37 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

I think that SRMs need some sort of guidance so I'm ok with it being applied to them. I think LRMs need a tweak on how the damage is spread and such simply because the LRM20 is a waste of a hard point due to just how awful it is. At the end of the day, I support anything to brings more skill to the game.

Hear! Hear!

[Corwin Vickers]

Prezimonto, on 25 April 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Thoughts?

I really like it. It should eliminate most of the "fire and forget" arguments.

What I see here is people who actually like the fire and forget function asking for it to be kept. Thing is, LRMs are useless at my Elo level. It's probably different for the people defending the fire and forget function.

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 26 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Regarding the OP's idea, I'm not a huge fan of guided missiles. I prefer either dumb or smart missiles. Guided missiles are too prone to abuse. Most missile systems have more damage per shot than other options, certainly for the tonnage, and letting people reliably place those missiles into specific spots would be rather stronger than I'd like to see.

I would not object to an indirect fire system using the tactical map, where you fire at a point on the map rather than a specific target mech. In that mode your missiles would spread out into a high-coverage pattern designed to saturate a location.

How are wire guided missiles any different than a LBX now? Both are spread weapons, both are aim-able. In fact most weapons are aim-able except for LRMs which is the cause of many of the problems. Both are inferior to single location based weapons or hit scan.

I like a saturation based indirect fire mode but i do prefer Prez's mouse wheel scroll system because it is skill based instead of fire and forget.

[Prezimonto]

Corwin Vickers, on 26 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

I really like it. It should eliminate most of the "fire and forget" arguments.

What I see here is people who actually like the fire and forget function asking for it to be kept. Thing is, LRMs are useless at my Elo level. It's probably different for the people defending the fire and forget function.

How are wire guided missiles any different than a LBX now? Both are spread weapons, both are aim-able. In fact most weapons are aim-able except for LRMs which is the cause of many of the problems. Both are inferior to single location based weapons or hit scan.

I like a saturation based indirect fire mode but i do prefer Prez's mouse wheel scroll system because it is skill based instead of fire and forget.

I like the analogy to the LBX. It points how just how awful LRM's are considered at the top tier. This system doesn't actually help make them better compared to an LBX.

The reason I was thinking of the idea was all the complaints I see about how LRM's are "easy mode" or "no skill" weapons and secondly that indirect fire is too easy with them.

This system would deal with both those issues. Indirect fire is harder, skill based, and rewarded for having good support.

I actually really like Koniving's idea to double the recycle time and the damage on LRM launchers as well, I'd also halve the ammo/ton at the same time. This makes them much more situational weapons... dealing big damage if you can line up and guide the shot well. Support mechs can then hit and run for spotting easier as well... less time exposed for them is good.

[Barantor]

Aren't good at top tier because ecm, not because they are useless.

Ecm is required there, not lower end pug stomps where they are useful.

Making it like artillery in WoT where you can't move to fire? Might as well take them out of the game.

If they made them like streaks people would have fits too if they flew straight when direct fire and over 180m...

Fix ECM first, don't alter weapons around something that is so broken that it is the one thing that has dramatically changed this game the most.

Ask those Atlases during the first LRMaggeddon when their head hitboxes were too big how LRMs worked.

You guys are too hung up on a weapon that is probably in the best place it has been and aren't even looking at things like ecm and how boating ANY weapon affects gameplay.

ECM ranks second after the ability to alter your mech to the point they allow in ideas that have run away with balance.

[Corwin Vickers]

If LRMs took more skill to use ECM could be fixed because the Devs have stated that ECM is like it is to nerf LRMs because they feel that LRMs are too powerful as guided weapons.


Also LRMs are useless at high Elo because they are slow, they warn you when they are coming at you, they don't do much damage and they do it all over your mech, and all you have to do to avoid them is walk behind something.

I know people are going to say that the missiles turn 90 degrees and that only 2 spots on the map defend against them but those people are nubs.

[Malleus011]

I wouldn't mind having a high-speed, flat trajectory option for LRMs. Wire-guide would be nice. IMHO, all Clan LRM's should work this way (no minimum range silliness needed) and all IS LRMs should work this way by default. IS LRM systems could also have a (much slower) lock-on time which would engage something like the current indirect fire mechanic.

[Prezimonto]

Barantor, on 26 April 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Making it like artillery in WoT where you can't move to fire? Might as well take them out of the game.

My suggestion isn't even remotely close to making LRM's like WoT artillery.

I'm talking about an aimed firing system for LRM's... you can still move, shoot other weapons, ect...

For direct fire situations they missiles would go where you aim. For indirect, close to where you're aiming you can use the mouse wheel to adjust the missiles landing point relative to your crosshair. For indirect fire far away from where your aiming you would need TAG or NARC or Spotting... just like now but with more skill involved with hitting your target.

Because making LRM's a more skill based weapon is essentially a nerf, ECM can get overhauled. Or the beauty of this is that LRM's won't be entirely broken by ECM anyway. Streaks would still be screwed, but that's settled by not letting ECM signals stack.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Corwin Vickers, on 26 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

How are wire guided missiles any different than a LBX now? Both are spread weapons, both are aim-able. In fact most weapons are aim-able except for LRMs which is the cause of many of the problems. Both are inferior to single location based weapons or hit scan.

