80 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

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

It is viable. Not a good idea but at least you can play it.

Quote

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

lol okay.

Quote

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.

I did say buff direct-fire and nerf indirect-fire. You can't make LRM's more difficult to use because their effectiveness depends a lot on the piloting ability of the target and the amount of cover on the map. At higher levels it is almost impossible to use LRM's because you fight players who use cover well, but you don't believe that so there's no point in this conversation really.

[Sug]

God this lemonade is tart.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Not a good idea but at least you can play it.

Ditto for stock mechs. Don't worry about them.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

lol okay.

Why do you think player Elo matters? Why do you think there are high Elo and low Elo games?

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

I did say buff direct-fire and nerf indirect-fire.

What do you think that would that accomplish?

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Ditto for stock mechs. Don't worry about them.

Completely wrong. If you play a stock mech you will overheat (with lasers) or run out of ammo straight away (LRM's, AC's).

Quote

Why do you think player Elo matters? Why do you think there are high Elo and low Elo games?

Maybe because it's a fact that ELO exists and as you get better at playing you fight with/against better players?

Quote

What do you think that would that accomplish?

It makes LRM's more viable in direct-fire, and nerfs them in indirect-fire which is what new/bad players are complaining about. There's always a dozen threads on the front page about how getting fired at by some LRM boat behind a hill is OP. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say getting killed by direct-fire was OP...mostly because that would be a really stupid claim considering how bad LRM's are at direct-fire compared to other weapons.

You seem to be very determined to shoot down my idea, and you never answered if you play an LRM boat, or why you just said "No" to the indirect-fire nerfs. Am i stepping on your playstyle?

[Deathlike]

I'll just address the issues point by point, since I'm bored as hell and there's probably more LRMs threads that I'd like to read.

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

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.

Yes, rework ECM. At least start with removing the "cloak" and then just simply increase the time to clock and/or reduce the effectiveness of the missile hits. That would be a start. Then again, ECM could just be Paul's thing... in which case, abandon all hope.

Quote

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.

No. It is the player's responsibility to understand that when someone sees you (whether you see them or not), the LRMs will fly... just like any other weapon fire. The difference is that many weapons are "more instant" than others and LRMs tend to get the long end of the stick on that.

Quote

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.

I personally don't mind Fire and Forget, as long as the damage is not obscene... a damage nerf per missile is warranted under that scenario.

Quote

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!

A suggestion to counter that idea is to increase it's speed over distance. While this require an entire mechanic change, it makes the most sense to me. As currently designed, short to mid range is actually the optimal use of the weapon.

Quote

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.

You are borking LRM and sensor mechanics significantly. TAG only reaches 750m. Basic sensor range is 800m, barring obstructions. Increasing LRM range is worth little to nothing unless you want to INCREASE indirect fire from your proposal. It's rather shortsighted.

Quote

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.

LRMs are poor direct fire substitutes (don't pull a Garth), so don't even bother. I would only consider touching cooldown and damage, but I kinda lean towards they are just in the right place for now. It's actual missile speed that actually controls a how LRMs succeed for fail, rather than the damage you are gaining (which can make things lopsided, like back in the Open Beta days).

Quote

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.

Only SRM ammo is where I'd agree with. Everything else is mostly fine as is. SRM ammo received 0 ammo buffs, and just based on LRM math.. having 1 ton per LRM5 (4 tons for LRM20s) is a pretty good ratio for launching 45 times is the how optimal missile boats should be configured IMO. That's just me.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Completely wrong. If you play a stock mech you will overheat (with lasers) or run out of ammo straight away (LRM's, AC's).


Maybe because it's a fact that ELO exists and as you get better at playing you fight with/against better players?

No use talking to you about that stuff anymore.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

It makes LRM's more viable in direct-fire, and nerfs them in indirect-fire which is what new/bad players are complaining about.

The game shouldn't be balanced around bad players.

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

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.

