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.