21 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

With the much needed improvements to narc, I think it is time to revisit the angle of indirect fire.

I am not sure what angle it is coming down at on indirect, but it is pretty steep, negating most cover, even in Canyon network, and especially in Forest Colony.

Given that I do not have precise numbers to work with, I must go with what it feels [sic] like- and suggest a 20% reduction in angle in order to allow more places to serve as cover. As of right now, it is starting to be a requirement to bring ECM again, because NARC does not allow for breaking locks, and the angle is too steep to use most cover.

AMS can make a different, but with the amount of LRMs flying through the air, 2 tons of ammo runs dry fairly quickly, especially since you cannot control when your AMS fires, so a lot of rounds are wasted. (I have resorted to making an "Umbrella" Kitfox for 4mans: 3xCAMS with 7 tons of ammo, and ECM, to pal around with my group with.)

Thoughts?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Livewyr, on 22 June 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

With the much needed improvements to narc, I think it is time to revisit the angle of indirect fire.

I am not sure what angle it is coming down at on indirect, but it is pretty steep, negating most cover, even in Canyon network, and especially in Forest Colony.

Given that I do not have precise numbers to work with, I must go with what it feels [sic] like- and suggest a 20% reduction in angle in order to allow more places to serve as cover. As of right now, it is starting to be a requirement to bring ECM again, because NARC does not allow for breaking locks, and the angle is too steep to use most cover.

AMS can make a different, but with the amount of LRMs flying through the air, 2 tons of ammo runs dry fairly quickly, especially since you cannot control when your AMS fires, so a lot of rounds are wasted. (I have resorted to making an "Umbrella" Kitfox for 4mans: 3xCAMS with 7 tons of ammo, and ECM, to pal around with my group with.)

Thoughts?

And what happens when people do drop with a lot of ECM?

The problem is, we have no idea what a drop is going to look like. And LRMs are a total feast vs. famine weapon.

Drop on Caustic with NARC and 5 LRM boats against no ECM and AMS? Probably good.

Drop on River City with NARC and 5 LRM boats against 8 AMS and 4 ECM? Probably screwed.

The direct LRM counters need to go away, so PGI can really look at balancing LRMs properly.

Remove Adv. Target Decay, remove Radar Deprivation, make AMS self only, make ECM block Artemis/TAG/NARC effects, slow down indirect fire travel time, make indirect fire spread more, make direct fire travel time faster and make the spread a bit tighter.

Done, probably balanced LRMs right there.

[anonymous161]

Thats your point of balancing. I think lrm are working just fine. Do not nerf them.

[Livewyr]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 June 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

And what happens when people do drop with a lot of ECM?

The problem is, we have no idea what a drop is going to look like. And LRMs are a total feast vs. famine weapon.

Drop on Caustic with NARC and 5 LRM boats against no ECM and AMS? Probably good.

Drop on River City with NARC and 5 LRM boats against 8 AMS and 4 ECM? Probably screwed.

The direct LRM counters need to go away, so PGI can really look at balancing LRMs properly.

Remove Adv. Target Decay, remove Radar Deprivation, make AMS self only, make ECM block Artemis/TAG/NARC effects, slow down indirect fire travel time, make indirect fire spread more, make direct fire travel time faster and make the spread a bit tighter.

Done, probably balanced LRMs right there.

1: Agreed, [LRM interactions] needs an wholesale overhaul.
2: ECM has little to do with (or should have little to do with) the indirect fire angle negating far too much cover in most maps.

Darth Bane001, on 22 June 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Thats your point of balancing. I think lrm are working just fine. Do not nerf them.

What is your point of balancing? Luck of the draw? That is a terrible form of balancing.

(A dramatized example: If the Gauss Rifle had a 2000 meter stock range, "laser" velocity, and 45 pp damage, would it be balanced if there were a few mechs in the game that could mount an item that shuts it down within 500 meters? Lottery balance is rubbish, and has been.)

Edited by Livewyr, 22 June 2014 - 11:58 AM.

[Abivard]

When LRMs do 0 damage, livewyr will still complain about them.

troll post fail

[Livewyr]

Abivard, on 22 June 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

When LRMs do 0 damage, livewyr will still complain about them.

troll post fail

hahaha

bye

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Yeah the angles need to be looked at, could also change how lock ons work for indirect fire, such as require TAG, NARC and/or a UAV to hit indirectly with LRMs.

