80 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Anyone who knows my forum posts knows that i get very vocal when it comes to LRM's. I admit that they are one of my favourite Battletech weapons, or they would be if i considered them an effective weapon in MWO.

First i should point out that everyone has different opinions on the effectiveness of LRM's because there are so many variables that come into play, from the amount of countermeasures a team uses to the piloting ability of the players. With that said, i don't expect everyone to agree with everything (or anything) i say here.
These suggestions are also not all my own ideas. Others have posted their thoughts on the problems with LRM's for a long time and some may be ideas that i personally liked.
That being said, these are the changes i'd like to see in MWO concerning LRM's and associated equipment.

GuardianECM, TAG and Artemis.
Imo GECM in its current form is bad, not only for LRM's but also for the future of imformation warfare, but i'll stick to my reasons on why it should be changed to how it interacts with LRM's.
GECM is supposed to stop the enemy from gathering information about the mech carrying GECM and allies within 180m, not to stop missiles from locking on. This "feature" needs to be removed.
In PUGs you can't count on teammates to use TAG/NARC and forcing an LRM mech like the Catapult to give up one of its few energy slots which it needs for defense is ridiculous. Not only that but it further reduces the LRM's range to 750m.
The Catapult-A1 can't even equip a TAG!
TAG and Artemis should be options to increase the effectiveness of LRM's, not a requirement in case enemy mechs have a piece of equipment that renders your weapons completely useless.
Imo saying a player using LRM's should have to take TAG and Artemis is like telling a player that uses lasers or AC's that they should only use ERlasers or UltraAC's. Using any T2 equipment should be an option, not a requirement, and not using them should not render that weapon system useless.
GECM was meant as a counter to the advanced technology, not to the actual weapons themselves.

Now onto the weapon itself.

Indirect-fire.
A tricky subject. I can see how it can be seen as overpowered when every mech with LRM's equipped opens fire on the closest enemy mech to be spotted.
I would say that maybe the enemy should only be able to be indirect-fired on if they have a TAG, NARC, or UAV on them, which would also help create a synergy between LRM's and light/medium pilots who wanted to play the role of spotters.
Maybe the missiles could have a bigger spread too.

Direct-fire.
Because the LRM mech has to first acquire a lock and then guide the missiles during the whole flight time this makes the firing mech virtually defenseless as it can't torso twist to spread incoming damage from the enemy, or if targeted by another enemy can't return fire without losing the lock on the current target and wasting its ammo.
Make LRM's fire and forget. The firer has to still get the lock first but after that the missiles will track the target by themselves. Also, because the firer has no influence on the missiles after they leave the launcher then people could not drop and reacquire lock to bypass terrain.

One of the main problems with LRM's is that it is a long ranged weapon that cannot be used at long range. The amount of cover available on the maps; the slow missile speed; and the fact that the target gets a warning that missiles have been fired means that it is almost impossible to hit someone that isn't very far from cover (which my opponents generally aren't) at anything over about 600m range....with a 1000m range weapon!
Also you need to be able to lock onto a target at the weapons maximum range or that range is pointless.
Imo this is a map problem and there is nothing that can be done to the weapon itself to correct this, other than increasing the missile speed to direct-fire weapon velocities which would just look weird.
Conversely i do think LRM's need a range increase to about 1500m, especially as you need to stay facing the target opening your cockpit and center torso to return fire. And they are after all supposed to have about the same range as an ERPPC.
While i do see the validity in a missile warning system, i think that with the way LRM long range effectiveness has been diminished due to map design the warning should be removed. At least then the target would know he has been targeted when the first salvo hits, just like other weapons, and the LRM user would at least get in one hit before the target runs into cover.
If the warning is not removed then LRM's need a speed increase to at least 300m/s.

LRM cooldown should also be increased by around 30% or more and damage increased by the same amount. This will reduce the amount of missile "spam" and the damage increase (but the same dps) would make LRM's more viable for direct-fire.

