger to LRM mechs in the current so-called balance? I only played LRM mechs to elite their ballistic / energy variants; but even with 120m/s brawlers were rarely a problem. As i played mostly LB-X armed brawler mechs; you had to move from cover to cover to close up to LRM - mechs; and even then you got jumped pretty often. By now; as a brawler - you better don't move at all.

And; funnily enough; it is very likely that an AMS runs out of ammo before the LRMs do.

[Villz]

3rd game back after close to 2months off
LRMS need balacing via a different mechanic.
HIGHLANDER HGN-733 5 4 1 4.00 7 1 7.00 4,075 6,941 00:24:05
Note 4,075 dmg in 5 games

http://i.imgur.com/5IgNtdr.jpg

Me and Kaffeangst wrecking an entire team in 5mins ....

LRMS r fine though >.>

[Khobai]

Quote

LRMS need balacing via a different mechanic.

Which is what ive always said. LRMs should be a utility weapon with different ammo types that do different things. Rather than a damage weapon... because as a damage weapon they will always be inferior to PPCs/ACs. As a utility weapon they can bring some much needed utility to the game in the form of fire, smokescreens, minefields, etc...

[Davers]

I love how players invent their own terminology, then cry that PGI does not cater to it.

[Trauglodyte]

There was no LRMpocolypse #whateverithappenstobe. What happened is people got curious about the new shiney and went in droves to try it out. And, it just so happened that there was an LRM boat available. Tada! Instant masses to a different game play. Two weeks later, know what happened? The game has gone back to PPC/AC Online just like it was before. Paul even noted that it started to die down after only 6 days post patch. People got tired of hiding all day and/or just realized that, while fun and better, LRMs still pale in comparison to direct damage. Case in point: I was in a game earlier tonight in my Wolverine (leveling one up) and I forgot to pull my LRM 10 out. There was a K2 sitting right in front of me and my PPC/Md Laser arm got yanked off earlier in the game which forced me to pump LRM10s into him. A CORED K2 with an orange CT and a ST about ready to go not too long before. 5 salvoes later and now out of LOS (the engagement started at about 250m with him ignoring me) and he was still alive. That wouldn't have happened if I had any semblance of direct fire weaponry.

People need to realize two things about LRMs: they're vastly inferior to every other FLD weapon in the game for killing targets and their prime effectiveness lies in being a heat efficient method of softening a target up, with or without LOS, while you close. While it was different in TT and in Battletech lore and design, LRMs are just a terrible weapon even with the speed change. Why would I want to wait 6-7s to get damage on a target for a 6 ton investment in a weapon (LRM5 w/ 1 ton of ammo) that can both be countered completely or minimized when I can spend an additional ton on a weapon (PPC) that does the same amount of damage at a moderately longer range, does all of its damage in one shot (no spreading), has a substantial greater velocity, temporarily negates ECM, requires the same number of critical slots (2+1 = 3), has a much shorter dead zone, and only generates 6 more heat?

That being said, I still run LRMs because they're a heat efficient means by which to do damage. But, the thought of building an entire mech around one weapon, especially one that is so easy to negate, is a massively poor choice at best. The sad part is that they should be equal in capacity to all other weapons but PGI can't seem to nail it down due to the presence of indirect fire.

[Sug]

DarkDevilDancer, on 02 April 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

When 8 or more people are boating LRM's thats an obvious sign that somethings wrong,

Either that or the Assault trial mech was a LRM boat.

[Mordin Ashe]

Villz, on 02 April 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

3rd game back after close to 2months off
LRMS need balacing via a different mechanic.
HIGHLANDER HGN-733 5 4 1 4.00 7 1 7.00 4,075 6,941 00:24:05
Note 4,075 dmg in 5 games

http://i.imgur.com/5IgNtdr.jpg

Me and Kaffeangst wrecking an entire team in 5mins ....

LRMS r fine though >.>

I don't know, impressive numbers, but my Ctf-4x still performs better and has more kills for the same damage. Banshees are the same case. And Oxide, for that matter. Basically anything that has multiple ACs and Streaks/SRMs.

Edited by Mordin Ashe, 02 April 2014 - 08:27 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

When everyone hides behind a hill for 10 to 15 minutes for fear of lrm death, something is wrong.

Yes. Your team is bad.

No ifs, ands or buts. They don't know the map, they got pinned down the entire match and failed to apply any pressure whatsoever. They done scrubbed out at the lowest level of potential enemy teamwork- multiple missile launchers + spotter.

When I use an LRM carrier and the opponent sits there paralyzed, victory is only a matter of time. That I frequently see teams avoid this cover-in-place mindset and win tells me the problem lies not with the weapon, but the pilots.

[Joseph Mallan]

Green Mamba, on 02 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

LRM Fanbois Unite

I am a all weapons being viable fanboy Mamba... for quite some time the AC/PPC was the ogre in the game... I like being able to choose my poison rather than only get one choice.

Although... there can only be one Choice!

[DocBach]

stjobe, on 02 April 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

The spotter could both move and attack, but it incurred an extra +1 to-hit modifier to both the spotter's attacks and the indirect fire attack (in addition to the +1 for indirect attacks; and of course the spotter's movement modifiers were added to both attacks as well).

Also, while they didn't share a to-hit roll, any number of 'mechs could fire at the same target designated by a single spotter.