Then have LRMs travel faster, but the angles reduce the farther the target is, so that LRM mechs need to stay in range of the enemy and not simply stay in one spot on a map and spam away.

I'd also look at reducing impulse, set damage back to 1 per missile, have all launchers share the same cooldown (maybe 5.00 seconds for starters), reduce ammo per ton (back to 120 missiles) and have them hit with the SSRM bone system.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The only change I see being worth PGI's time is to make cLRMs follow a flatter trajectory, even when firing indirectly. This would be thematic and help to balance the far lighter launchers without a hard minimum range against the IS launchers.

[Hans Von Lohman]

I would love to have a flat trajectory option for LRM's. A direct fire mode if you will. Fire straight ahead, and missiles track your crosshairs (aka the TOW missile from Battlefield).

1. A toggle switch, similar to how they're probably going to do the Clan LBX autocannons
2. You cannot lock on LRMs in direct fire mode.
3. Your LRM missile try to keep inline with your crosshair. If you turn, they steer back towards your crosshair.
4. LRM's have reduced range of only 500 meters before they reach the "end of run" and self destruct.

Indirect, fire support for LRM's was always supposed to be a secondary option. In reality the LRM were aimed by their pilot, and it could go up or down based on how good of a shot the pilot was.

And bare in mind most of my mechs have LRM's on them. I just hate having to invest in a TAG laser to keep them working when I could have another laser.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 22 June 2014 - 01:12 PM.

[Wolfways]

Hans Von Lohman, on 22 June 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

I would love to have a flat trajectory option for LRM's. A direct fire mode if you will. Fire straight ahead, and missiles track your crosshairs (aka the TOW missile from Battlefield).

1. A toggle switch, similar to how they're probably going to do the Clan LBX autocannons
2. You cannot lock on LRMs in direct fire mode.
3. Your LRM missile try to keep inline with your crosshair. If you turn, they steer back towards your crosshair.
4. LRM's have reduced range of only 500 meters before they reach the "end of run" and self destruct.

Indirect, fire support for LRM's was always supposed to be a secondary option. In reality the LRM were aimed by their pilot, and it could go up or down based on how good of a shot the pilot was.

And bare in mind most of my mechs have LRM's on them. I just hate having to invest in a TAG laser to keep them working when I could have another laser.

So basically you want LRM users to be mid range only, and have to sit there so you can blow out their ct. Worst idea ever.

[Livewyr]

Praetor Knight, on 22 June 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Yeah the angles need to be looked at, could also change how lock ons work for indirect fire, such as require TAG, NARC and/or a UAV to hit indirectly with LRMs.

Then have LRMs travel faster, but the angles reduce the farther the target is, so that LRM mechs need to stay in range of the enemy and not simply stay in one spot on a map and spam away.

I'd also look at reducing impulse, set damage back to 1 per missile, have all launchers share the same cooldown (maybe 5.00 seconds for starters), reduce ammo per ton (back to 120 missiles) and have them hit with the SSRM bone system.

I am not going to discuss those other things. That is for a thread not titled specifically "LRM Flight Angle."

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 June 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

The only change I see being worth PGI's time is to make cLRMs follow a flatter trajectory, even when firing indirectly. This would be thematic and help to balance the far lighter launchers without a hard minimum range against the IS launchers.

I was actually hoping they would do something like this. (Not quite straight line, but a far more shallow arc- difficult to describe, but one that can fly over the heads of your allies, but require Jumpjets to put over walls and such. With an eliminated minimum range for cLRMs..although their ramped damage may be sufficient. I do not know if I like Streak20s.)

Hans Von Lohman, on 22 June 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

I would love to have a flat trajectory option for LRM's. A direct fire mode if you will. Fire straight ahead, and missiles track your crosshairs (aka the TOW missile from Battlefield).

1. A toggle switch, similar to how they're probably going to do the Clan LBX autocannons
2. You cannot lock on LRMs in direct fire mode.
3. Your LRM missile try to keep inline with your crosshair. If you turn, they steer back towards your crosshair.
4. LRM's have reduced range of only 500 meters before they reach the "end of run" and self destruct.

Indirect, fire support for LRM's was always supposed to be a secondary option. In reality the LRM were aimed by their pilot, and it could go up or down based on how good of a shot the pilot was.