Also, ammo/ton needs to be increased (for all ammo-based weapons). Battletech mechs, weapons, etc. were designed for a game where battles simulated a few minutes of combat at most, not for a 10-15 minute match and weapons need a lot more ammo.
A stock JM6-S carries 3 tons of ammo. My "stock-weapon" JM6-S needs 9 tons of ammo to last nearly a full match, so imo ammo/ton should be triple the original number, and that's before taking into account double armour.
A stock CPLT-C1 carries 2 tons of LRM ammo. Try playing MWO with that.

[Lynx7725]

I too am a LRM specialist.

My comment on LRM changes would be to adjust LRM5 cooldown rates to be longer. Prior to Clan streaming LRMs, the LRM5 "rockabye LRM boat" was one of the problems, because it allowed for extended stun effects.

Other than that, I feel PGI has the balance pretty good. Boating LRMs is situational, and highly team dependent. So its effectiveness is varies greatly. Perhaps one possible item is to reduce LRM damage from 1.1 per missile to 1.0 per missile -- this was set to 1.1 some time back to compensate for something.

[Jalik]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

While i do see the validity in a missile warning system, i think that with the way LRM long range effectiveness has been diminished due to map design the warning should be removed. At least then the target would know he has been targeted when the first salvo hits, just like other weapons, and the LRM user would at least get in one hit before the target runs into cover.

Hmmm, why not. I like the idea. It makes things a little more interesting. It could be replaced by a general lock-on warning if someone - not just an LRM boat - has a target lock on you. Or maybe this would make things even worse...

[Lynx7725]

Jalik, on 27 June 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Hmmm, why not. I like the idea. It makes things a little more interesting. It could be replaced by a general lock-on warning if someone - not just an LRM boat - has a target lock on you. Or maybe this would make things even worse...

Not a good idea. This target lock warning had been trialed in the past. What happened was that it gave the light scouts away immediately. It led to even less teamwork, which is counterproductive.

And that Betty missile warning is my best friend as the firer of the LRMs. She helps me do my work well.

[Sug]

On the topic of LRMs has anyone else noticed a lock-on timing change?

I've been using LRMS for over 2 years but since the last patch my first salvo after a lock has nose dived into the ground behind my cursor because even though my reticle is red and it get the tone my missiles aren't locked.

I've had to retrain my finger to wait like a second after the lock tone to fire.

It's not the new module causing me to lose a lock. Even happens with LOS targets.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

On the topic of LRMs has anyone else noticed a lock-on timing change?

I've been using LRMS for over 2 years but since the last patch my first salvo after a lock has nose dived into the ground behind my cursor because even though my reticle is red and it get the tone my missiles aren't locked.

I've had to retrain my finger to wait like a second after the lock tone to fire.

It's not the new module causing me to lose a lock. Even happens with LOS targets.

Yeah I've noticed the same thing recently.

[Ben Morgan]

I know that problem. My guess is that the introduced fix for the reticle animation where it lags and stops before you aquire the lock and it gets red has caused this, because the lock animation plays but you don't actually have a lock for another half second or so.

[Wolfways]

Lynx7725, on 27 June 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

And that Betty missile warning is my best friend as the firer of the LRMs. She helps me do my work well.

If LRM's were supposed to be a "suppression" weapon then that would be fine. I'd rather use them as they were originally in BT, a long range direct-fire damaging weapon.

[Cion]

Not convinced on the changes but open, knowledgeable constructive dialogue is welcome

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

On the topic of LRMs has anyone else noticed a lock-on timing change?

I've been using LRMS for over 2 years but since the last patch my first salvo after a lock has nose dived into the ground behind my cursor because even though my reticle is red and it get the tone my missiles aren't locked.

I've had to retrain my finger to wait like a second after the lock tone to fire.

It's not the new module causing me to lose a lock. Even happens with LOS targets.