Occasionally a group of LRM boats with a spotter wrecks a team a pugs. This does not mean indirect fire is OP. Watch the videos from the last tournament and tell me how much indirect fire support you saw. Now tell me how many LRMs there were.

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

Direct-fire.

Make LRM's fire and forget.

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.

Back to poptart LRM boats.

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

You seem to be very determined to shoot down my idea, and you never answered if you play an LRM boat, or why you just said "No" to the indirect-fire nerfs. Am i stepping on your playstyle?

I outgrew LRMs awhile ago. Using them and having them used against me.

On occasion I'll take a LRM mech out but it's not my main build. I think LRMs and their associated equipment are in the best state they've ever been in.

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[Deathlike]

Here's a quick background of my LRM usage:

1) Lurmaggeddon - Jagermech edition - As a response to seeing everything massively die to LRM, I thought to join the fun. Then it ended. Sad days.

2) Catapult-C4 grinding - I thought I could grind that thing out in peace, but it turns out that it's a terrible variant (the Splatcat in its heyday was better, now just relegated to asking for others to spot). LRMs were just baaaaaad. Too slow for anyone... outside of those who were dedicated to the cause.

3) Major LRM speed buff (It's Griffin time!) - Coincidentally, I was grinding Griffin, and it was a great time to go use them on the 3M. It was great fun. Too bad the time started poorly with LRMs raining on my head... and I didn't bother to use AMS (it wasn't needed prior to that event). Towards the end of that run and the subsequent nerf, AMS was not even in consideration anymore.

4) Today (well, more like "now") - I'm having fair success with the Wolverine-7K as a missile boat. I don't go crazy lurming, and this is post Radar Deprivation... but I'm still managing 40% acc on the LRMs (I don't fire them at random), whether it be Artemis or non-Artemis (though, no launcher bigger than the 10). I've used the Trebuchet, Kintaro, Griffin, and Wolverine as LRM boats at one time or another. While I don't even think to bring LRMs to higher level play (it's too situational, as described multiple times by multiple people), it's great for that change of pace. LRMs need a buff, but it's going to require a mechanics change more than just by the numbers. I'm more than prepared to participate in the next Lurmaggeddon.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 June 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Wolfways]

So people just want LRM's to be for killing newbies and otherwise forgetting they exist lol.
So much for balance.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

So people just want LRM's to be for killing newbies and otherwise forgetting they exist lol.
So much for balance.

If you buffed them to the point they were worth using at high skill levels they'd crush nubs even harder.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

So people just want LRM's to be for killing newbies and otherwise forgetting they exist lol.
So much for balance.

It's situational.

Here's some obvious examples:

Crimson Strait - That lower level @ D4 often times negates your existence. You'd be asking for trouble if you keep your head above that section.

HPG - In the central area, the lower section is often used (occasionally incorrectly) to hide from LRMs. It's also a great place to cut through locations to get at the LRM boat. It's still important that the topside is dominated though.

Caves in various maps (Forest Colony, Frozen City) - Self explanatory?

What you really need is more of a greater brawler influence... in order for targets to be flushed out into the open. That's what really needs to be fixed.

[Sug]

Not to derail this thread but Sour Patch Kids are not as good as I remember.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

If you buffed them to the point they were worth using at high skill levels they'd crush nubs even harder.

Which is why i made the concession with the indirect-fire nerf, so every LRM doesn't immediately target the first spotted mech (unless the spotter has TAG, NARC, or UAV.
Personally i don't think it's possible to make them OP even at above mid skilled matches without completely redesigning the maps or make each missile do 10 damage.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

Which is why i made the concession with the indirect-fire nerf, so every LRM doesn't immediately target the first spotted mech (unless the spotter has TAG, NARC, or UAV.

What's the goal here? What kind of player do you see using those LRMs?

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 27 June 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

It's situational.

Here's some obvious examples:

Crimson Strait - That lower level @ D4 often times negates your existence. You'd be asking for trouble if you keep your head above that section.

