80 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

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

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

No you haven't explained how to hit someone who is using cover.

Quote

1) Teamwork is OP.

And yet LRM's are the only weapon where teamwork is necessary.

Quote

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).

TAG should not be mandatory, just like ERlasers and UltraAC's aren't mandatory.

Quote

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

Other than LRM's are pointless.

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

He wants a fire and forget AC.

Yeah because LRM's are just like AC's....
Do you just like posting stupid crap?

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

No you haven't explained how to hit someone who is using cover.

You don't... not always.

I believe PGI has been trying to tweak this many different times, and the best way to explain it is this.

There's a certain angle that "must be met" in order for a missile to "dive" onto its target. Adjusting the arc/trajectory to some degree help/hurt the design. In essence, maps and cover would have to go hand in hand... certain arcs would not be possible (referring to the dive dive dive LRM days where it was labeled a bug by PGI/Paul at the time). If properly done and understood, there can be points of "non-cover" as much as places of actual/better cover... something we're already experiencing right now to a degree. While I do not have numbers or a physics degree, there is something that can be done in that area to determine whether a missile goes over cover or just hits that cover.

Quote

And yet LRM's are the only weapon where teamwork is necessary.

Not really, I run TAG to spot my own targets and help others. No assistance necessary other than my brain.

Quote

TAG should not be mandatory, just like ERlasers and UltraAC's aren't mandatory.

Just like ECM is unfortunately mandatory, TAG is the proper response. Until one or the other changes, it's "relatively reasonable" IMO.

Quote

Other than LRM's are pointless.

Please don't use hyperbole. It's fine for PUGing... not for other stuff.

Here's another way of looking at LRMs. MW3 and MW4 is a good reference for designs that can be copied. MW3 had it so that LRMs would track you (it was fire and forget), but with a big enough engine and/or speed (you needed to be 81kph or better), you could evade missiles... by walking perpendicular to the LRMs that are being fired at you. It would have some limited tracking, but you had a skill-based evasion tactic. This would punish slower mechs like Assaults, but generally pretty fair and damage per missile wouldn't need that much tweaking IMO.

Artemis in MW3 was "strange" and I don't remember how that worked outside of "all missiles were promoted in that section" with the enhancements. It didn't follow TT rules (just like MWO not following Targeting Comp rules)... so it is what it is.

MW4 did missiles differently... I forget the exact mechanic (it was another fire and forget based system), but the damage per missile was like .8 or so IIRC, but it would almost always hit the target and AMS would only guarantee killing 1 volley (5 missiles). So, there is a precedence for missiles being effective, but at different design and cost.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 June 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Yeah because LRM's are just like AC's....
Do you just like posting stupid crap?

You just said you want to severely nerf indirect LRM fire, make direct fire LRMs fire and forget, increase the speed, and increase the damage...

Sounds like you want a self guiding AC20.
.

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 27 June 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

You don't... not always.

I believe PGI has been trying to tweak this many different times, and the best way to explain it is this.

There's a certain angle that "must be met" in order for a missile to "dive" onto its target. Adjusting the arc/trajectory to some degree help/hurt the design. In essence, maps and cover would have to go hand in hand... certain arcs would not be possible (referring to the dive dive dive LRM days where it was labeled a bug by PGI/Paul at the time). If properly done and understood, there can be points of "non-cover" as much as places of actual/better cover... something we're already experiencing right now to a degree. While I do not have numbers or a physics degree, there is something that can be done in that area to determine whether a missile goes over cover or just hits that cover.

Well I've yet to find cover that missiles can fly over to hit me.

Quote

Not really, I run TAG to spot my own targets and help others. No assistance necessary other than my brain.

If you use LRM's for direct-fire why bother with them when just about any other weapon is better?

Quote

Just like ECM is unfortunately mandatory, TAG is the proper response. Until one or the other changes, it's "relatively reasonable" IMO.

Which is why in the OP i suggested a rework of ECM.

Quote

Please don't use hyperbole. It's fine for PUGing... not for other stuff.