I've noticed the same. I'd say it's closer to half a second though.

Personally, I'm ok how lrms are, playing lrm boat, other mech with lrm support, or on the receiving end of lrms.

I would suggest some sort of buff / incentive for a mech with other weapons and 1 lrm launcher. I think this is the least useful use of lrms, and it shouldn't be.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

That being said, these are the changes i'd like to see in MWO concerning LRM's

1. I would say that maybe the enemy should only be able to be indirect-fired on if they have a TAG, NARC, or UAV on them,

2. Maybe the missiles could have a bigger spread too.

3. Make LRM's fire and forget.

4. LRM's need a range increase to about 1500m

5. the missile warning system should be removed.

6. If the warning is not removed then LRM's need a speed increase to at least 300m/s.

7. Also, ammo/ton needs to be increased (for all ammo-based weapons).

1. No.
2. God no.
3. They were in Closed Beta. One of the first LRM changes was removing that feature.
4. Why? You talk about how there's no point to having a 1000m range because sensors only go to like 800m. I know they're not "Long Range" missiles now but they'd probably have to nerf the damage to compensate for the changes they'd have to make to get them to be effective at 1500m.

5. That would be too hard on new players. They wouldn't know what killed them. An idea I've heard before was to only give the warning to mechs with AMS equiped. Kinda makes sense.

6. Too fast!! If you want to increase the range and speed of LRMs then they should be given acceleration, so targets at 600m have the same amount of time to dodge as they do now but targets at 1000m+ can still be hit.

7. They already did this. Autocannons don't need another buff. I'll trade you another doubling of ammo for a 100% chance for ammo to explode when destroyed.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

LRM cooldown should also be increased by around 30% or more and damage increased by the same amount.
This will reduce the amount of missile "spam" and the damage increase (but the same dps) would make LRM's more viable for direct-fire.

If you want to get insta gibbed by LRM boats then by all means increase the damage.

Dps is a bad mechanic to balance by. So are cooldowns. Would an autocannon that did 50 damage every 30 seconds be a balanced weapon? How about 100 damage every 60 seconds? They're only doing 1.67 dps : / That's the same as a medium pulse laser.

The only reason Clan weapons are as balanced as they are is PGI implemented the changes to weapon mechanics that we've been suggesting for over 2 years to balance IS weapons.

Watch for a cone of fire and fixed hardpoints in the 2015 Dark Age pack

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Sug]

Ben Morgan, on 27 June 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

I know that problem. My guess is that the introduced fix for the reticle animation where it lags and stops before you aquire the lock and it gets red has caused this, because the lock animation plays but you don't actually have a lock for another half second or so.

Ah you're right. The animation actually completes now. I guess they need to adjust some timings.

[Lynx7725]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

If LRM's were supposed to be a "suppression" weapon then that would be fine. I'd rather use them as they were originally in BT, a long range direct-fire damaging weapon.

That's fine. But I do like a weapon that has multiple use. No reason why I can't have a mid-range, indirect firing, suppression type weapon..

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

1. No.
2. God no.

Hard to argue against those points...

Quote

3. They were in Closed Beta. One of the first LRM changes was removing that feature.

Doesn't mean they were right to do it.

Quote

4. Why? You talk about how there's no point to having a 1000m range because sensors only go to like 800m. I know they're not "Long Range" missiles now but they'd probably have to nerf the damage to compensate for the changes they'd have to make to get them to be effective at 1500m.

You mean nerf the damage like they didn't do with every other weapon? Also, the LRM lock on system should be separate from the sensor system, or the sensors extended to the longest weapon range.

Quote

5. That would be too hard on new players. They wouldn't know what killed them. An idea I've heard before was to only give the warning to mechs with AMS equiped. Kinda makes sense.

How would it be any different than getting killed by rear hits from PPC's, AC's etc?