HPG - In the central area, the lower section is often used (occasionally incorrectly) to hide from LRMs. It's also a great place to cut through locations to get at the LRM boat. It's still important that the topside is dominated though.

Caves in various maps (Forest Colony, Frozen City) - Self explanatory?

It's not situational when you can't hit players who aren't using those areas but just know how to use cover. Only new/bad players get killed by LRM's, and that's not a reason to keep them completely useless at higher levels.

Quote

What you really need is more of a greater brawler influence... in order for targets to be flushed out into the open. That's what really needs to be fixed.

Why should i need to rely on a teammate, or be forced to use indirect-fire with a direct-fire weapon?
LRM's are massively underpowered and always have been (apart from the two days when we got Artemis).

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

What's the goal here? What kind of player do you see using those LRMs?

I'd like to try to make them remotely viable for whoever wants to use them. Obviously also for myself. My favourite mech is the Mad Dog Prime which is pointless adding to the game with the way LRM's currently work (or don't).

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

LRM's are massively underpowered and always have been (apart from the two days when we got Artemis).


My favourite mech is the Mad Dog Prime

Starting to see the problem here.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 05:28 PM, said:

Starting to see the problem here.

Nope you just choose to ignore it.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

It's not situational when you can't hit players who aren't using those areas but just know how to use cover. Only new/bad players get killed by LRM's, and that's not a reason to keep them completely useless at higher levels.

Then you're going to have to find some sort of creative way of doing it. I've already proposed some options.

Quote

Why should i need to rely on a teammate, or be forced to use indirect-fire with a direct-fire weapon?
LRM's are massively underpowered and always have been (apart from the two days when we got Artemis).

1) Teamwork is OP.

2) If there were more competent lights, I'd see more UAVs being launched, but don't. While virtually any mech can run them, it's rather counter productive to run them while being the LRM boat... primarily because you yourself have to get close to the action... and chances are you aren't set up for that. Lights are imperative for LRM boats to succeed.

3) TAG is still your friend. Outside of the unsalvageable Catapult-A1 (no TAG, including Oxide and Huginn), pretty much every missile boat that can pull its weight by using TAG. In fact, it's essentially mandatory due to ECM, but also a nice bonus for yourself and other missile boaters.

So, I don't know exactly how you are playing them, but TAG is pretty much mandatory, in addition to Adv Target Decay (it does work against Radar Deprivation, despite the bad info some people are giving, there is a reduction in Target Decay however).

Otherwise, I'm not seeing the problem really when you're factoring out the obvious issues.

[Sorbic]

I very often score near/at the top when I rock my lrm mechs but with the excessive lrm's flying around right now I'm not playing them. Overall I don't think they need buffed although I would like to see ECM changed in that it simply makes lock take longer instead of negating it. Oh and reduce the shake from Clrms. I could mix James Bond a drink with those impacts.

As far as getting rid of the missile warning... oh heck no. Someone made the comment that a mech would get hit by a salvo and know to hide. Sure, in some rounds. During others he'd get hit by 4+ salvo's and then what was left of him could try to get to cover while taking some more that launched almost the same time he got hit. Although I could see the wisdom in setting the warning system to only work up to ~700m

What I would like to see is a hard cap for the number of lrms (excluding mechs with just 5) a team can have. lrms are fine in reasonable numbers. It's when I watch a DW get plastered by a relentless stream that things get ugly. I started carrying twice as much AMS ammo and it still runs out faster. A few days ago I burned through 2 tons in 2 minutes... At the very least increase the rounds per ton. I don't like carrying a lot of extra weight AND using what might be my only module just in case I hit a heavy map.

[Sug]

Deathlike, on 27 June 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

Otherwise, I'm not seeing the problem really when you're factoring out the obvious issues.

He wants a fire and forget AC.

[Deathlike]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

He wants a fire and forget AC.

Sure... only if the LRM damage per missile is nerfed in response. Damage would have to be nerfed to .75 or in the worst case .50 per missile. Missile speed isn't off the table either...