684 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

ShinVector, on 18 July 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

On the contrary I have seen too much of META... The new SOLO pug queue a breath of fresh air to me.

I still see you are denied the fact there are light mech pilots our there that are good at spotting.. So you know, it got a whole easier with heavily buffed NARC...

• 30 secs... +10 with the module.
  
• You cannot deactivated in anyway sort of ECM. No shut down does not work.
  
• You become visible to the whole enemy team regardless where you are.
  
• Disables ECM.
  
• Doubled Ammo per ton.
  
• doubled ? range.
  
• Speed was increase + increase more with the NARC module...

Note there is a reason why I take note of all these things.

And finally people use it because it's a viable weapon that takes considerable skill to use well and has solid limitations. As ECM should be.

[Tynan]

The thing about LRMs is that the direct-fire is virtually the same as indirect. If they make indirect too good (the drop angle's already plenty steep to hit through things that probably should function as cover) then it gets stupid very quickly because of how easy it is to converge LRM fire on one target from any number of sources.

What I'd like, personally, is if they made indirect fire spread out more (more likely to hit, but very unlikely to hit with most / all of the missiles in a launch) but changed LOS / direct fire fairly different--speed up the missiles, flatten the angle to a very low arc. Essentially, make them *usable* indirectly, but deadly with direct fire.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

A scout can be mitigated by other Enemy Lights,
the LRM boats themselves are able to come under threat by Mediums.
Hell man I carry a Narc on one of my TDRs just on the off chance that we get some friendly boats. (it's the 2 LL 5ML TDR) It's a Brawler, but I know full well that if there are LRMs being fielded that day, that we're eventually going to need more narc.

AMS will reduce damage substantially, terrain will also reduce damage, moving horizontally reduces it more so, and then you can torso twist.

The scout spotters will have to either bug out, or be destroyed, against a team that's observant and are probably being hunted by enemy lights. 4X3 honestly Hurt LRM Boats probably more than almost anything else in the game has, because you KNOW that you'll have to take some lights if you're in the public ques at least.

They can use cover, and still Advance in most of the maps in this game barring one major exception mapwise.

If you had your choice between say GR PPC timbers, or LRM Kitties, which would you rather take? 3 guys that can put 35 damage onto a single point of armor Each, or a bunch of guys that spread damage all around enemy mechs? (especially now that Splash has been removed)

Maybe because I don't play Static Gunline or Pop Tart is why I don't see LRMs as much of a threat compared to other weapons. Because for them to reliably work on me, means I have to play counter to how I and CI in general plays.

When you look at tournament winners, the results are pretty clear, LRM Carrying Teams aren't the ones bringing home the trophies. There's too many circumstances in which they're not useful. I doubt it's because the guys at the top "felt sorry" for the rest of us
More because there's not a whole lot you can do about taking 30 to one piece of armor. You can control to some extent what armor you're taking it on, but you know at some point you're taking it.

Are you always going to Chicken Little?

I'd refuse to take all of one. I'd likely go One Gauss/PPC, 1 LRM, one SRM/Medium lasers. But I have fought covering all bases for many many years(Decades if you will) Never put all your eggs in one basket.

[Kjudoon]

Tynan, on 18 July 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

The thing about LRMs is that the direct-fire is virtually the same as indirect. If they make indirect too good (the drop angle's already plenty steep to hit through things that probably should function as cover) then it gets stupid very quickly because of how easy it is to converge LRM fire on one target from any number of sources.

What I'd like, personally, is if they made indirect fire spread out more (more likely to hit, but very unlikely to hit with most / all of the missiles in a launch) but changed LOS / direct fire fairly different--speed up the missiles, flatten the angle to a very low arc. Essentially, make them *usable* indirectly, but deadly with direct fire.

They already do that. Since each missile hit counts on a per missile ratio, you rarely see your weapon accuracy stats go over 35%. Some may if they're very very picky on it's use, but most level off between 30-35%. Lasers and gauss... if they don't have over 60% accuracy are usually considered worthless or better off using something else.

So, having your weapon miss over 65% of the time rather than hit is not needing a reason to miss more.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Are you always going to Chicken Little?

I'd refuse to take all of one. I'd likely go One Gauss/PPC, 1 LRM, one SRM/Medium lasers. But I have fought covering all bases for many many years(Decades if you will) Never put all your eggs in one basket.

I play by repeatable results. There's no Chicken Littling involved. LRMs are not as solid as they need to be for their tonnage. The damage that they yield over the course of an entire gaming session do not measure up to other weapon systems.