Quote

6. Too fast!! If you want to increase the range and speed of LRMs then they should be given acceleration, so targets at 600m have the same amount of time to dodge as they do now but targets at 1000m+ can still be hit.

Part of the problem with LRM's is that players who know how to use cover will rarely get hit at any missile speed below AC/PPC speeds (In TT all weapons had the same speed...instant).

Quote

7. They already did this. Autocannons don't need another buff. I'll trade you another doubling of ammo for a 100% chance for ammo to explode when destroyed.

No, they didn't increase the ammo/ton enough to make stock mechs viable.
Ammo should have a higher chance to explode though as a lot of that chance was removed without the inclusion of the heat scale.

Quote

If you want to get insta gibbed by LRM boats then by all means increase the damage.

Dps is a bad mechanic to balance by. So are cooldowns. Would an autocannon that did 50 damage every 30 seconds be a balanced weapon? How about 100 damage every 60 seconds? They're only doing 1.67 dps : / That's the same as a medium pulse laser.

The only reason Clan weapons are as balanced as they are is PGI implemented the changes to weapon mechanics that we've been suggesting for over 2 years to balance IS weapons.

Watch for a cone of fire and fixed hardpoints in the 2015 Dark Age pack

That makes no sense. Dps and cooldown are a part of how weapons are balanced.

Lynx7725, on 27 June 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

That's fine. But I do like a weapon that has multiple use. No reason why I can't have a mid-range, indirect firing, suppression type weapon..

The only multiple use i see for LRM's is suppression and killing new/bad players. I'd just like to be able to use them in their intended role like other weapons in my ELO range.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

they didn't increase the ammo/ton enough to make stock mechs viable.

Ammo and single heat sinks aside stock mechs will only be viable when customization is removed.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Ammo should have a higher chance to explode though as a lot of that chance was removed without the inclusion of the heat scale.

No, a lot of the chance was removed when they gave ammo 10hp and reduced the chance of exploding when destroyed to only 10%. A slot of ammo in a full torso has like a 1% chance of ever blowing up.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

The only multiple use i see for LRM's is suppression and killing new/bad players. I'd just like to be able to use them in their intended role like other weapons in my ELO range.

Nothing wrong with suppression.

Elo is a farce. The threshold range for the matchmaker is 1400. So someone with an Elo score of 700 can be in a game with a 2100 Elo score player. Elo was a bad idea and was implemented poorly. It's not going to matter in CW, and real tournaments with top players will have ladders and wont' use it anyways.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

That makes no sense. Dps and cooldown are a part of how weapons are balanced.

It actually does make sense. DPS is something we calculate based on damage/cooldown. ItHow the damage is delivered is what matters most not the dps.

Adjusting numbers is part of the balance process but what LRMs need is a whole new system of mechanics.

They need to figure out a way to make LRMs best at extreme ranges and progressively worse as targets close in. Right now it's the opposite.

Then there's the issues of balancing single launchers with boats, smaller launchers vs bigger launchers, etc..

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[El Bandito]

Damn I was also planning to write a long ass post about LRM QoL improvements but you beat me to it.

I think putting it on Feature Suggestion forum might have better chance of being visited by PGI.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

Ammo and single heat sinks aside stock mechs will only be viable when customization is removed.

It's the heat system and ammo counts that stop stock mechs from being viable. I know, I've been playing mechs with stock weapons since closed beta.

Quote

No, a lot of the chance was removed when they gave ammo 10hp and reduced the chance of exploding when destroyed to only 10%. A slot of ammo in a full torso has like a 1% chance of ever blowing up.

I said there should be a higher chance of explosion, but mechs should also not have to cram in as much ammo as they currently do.

Quote

Nothing wrong with suppression.

I never said there was, but LRM's are (or are supposed to be) a direct-fire long range low damage weapon

Quote

Elo is a farce. The threshold range for the matchmaker is 1400. So someone with an Elo score of 700 can be in a game with a 2100 Elo score player. Elo was a bad idea and was implemented poorly. It's not going to matter in CW, and real tournaments with top players will have ladders and wont' use it anyways.