Here's the actual rules:


(Total Warfare, page 111)

As you can see, the only drawback to indirect fire was an extra +1 to-hit. Range modifiers were taken from the firing unit, movement and line of sight from the spotter, all other modifiers as a regular attack.

So really, it wasn't any harder firing indirect than firing while walking (both a +1 to-hit modifier).

What I was saying is each individual launcher had its own to hit roll - if you were using four LRM-10's or whatever, each one of them had to have a roll to see if it hit the target - there was no "one lock hits all' like we've got now (though on the same note, we didn't have a "one lost lock misses all.")

Tactical Ops addendum says ECM provides a +1 modifier to fire yet it locks out LRM's completely in MWO - why don't we have at least a lock on time penalty to show that +1 modifier for indirect fire LRM's?

[Trauglodyte]

wanderer, on 03 April 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

Yes. Your team is bad.

No ifs, ands or buts. They don't know the map, they got pinned down the entire match and failed to apply any pressure whatsoever. They done scrubbed out at the lowest level of potential enemy teamwork- multiple missile launchers + spotter.

When I use an LRM carrier and the opponent sits there paralyzed, victory is only a matter of time. That I frequently see teams avoid this cover-in-place mindset and win tells me the problem lies not with the weapon, but the pilots.

I actually chalk this up to the shock effect of mass LRMs. That, combined with the map "zombie" effect (where people go to the same spots every game no matter what - see River City Citadel, Caustic Caldera, Alpine Valley I10 hill, etc) forced people to sit still. In games, even when you're in a premade group of 4, you can't guarantee that the PUGs will follow you. So, you don't dare risk moving in a direction without everyone coming with you and none of them want to move with you for fear of getting crushed by a deluge of LRMs. The irony is that you had more freedom of movement under the PPC/AC meta than you did for the two short weeks of LRM battles.

My only hope is that now that we're moving back to the PPC/AC meta that people will stop taking AMS and ECM en masse so that the single LRM user or those of us that take LRMs in small quantities don't get screwed. But, the spotting/NARCing Light just go screwed over prison style cause there is absolutely NO need for them anymore. I had my Shawk set up with a NARC, TAG, along with a PPC and a UAC5 - it is definitely getting revamped now that the need is dying down.

[Green Mamba]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

I am a all weapons being viable fanboy Mamba... for quite some time the AC/PPC was the ogre in the game... I like being able to choose my poison rather than only get one choice.

Although... there can only be one Choice!

Aiming, adjusting for speed of target,distance of target and whether target is moving on a slant ,allowing for drops or hills of terrain to get a hit is easier right than just pressing "R" and waiting for target to lock with follow through once lock is achieved Right?

[Rubidiy]

Play coupla matches in light mech. If you happen to be locked by anyone, LRMs will destroy your legs in two hits. What exactly LRM-player does to take out light mech??? Nothing.
Situation, when LRM-boat had chance to hit light mech only by keeping TAG on light mech, was only right. You should be presize at your aiming to succeed. If you don't have to aim at all to kill a light mech, it means that developers screwed up.

[Trauglodyte]

Green Mamba, on 03 April 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

Aiming, adjusting for speed of target,distance of target and whether target is moving on a slant ,allowing for drops or hills of terrain to get a hit is easier right than just pressing "R" and waiting for target to lock with follow through once lock is achieved Right?

You should stop posting cause you're showing the community how biased and bad you are. LRMs for bads is waiting for a red triangle, pressing R, and hitting the LRM weapons group button while never seeing your target. LRMs for people that are pushing the envelope entails putting yourself out in the open, using TAG and Artemis IV to get a quick lock on, and firing at targets within 500m (300-400m is the really good area for LRM brawling). What you poor neck beard direct fire knuckle draggers don't seem to get is that LRM users don't get the benefit of torso twisting like everyone else. To maximize the damage output, you only get to fire at 60% of your range, need to be within LOS to get the biggest punch possible, AND can't turn away because that would mean a broken lock which, in turn, means lost ordinance. But, people like you just think that everyone is that idiot in the LRM trial mech sitting the back wasting ammo on random targets or the easy moder running an XL engine in a "nothing but LRMs" assault mech hoping that they drop in a match with someone that knows how to spot/PUGs that can keep a lock.

You should maybe try moving away from the comfort and easiness of the JJing Cataphract, Victor, and Highlander PPC/AC beasts and do something different. Jump in a 733P with double PPCs and double ALRM10s and see what you can do.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 03 April 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[KnowBuddy]

Green Mamba, on 03 April 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

Aiming, adjusting for speed of target,distance of target and whether target is moving on a slant ,allowing for drops or hills of terrain to get a hit is easier right than just pressing "R" and waiting for target to lock with follow through once lock is achieved Right?

Aiming, adjusting for speed of target, distance of target from cover and what type of cover, accounting for target aquisition method and whether target is perceived to be headed for cover at all at time of lock, allowing for presence of ECM and AMS, accounting for arc of travel based on distance, positioning to maintain clear flight path and/or LOS, communicating need for TAG or providing it for yourself, maintaining target lock and missile lock throughout flight time (or - exponentially more difficult - intentionally breaking lock and reacquiring lock with precise timing), and razor-thin torso twist margins to spread incoming fire so that you aren't cored at 90% while maintaining missile lock.

Right, your definition of "skill" is the only definition.

Edited by KnowBuddy, 03 April 2014 - 08:56 AM.