I don't play Meta. I find it boring as all hell. That's also why I play what I Want to run instead of what I honestly Should Run, when it comes to this game. But just because I am Not playing the Meta, doesn't mean I'm kidding myself. I know damn well what weapon systems are required at the higher level of play. LRMs aren't on that list. The bad thing is LRMs are so far down the list that I won't touch them. And this is a guy who in the group ques will take a Fang into battle.

And that is what I wish to correct. I want to see the Balanced Loadouts, like yourself, myself and a few others be the Top Game in town.

Edited by Mavairo, 18 July 2014 - 12:36 PM.

[Tynan]

Kjudoon, on 18 July 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

They already do that. Since each missile hit counts on a per missile ratio, you rarely see your weapon accuracy stats go over 35%. Some may if they're very very picky on it's use, but most level off between 30-35%. Lasers and gauss... if they don't have over 60% accuracy are usually considered worthless or better off using something else.

So, having your weapon miss over 65% of the time rather than hit is not needing a reason to miss more.

It does count per-missile, but I really don't think that's because 65% of the missiles in a volley miss on indirect fire, it's usually more likely from the times that people got out of LOS of the spotter / got behind cover and nothing hit at all.

And yes, I know Artemis doesn't work with indirect fire, but I don't think there's enough of a distinction. I guess my point is that if indirect fire were less accurate, they could buff LRMs into usability without making them game breaking like the days of the LRMageddon.

Also, LOS / no LOS doesn't really impact the arc angle, and as a result doesn't impact time-to-target.

[SethAbercromby]

Tynan, on 18 July 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Also, LOS / no LOS doesn't really impact the arc angle, and as a result doesn't impact time-to-target.

I think LoS IS LRMs should get a smilar flight path to the clan Missiles, firing at about 20-30° ballistic angle for short flight distances, but vulnerable to obstacles. Maybe would coud even get an overboost module, that shortens LoS missile reach to 750m and increases the deadzone to 250m but give them some nice speed boost to get more of them through AMS coverage. Counter that by making the AMS modules atually being useful, and you've got some nice module counterplay there.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 18 July 2014 - 12:45 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

I play by repeatable results. There's no Chicken Littling involved. LRMs are not as solid as they need to be for their tonnage. The damage that they yield over the course of an entire gaming session do not measure up to other weapon systems.

I don't play Meta. I find it boring as all hell. That's also why I play what I Want to run instead of what I honestly Should Run, when it comes to this game. But just because I am Not playing the Meta, doesn't mean I'm kidding myself. I know damn well what weapon systems are required at the higher level of play. LRMs aren't on that list. The bad thing is LRMs are so far down the list that I won't touch them. And this is a guy who in the group ques will take a Fang into battle.

And that is what I wish to correct. I want to see the Balanced Loadouts, like yourself, myself and a few others be the Top Game in town.

LRMs have Never been a "reliable" damaging weapon. Mostly from the random Missile table. You hit with 2 LRM 20s and you average 24 damage with anything between 12-40 possible. Almost 3 decades of Missiles being a crap shoot and that is the way they are here. So working as intended.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

LRMs have Never been a "reliable" damaging weapon. Mostly from the random Missile table. You hit with 2 LRM 20s and you average 24 damage with anything between 12-40 possible. Almost 3 decades of Missiles being a crap shoot and that is the way they are here. So working as intended.

Doesn't mean that it's a good thing in an FPS title.
In table top games, where the human element (beyond Strategic Choices) doesn't play as much of a factor as the favor of the dice gods does, variable reliability is okay. The Orks in warhammer 40k (well 5e Orks anyway... don't know about the current edition), are a prime example of variable damage, variable firepower done right in a TT.

The problem is in mechwarrior online, it's not the same kind of variable reliability. If it were variable damage it wouldn't be so bad, but it's variable as to whether or not you can even honestly field them effectively.

In TT we can't just decide to blow out the ST of a given mech without stiff penalties on a dice roll.
In MWO we can decide EXACTLY where the damage is going to be delivered.
In TT LRMs have an instant travel time, (or at least is the same as other weapons) in MWO they do not, yet other weapons have a near instant travel time.
That's the difference there.
LRMS in MWO suffer greatly from a massive amount of counters some from TT, some made up by PGI (modules, their take on ECM, the slow travel time they gave em).
That's the problem with them.

Edited by Mavairo, 18 July 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Doesn't mean that it's a good thing in an FPS title.
In table top games, where the human element (beyond Strategic Choices) doesn't play as much of a factor as the favor of the dice gods does, variable reliability is okay. The Orks in warhammer 40k (well 5e Orks anyway... don't know about the current edition), are a prime example of variable damage, variable firepower done right in a TT.