And bare in mind most of my mechs have LRM's on them. I just hate having to invest in a TAG laser to keep them working when I could have another laser.

I am going to have to agree with Wolfways on this, that would be a most tremendous reason for discarding the weapon for ever more. That would not even be worth it with the five ton clan version.

[OneEyed Jack]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 June 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

The only change I see being worth PGI's time is to make cLRMs follow a flatter trajectory, even when firing indirectly. This would be thematic and help to balance the far lighter launchers without a hard minimum range against the IS launchers.

Have you never seen anyone use LRMs and not play the "hide behind a hill and scream for locks" game? Flatter trajectory would be a huge buff to me. Huge.

[Reitrix]

All they need to do is have the "Final approach" phase on LRMs start much sooner in its flight path. As it is, it never reaches its "final approach" until it contacts a 'Mech, and will curve around cover in order to hit.

[Ultimax]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 22 June 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

The only change I see being worth PGI's time is to make cLRMs follow a flatter trajectory, even when firing indirectly. This would be thematic and help to balance the far lighter launchers without a hard minimum range against the IS launchers.

Actually, and this could be my imagination but I've been meaning to test it, cLRMs do feel like they follow a flatter trajectory - at least on initial launch.

There were a number of situations over the weekend where I was sure I'd clear a structure but my cLRMs launched more like SRMs.

There were other situations where I took a chance to see if I could shoot from while under a structure and to my surprise my missles cleared the overhang without issue flying in more level trajectories than I'm used it on my IS mechs.

Like I said, this could just be my imagination, I'll probably test it "soon" if someone doesn't beat me to it.

[Tombstoner]

Personally i think the flight angle should be a reflection of the distance to target. with a 45 degree minimum at max range. The closer you are the higher the incoming angle and thus better performing indirect fire for clearing terrain vs. low angle for short time of flights.

One could consider a toggle to change them from max height for steep incoming angles with a change in range to low direct flight path for shortest time of flight and a subsequent increase in range. so the game might already have 2 angles one for direct fire the other for indirect fire chosen by the computer, but i remember seeing very sharp decent angles once LRMs reach a desired( by PGI ) point and then decedent on target. PGI may be trying to do an all in one flight path.

Personally i think it should be as simple as possible( parabolic arc) and once the LRm's enter range they should follow the TT random hit for groups of 5 missiles. Not to mention that range is way to short to call them LRM's. just give them damage drop off like other weapons and ASM at 1600m will make them useless.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ultimatum X, on 23 June 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Actually, and this could be my imagination but I've been meaning to test it, cLRMs do feel like they follow a flatter trajectory - at least on initial launch.

There were a number of situations over the weekend where I was sure I'd clear a structure but my cLRMs launched more like SRMs.

There were other situations where I took a chance to see if I could shoot from while under a structure and to my surprise my missles cleared the overhang without issue flying in more level trajectories than I'm used it on my IS mechs.

Like I said, this could just be my imagination, I'll probably test it "soon" if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Clan LRMs are still a Flight Path mess as it were.

I see a lot of different things, including after the first initial lock, the first volley always paths directly into the ground.

It's very annoying.

[Ultimax]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 June 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Clan LRMs are still a Flight Path mess as it were.

I see a lot of different things, including after the first initial lock, the first volley always paths directly into the ground.

It's very annoying.

Yes I've seen a lot of that, very buggy.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ultimatum X, on 23 June 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

Yes I've seen a lot of that, very buggy.

I am scared to report it, because if they start fiddling with it, we'll end up with another LRMageddon, which derps will then latch onto as a reason to nerf LRMs yet again.

[Kilo 40]

I haven't used AMS and have only relied on using cover since the 17th. I've died to LRMs maybe once, and it was all my fault since i let myself get isolated from the rest of the team.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Kilo 40, on 23 June 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I haven't used AMS and have only relied on using cover since the 17th. I've died to LRMs maybe once, and it was all my fault since i let myself get isolated from the rest of the team.

I've died to LRMs twice since the Clans.

Both times at the end of the match, where 6 people were beating on me.

And there have been times where I found myself out of position, like one time I shifted out into the water during a Crimson Strait drop to kill a guy, and immediately realized I had three boats shooting at me.

The shaking sucks, but I just cursed and then started the move into cover. I had one hit box armor orange, the rest was yellow.

It's just not that big of a deal if you stay calm.