Doesn't change the fact that the higher your ELO is the worse LRM's are.

Quote

It actually does make sense. DPS is something we calculate based on damage/cooldown. ItHow the damage is delivered is what matters most not the dps.

Adjusting numbers is part of the balance process but what LRMs need is a whole new system of mechanics.

They need to figure out a way to make LRMs best at extreme ranges and progressively worse as targets close in. Right now it's the opposite.

Then there's the issues of balancing single launchers with boats, smaller launchers vs bigger launchers, etc..

The only way i can think of to make LRM's viable at long range is removing terrain, but they shouldn't get worse at closer range...except IS launchers at under 180m. Not worse damage, but harder to use.

[Wolfways]

El Bandito, on 27 June 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Damn I was also planning to write a long ass post about LRM QoL improvements but you beat me to it.

I think putting it on Feature Suggestion forum might have better chance of being visited by PGI.

lol I've been slowly thinking about this for about a week (well, 2 1/2 years tbh ). I thought I'd put it here to get a better discussion going but so far I'm generally getting the kind of responses i expected.
Of course if a mod feels this would be better in suggested features then feel free to move it (not like i could stop you anyway )

Also, I'd like to read your suggestions if you're still going to write it up

Edited by Wolfways, 27 June 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

It's the heat system and ammo counts that stop stock mechs from being viable. I know, I've been playing mechs with stock weapons since closed beta.

What is viable? No one took a stock mech to the last tournament. And it wasn't just heat or ammo they changed, it was the entire weapons loadout.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

I said there should be a higher chance of explosion, but mechs should also not have to cram in as much ammo as they currently do.

Ammo based weapons need drawbacks, having to use ammo is one, ammo exploding consistently should be another. But should we give LRMs more ammo, more damage, or more consistent damage?

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

I never said there was, but LRM's are (or are supposed to be) a direct-fire long range low damage weapon

But since we can change weapon loadouts of stock mech to almost anything we can't just buff LRMs across the board since mechs with only 1-2 launchers will always be inferior to mechs with 3+. Just how it is, the most effective way to use LRMs is to boat them. Any straight buff to LRMs will leave us right where we are.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Doesn't change the fact that the higher your ELO is the worse LRM's are.

It's just Elo. It's a guy's name. And it's not even a thing anymore.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

The only way i can think of to make LRM's viable at long range is removing terrain, but they shouldn't get worse at closer range...except IS launchers at under 180m. Not worse damage, but harder to use.

It's all the same. Harder to use ---> harder to get hits ----> less damage done per salvo ---- less damage ----> worse damage.

I'm not saying give individual LRMs damage that arbitrarily gets worse at close range but part of the mechanic of LONG RANGE Missiles should be they're best used at long range, which means they're worse the closer you use them.

Maybe they could balance out the launcher sizes by making the LRM5/10 better at extreme ranges. Or make LRMs less accurate the more of them you fire. Would buff single launchers and nerf the huge boats.

I love the stream firing mechanic of the Clan LRMs, really balances out the weight advantage. They could do something similar with IS Launchers to balance out any buffs.

My point is that just increasing numbers in a spreadsheet is an awful way to balance things. It hasn't worked in almost 3 years. Literally every change that made a difference has been through weapon mechanics. Again, Clan weapons are balanced because PGI gave them every mechanical adjustment that's been suggested for IS weapons since 2012.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

What is viable? No one took a stock mech to the last tournament. And it wasn't just heat or ammo they changed, it was the entire weapons loadout.

Imo viable is playable without overheating or running out of ammo straight away.

Quote

Ammo based weapons need drawbacks, having to use ammo is one, ammo exploding consistently should be another. But should we give LRMs more ammo, more damage, or more consistent damage?