The LBX now is radically underpowered for its weight. LRMs got their damage per missile adjusted upward, but the LBX is stuck at 1/pellet. If PGI increased it to 1.2 or something, then maybe the LBX would be in a better place. Plus, LBX rounds have a fixed spread and ballistic weapon behavior (projectile speed and drop).

As for LRMs against direct-fire weapons, the damage per weight is very strong and you gain the ability to do indirect fire. Having them target as they do now, or by using the SSRM bone system, keeps them in the roughly balanced state that they currently enjoy. Making them guided instead of smart returns us to the bad old days of CT-only LRMs, or worse, let's people dump 40+ damage volleys into single hit locations with ease.

[Prezimonto]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 26 April 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

The LBX now is radically underpowered for its weight. LRMs got their damage per missile adjusted upward, but the LBX is stuck at 1/pellet. If PGI increased it to 1.2 or something, then maybe the LBX would be in a better place. Plus, LBX rounds have a fixed spread and ballistic weapon behavior (projectile speed and drop).

As for LRMs against direct-fire weapons, the damage per weight is very strong and you gain the ability to do indirect fire. Having them target as they do now, or by using the SSRM bone system, keeps them in the roughly balanced state that they currently enjoy. Making them guided instead of smart returns us to the bad old days of CT-only LRMs, or worse, let's people dump 40+ damage volleys into single hit locations with ease.

Not necessarily. I stated up front that along with this ALL the other parameters of LRM's could be revisited. If that means adding a wider spread in general, I'm okay with that. In fact I'd rather see the missiles spread in a situation like this, but receive a greater per-missile damage. Keep the spread for ALL missile systems fixed at around the width of an atlas arms without artemis and an atlas total torsos with artemis. So you will be spreading damage all around a mech. By keeping the spread fixed small launchers are just less "sand-paper" damage, but if each missile was 1.5 or so, you're still don't some kind of meaningful damage across the mech.

One other point I'd like to carify. A lot of people seem to think by wire-guide I'm suggesting direct aiming for components. The aiming system I'm describing is based solely on GROUND position. so you're targeting the ground underneath the mech.. the missiles come in at whatever trajectory they come in at. If you're Really skillful you might learn last second twiches to adjust where they land, but I'd hope NEVER be able to target just a right torso.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 April 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, speaking on the LB, it needs the same damage bump, at the very least, as the LRMs doing 1.1 per pellet. My personal opinion of how to bump up the LB system is to allow it do its listed damage at the maximum effective range (10 @ 450m) and then use a similar factor that is used on it from max effectiveness to extreme range to 0-450m. So, you'd end up doing something like 20 points of damage at 0m, 10 damage at 450m, and 0 damage at 1350.

[Corwin Vickers]

To fix the LBX you need to fix the critical system.

Engines Gyros, sensors, life support, actuators should be critable.

Any damage to a component should destroy it. Do you think you're laser is going to fire again if even 1 machine gun bullet hits it unprotected?

I haven't played the board game in a very long time but I seem to remember any crit destroyed a component, no hit points....


Right now all crit system weapons are useless. In the case of the LBX you have other auttocannons to choose from so if you're using an LBX it's your fault.

[Bobzilla]

Think of how using these would work against a mech with 2ppc+2ac5. The person with the lrms would lose his RT before the missles landed.

You would have to tighten the grouping to 10m at most, and increase damage to about 3 damage per misssle to make it remotely worth it.

I think just taking away indirect fire, unless tag or narc is used, along with ecm never stopping locks, just debuffs and negation of tag and narc would work.

[Prezimonto]

Bobzilla, on 26 April 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Think of how using these would work against a mech with 2ppc+2ac5. The person with the lrms would lose his RT before the missles landed.

You would have to tighten the grouping to 10m at most, and increase damage to about 3 damage per misssle to make it remotely worth it.

I think just taking away indirect fire, unless tag or narc is used, along with ecm never stopping locks, just debuffs and negation of tag and narc would work.

Stop talking crazy talk like implementing the already balanced versions of things from TT. You Crazy!

But seriously, I wouldn't be suggesting wild solutions if it looked at all like the simple things would be considered.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 April 2014 - 04:40 PM.

[Ajantise]

I dont know if this is the way, but something needs to be done. As it is now, the game is broken because of LRMs, and that is the TRUTH!

[Prezimonto]

Ajantise, on 26 April 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

I dont know if this is the way, but something needs to be done. As it is now, the game is broken because of LRMs, and that is the TRUTH!

The problem is only in lower end PuG matches where teams drop with full support and one or two dedicated LRM boats (40+ tubes) and enough ammo to make like hell. It's worst when there's no ECM, or the team scatters, and/or when players don't understand how to take cover.

At the opposite end of the skill and teamwork spectrum LRM's are close to worthless.

The problem is that small launchers in small numbers still aren't in a good place.

The idea here is that changing how LRM's are fired open up a large number of other variables to be rebalanced/looked at.

Edited by Prezimonto, 27 April 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Bumping this back to the front page, in light of another "LRMs" need a nerf thread.

LRM's need a complete rework, or isolation of SRM's, or any number of other changes.

[Ajantise]

lRM are not supposed to be a machine gun?

[Prezimonto]

I wouldn't have thought so...