It's really not fine for PUGing. I only drop in PUGs and lately i find it incredibly hard to kill anyone. Also since the clan release I've been getting hit by maybe 1-5 salvo's per match which is a nice change from 1 salvo per 1-5 matches. But it's still pathetic performance for any weapon.

Quote

Here's another way of looking at LRMs. MW3 and MW4 is a good reference for designs that can be copied. MW3 had it so that LRMs would track you (it was fire and forget), but with a big enough engine and/or speed (you needed to be 81kph or better), you could evade missiles... by walking perpendicular to the LRMs that are being fired at you. It would have some limited tracking, but you had a skill-based evasion tactic. This would punish slower mechs like Assaults, but generally pretty fair and damage per missile wouldn't need that much tweaking IMO.

Artemis in MW3 was "strange" and I don't remember how that worked outside of "all missiles were promoted in that section" with the enhancements. It didn't follow TT rules (just like MWO not following Targeting Comp rules)... so it is what it is.

MW4 did missiles differently... I forget the exact mechanic (it was another fire and forget based system), but the damage per missile was like .8 or so IIRC, but it would almost always hit the target and AMS would only guarantee killing 1 volley (5 missiles). So, there is a precedence for missiles being effective, but at different design and cost.

But were you able to fire LRM's at long range in those games (I only played MW2 and can barely remember it)? I could see a case for some kind of damage nerf or avoidance mechanic if LRM's were actually effective at long range. But in MWO LRM's don't even have that....they're more like medium range missiles.

[Sug]

Deathlike, on 27 June 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

MW4 did missiles differently...

Man, talk about cover being useless. Those things basically shot straight up out of the game and came down on your head.

[Wolfways]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

You just said you want to severely nerf indirect LRM fire, make direct fire LRMs fire and forget, increase the speed, and increase the damage...

Sounds like you want a self guiding AC20.
.

Except that missiles spread the damage all over, and you can't just sidestep an AC shot. An AC20 has a speed of 500m/s and can hit someone before they retreat behind cover.
I don't want to nerf indirect-fire, i think players should learn to avoid it. But i am willing to nerf it if it helps make a case for a buff in another area. i.e. direct-fire, how LRM's are supposed to be used.

You seem to think i want some super-easy all killing megaweapon. I don't. I just want there to be a point to the weapon, other than killing newbies.

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

If you use LRM's for direct-fire why bother with them when just about any other weapon is better?

Why use them at all?

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

I just want there to be a point to the weapon, other than killing newbies.

I'm not sure there is. Maybe in stock matches. Or within groups of people playing out scenarios.

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 06:30 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Well I've yet to find cover that missiles can fly over to hit me.

Most missile boaters are not selective in their firing. That's the difference between good and bad missile boaters.

Quote

If you use LRM's for direct-fire why bother with them when just about any other weapon is better?

Bored is the best term of describing things. I could just use PPCs+Streaks instead of LRMs+TAG+ERLL/LL.

Quote

It's really not fine for PUGing. I only drop in PUGs and lately i find it incredibly hard to kill anyone. Also since the clan release I've been getting hit by maybe 1-5 salvo's per match which is a nice change from 1 salvo per 1-5 matches. But it's still pathetic performance for any weapon.

If you're expecting for LRMs to do all the work... I have swampland to sell you. Picking targets of opportunity requires to put yourself in the situation to get that chance. If you wait for everything to happen instead of MAKING things happen, well you're not going to like the results.

Quote

But were you able to fire LRM's at long range in those games (I only played MW2 and can barely remember it)? I could see a case for some kind of damage nerf or avoidance mechanic if LRM's were actually effective at long range. But in MWO LRM's don't even have that....they're more like medium range missiles.

Look, I don't have the panacea you are hoping for. You just have to figure something clever out.

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Man, talk about cover being useless. Those things basically shot straight up out of the game and came down on your head.

Well, that and getting locks through terrain (which we don't have here outside of indirect fire/spotting). Good times in MW4.

Then again, MW3 had a ton of flat ground (really, flat ground mostly everywhere). LRM evasion was fun, but that was never really a focus on the online component... (Streak SRMs were actually more interesting and impossible to evade when used correctly).