The problem is in mechwarrior online, it's not the same kind of variable reliability. If it were variable damage it wouldn't be so bad, but it's variable as to whether or not you can even honestly field them effectively.

In TT we can't just decide to blow out the ST of a given mech without stiff penalties on a dice roll.
In MWO we can decide EXACTLY where the damage is going to be delivered.
In TT LRMs have an instant travel time, (or at least is the same as other weapons) in MWO they do not, yet other weapons have a near instant travel time.
That's the difference there.
LRMS in MWO suffer greatly from a massive amount of counters some from TT, some made up by PGI (modules, their take on ECM, the slow travel time they gave em).
That's the problem with them.

Ok. You just aren't happy, you won't be happy. I see that now.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Ok. You just aren't happy, you won't be happy. I see that now.

Actually it'd be VERY easy to make me happy with LRMs.
1: 185 ms flight speed
2: 1.25 dmg a missile.

The existing counters would still work on them of course, but that might be what they need to be useful at longer ranges.
I would also like to see Bigger Cbill bonuses for Counter ECM, Tag and Narc to encourage people to do it more often.

The last factor in making me happy would be to slant the gameplay squarely towards Objectives that need to be taken and held, which gives LRMs an opportunity to rain death down over a target, or to keep people from trying to take them. This would have other effects but that's another thread and subject entirely

Edited by Mavairo, 18 July 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Actually it'd be VERY easy to make me happy with LRMs.
1: 185 ms flight speed
2: 1.25 dmg a missile.

The existing counters would still work on them of course, but that might be what they need to be useful at longer ranges.

Ok. That actually surprised me. Your buffs are not as crazy as I have come to expect from folks who are not happy with LRMs! I am not unhappy with present LRM damage, but more damage is always welcome to a power player(like me), and the speed boost would make many upset, but 185 M/S is not out of the present performance envelope of today's missiles.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Ok. That actually surprised me. Your buffs are not as crazy as I have come to expect from folks who are not happy with LRMs! I am not unhappy with present LRM damage, but more damage is always welcome to a power player(like me), and the speed boost would make many upset, but 185 M/S is not out of the present performance envelope of today's missiles.

At 1.1 not enough of a given salvo lands on a target to justify the relatively low damage. 1.25 isn't screaming hot damage either mind, but it definitely will help, especially with the loss of Splash. 185 m/s I feel would set their flight speed about right to give them another 100 to 200 meters of effective range, from where they are right now.

Giving everyone bigger bonuses for Counter ECM would mean more BAP and more people actually using Counter Mode, same with tag and narc. I don't feel their bonuses are quite there. And we definitely need objectives that need to be held to keep people from doing as they currently do to evade LRM fire. Put some risk vs reward there for holding ground (and make some of those objectives in High Risk Zones).

Edited by Mavairo, 18 July 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

At 1.1 not enough of a given salvo lands on a target to justify the relatively low damage. 1.25 isn't screaming hot damage either mind, but it definitely will help, especially with the loss of Splash. 185 m/s I feel would set their flight speed about right to give them another 100 to 200 meters of effective range, from where they are right now.

Giving everyone bigger bonuses for Counter ECM would mean more BAP and more people actually using Counter Mode, same with tag and narc. I don't feel their bonuses are quite there. And we definitely need objectives that need to be held to keep people from doing as they currently do to evade LRM fire. Put some risk vs reward there for holding ground (and make some of those objectives in High Risk Zones).

I guess it depends on how many missiles are actually hitting the target per salvo. For Me Missiles were not a dependable weapon as far as damage went. So I don't expect it to be more than it already is.

[Mavairo]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

I guess it depends on how many missiles are actually hitting the target per salvo. For Me Missiles were not a dependable weapon as far as damage went. So I don't expect it to be more than it already is.

Yeah, that's what I'd like to see changed. I think that's honestly what holds them back right now in game is their just not reliable. The gameplay doesn't encourage the team work necessary to use them regularly on the field. (Counter, BAP, Narc Tag bonuses being so much of a pittance vs what the payoff for the bigger weapons, more heat sinks or bigger engines usually yield), a lack of set objectives to take means that you can't bombard positions. If there were Fortified positions where indirect fire might be required to remove them or break sieges...

It's 1 part damage and flight speed. 1 part lack of incentives given to Reward people for assisting the lrm deliverers, and most damningly, the gameplay dynamics themselves.