They do have drawbacks. They're heavy and have ammo which can explode (although rarely, which is why i say more ammo/ton with a higher explode chance).
LRM's also have the a ridiculously slow travel time, which coupled with arena style maps means they are mostly worthless. And of course ECM...

Quote

But since we can change weapon loadouts of stock mech to almost anything we can't just buff LRMs across the board since mechs with only 1-2 launchers will always be inferior to mechs with 3+. Just how it is, the most effective way to use LRMs is to boat them. Any straight buff to LRMs will leave us right where we are.

I'm not asking only for a buff. It's a direct-fire buff and an indirect-fire nerf. I think most "new" players are complaining about indirect-fire.

Quote

It's just Elo. It's a guy's name. And it's not even a thing anymore.

Are you saying it isn't hard to use LRM's in higher ELO matches?

Quote

It's all the same. Harder to use ---> harder to get hits ----> less damage done per salvo ---- less damage ----> worse damage.

I'm not saying give individual LRMs damage that arbitrarily gets worse at close range but part of the mechanic of LONG RANGE Missiles should be they're best used at long range, which means they're worse the closer you use them.

No it isn't lol. Why would a missile do less damage at shorter range?

Quote

Maybe they could balance out the launcher sizes by making the LRM5/10 better at extreme ranges. Or make LRMs less accurate the more of them you fire. Would buff single launchers and nerf the huge boats.

I love the stream firing mechanic of the Clan LRMs, really balances out the weight advantage. They could do something similar with IS Launchers to balance out any buffs.

My point is that just increasing numbers in a spreadsheet is an awful way to balance things. It hasn't worked in almost 3 years. Literally every change that made a difference has been through weapon mechanics. Again, Clan weapons are balanced because PGI gave them every mechanical adjustment that's been suggested for IS weapons since 2012.

The problem with PGI's balancing of LRM's is that they've never balanced indirect-fire vs. direct-fire, they just buff or nerf the whole weapon, which changes nothing except make LRM's more OP (indirect-fire) or more UP (direct-fire).
Boating should also be removed or limited, like the Gauss two-charge mechanic, except that LRM's are such low damage weapons I'm not even sure they need it.

I would like to know why your response to indirect-fire only on units with TAG, NARC, or UAV on them, and missile spread was just "No". Do you boat LRM's?

Edited by Wolfways, 27 June 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

things

You're all over the place man.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Imo viable is playable without overheating or running out of ammo straight away.

Good news for my 3x Small Laser Awesome. Finally viable : /

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Are you saying it isn't hard to use LRM's in higher ELO matches?

I'm saying there's no such thing as high Elo matches.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

No it isn't lol. Why would a missile do less damage at shorter range?

Take my hand.

"I'm not saying give individual LRMs damage that arbitrarily gets worse at close range"

Then.

"It's all the same. Harder to use ---> harder to get hits ----> less damage done per salvo ---- less damage ----> worse damage."

"It" being a way to balance any LRMs buffs. If you give a straight damage buff you have to adjust them in other ways. Ways that use game mechanics to balance the damage buff.

"Harder to use" You could somehow increase the skill needed to use LRMs effectively. They won't be a nub weapon but may be useful in high player skill matches. Weapons that are harder to use are hard to deal damage with, thus less effective damage even with a damage per missile buff.

How would we make them harder to use? Well maybe it can be "harder to get hits" in some way. Maybe increase the skill needed to use them effectively, making them "harder to use" if they're "harder to use" then it's "harder to get hits" with them and they do "less damage per salvo".

Since they now do "less damage per salvo" on average we can say that LRMs do "less damage". We've increased the damage per missile via a buff but reduced the average damage of a salvo via a skill mechanic to compensate. The damage is "worse" on average but can be more effective with skill.

A buff to LRM's with no mechanic changes give us LRMageddon. A nerf to LRM damage lead to poptart metas. So since we tried buffing, and we tried nerfing, and neither worked, it's time to change a different mechanic.

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 03:20 PM.