[Crazy Billy Joe Bob]

LRM use to be ignored, now .. not so much.. as it should be.

[Yumemi79]

GutterBoy5, on 08 June 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

OMG

LRMS are fine, actually a good LRMS pilot needs a lot of skill
To combat
ECM
Ams
Terrain
Lights
Slowest moving weapon in the game
Useless under 180 mtrs
Heaviest ammo use
In coming missile warning
Should I go on, don't blame LRMS ..

ITS YOU ,LEARN YOU USE ABOVE MENTIONED THINGS

& before you got to the written by a LRMS lover , I use all types of combat & prefer brawling . LRMS arnt even a threat many of my brawlers don't even have ams ,it's a waist of tonnage .it's helpful to make it easier to close in on them & tear them apart (within 180mtrs)

Wish we could nerf ppl that whine about LRMS . Much better solution.oh your gonna cry to high heaven when clan LRMS are happening .

Why do you LRM white knights always come up with the same two things over and over? 1: Learn to play noob! 2: Damage to Ton ratio is totally underpowered!

The reason why everyone outrageously screams for a nerf is not because of one mech carrying 2xLRM 15. Nor because they alone do insane damage. But for almost everyone carrying LRMs. Which when you are somehow spotted all rain down on you. The spotter - shooter mechanic doesn´t work in a FPS like this.
Let one ecm spotter tag or improved narc you and you are on 3/5 of the maps ******. In that care the derp module doesn´t help either.

[Mavairo]

Yumemi79, on 18 July 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

Why do you LRM white knights always come up with the same two things over and over? 1: Learn to play noob! 2: Damage to Ton ratio is totally underpowered!

The reason why everyone outrageously screams for a nerf is not because of one mech carrying 2xLRM 15. Nor because they alone do insane damage. But for almost everyone carrying LRMs. Which when you are somehow spotted all rain down on you. The spotter - shooter mechanic doesn´t work in a FPS like this.
Let one ecm spotter tag or improved narc you and you are on 3/5 of the maps ******. In that care the derp module doesn´t help either.

Maybe because the weapon really does suck, and is a pug killer at best. Did you ever think of that?
Maybe you should ask yourself, why the top mechs are Dragonslayers, 3Ds, Shawks, and Embers?

[Thunder Child]

Mavairo, on 18 July 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Actually it'd be VERY easy to make me happy with LRMs.
1: 185 ms flight speed
2: 1.25 dmg a missile.

The existing counters would still work on them of course, but that might be what they need to be useful at longer ranges.
I would also like to see Bigger Cbill bonuses for Counter ECM, Tag and Narc to encourage people to do it more often.

The last factor in making me happy would be to slant the gameplay squarely towards Objectives that need to be taken and held, which gives LRMs an opportunity to rain death down over a target, or to keep people from trying to take them. This would have other effects but that's another thread and subject entirely

That last idea.... that is solid gold! Imagine if in Conquest, instead of "Capping" the locations, you got points for Holding them. In other words, as long as a mech is on a location, the points go up. If the mech leaves, the points stop. Suddenly area denial and map control are worth something, and the Deathblob (murderball) can be kited around while lights and mediums tick up points.

Edit:, make it Points per mech per 5 seconds, or something. So 5 mechs on a location would earn 5 points every 5 seconds. And perhaps have a limit (say, a Lance) to each location. OR, maybe, if you hold two locations, your team gets double the points. Or 50% more. Modifiers, anyways. So holding all 5 simultaneously would earn super rapid points. Piling all you mechs onto one would tick up slowly, but would be easily out-capped by 6 mechs on 2 points.

Edited by Thunder Child, 18 July 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[Mavairo]

Thunder Child, on 18 July 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

That last idea.... that is solid gold! Imagine if in Conquest, instead of "Capping" the locations, you got points for Holding them. In other words, as long as a mech is on a location, the points go up. If the mech leaves, the points stop. Suddenly area denial and map control are worth something, and the Deathblob (murderball) can be kited around while lights and mediums tick up points.

Edit:, make it Points per mech per 5 seconds, or something. So 5 mechs on a location would earn 5 points every 5 seconds. And perhaps have a limit (say, a Lance) to each location. OR, maybe, if you hold two locations, your team gets double the points. Or 50% more. Modifiers, anyways. So holding all 5 simultaneously would earn super rapid points. Piling all you mechs onto one would tick up slowly, but would be easily out-capped by 6 mechs on 2 points.

Exactly.
And spread the points out on some maps, like Alpine where it's honestly kind of Criminal that 3 of the points are within striking distance of one another. Let's start using our full maps...