[Sug]

Maybe MW4 had it right.

[Deathlike]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Maybe MW4 had it right.

Passive radar really helped reduced the effectiveness (couldn't get a lock until you could properly spot the target). Too bad we don't really have that here...

[Sug]

Well I got nothing. I think LRMs are the best they've ever been and they can't be improved without major mechanical changes which are not going to happen unless PGI gets bored.

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 27 June 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

If you're expecting for LRMs to do all the work... I have swampland to sell you. Picking targets of opportunity requires to put yourself in the situation to get that chance. If you wait for everything to happen instead of MAKING things happen, well you're not going to like the results.

lol nerfing indirect-fire and making LRM's a decent direct-fire weapon would make players do the work, a lot more than the way they are now.

Quote

Look, I don't have the panacea you are hoping for. You just have to figure something clever out.

That's the point of the OP. To slightly buff the biggest nerfed weapon in the game (except maybe the flamer).

[Sug]

Wolfways, on 27 June 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

To slightly buff the biggest nerfed weapon in the game

Wow. Well I got nothing. I think LRMs are the best they've ever been and they can't be improved without major mechanical changes which are not going to happen unless PGI gets bored.

You're not going to see them in anything but general pug matches or maybe when some group wants to make a funny video with a team made of 4x LRM20 Awesomes.

Edited by Sug, 27 June 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Dr HaxZaw]

LRMs are still massively OP. I've been running a kit fox a lot and the moment you lose your ecm not even triple ams can fight LRM rain.

[Nightmare1]

Sug, on 27 June 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Well I got nothing. I think LRMs are the best they've ever been and they can't be improved without major mechanical changes which are not going to happen unless PGI gets bored.

Agreed!

@ the author: When they moved at 175 m/s, they were way too fast. I was getting hit before the missile alarm even went off. It completely ruined my HBKs and non-ECM Lights. Everybody and their uncle was running LRMs, and that was only at 175 m/s! At 300, it will just be LRMWarrior.

[Karmen Baric]

LRM can be the most OP weapon of all. Get a team with ECM & a number of LRM mechs, get Narc on a light & you hve a team that obliterates most PUGs on most maps. LRMS need high buildings, mountains etc to take effective cover & there isn't enough of that sort of cover around unless you want teams to play the most defensive, slow and boring games, where no one moves without being sure that they wont get LRM'd to death.

The day LRMS can be fired without the need of a lock are the day they should not track at all (dumb fire LRMS). LRM boats already have super fast (Clan) LRMs, UAV, Tag, Narc, spotters, indirect fire that they often make the game unplayable,and I don't mean you cant hide and not die from them (though LRMS get plenty kills already in PUG matches),I mean LRMS create the most boring games where people will not stray from their bases on some maps, where people wont go looking to fight for fear of being in the open for a few secs to get LRM'd. LRMS create stagnant boring games, until one side goes F*** it id rather die and get this over with than spend 10 more minutes hiding and being bored to death. People walk into the open and gladly die rather than facing massed LRMS, because the counter, hiding and having a boring game is a worse option and no one has time for that these days.

And I use LRMs, because i know how OP they are because its a game and everyone uses advantages, I often boat them because I LOL when I get 4-5 kills a much from LRMS.

Edited by Karmen Baric, 27 June 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[ztac]

What's it take to kill an Atlas with LRM , one test I did was this 2x10 LRM + Artemis IV on clan launchers , took 9 salvos (180 missiles ) . That's awfully overpowered if you ask me. Just 15 missiles per team member , or if only 6 player had 20LRM that is 1 1/2 salvos each , or 3 players with 20 LRM is just 3 salvos each.

Don't you find that overpowered at all? Considering your target will probably never see you!

If anything the counters need to be more effective.
Also the screen shake is a joke, once you start getting hit you are effectively out the battle with the poor visibility and effects around you. In a lot of games something like the state of LRM today would be considered an exploit to be honest.

The main thing of concern is game quality , and to be honest games where you just see LRM flying all over the place are extremely boring and make you want to quit right away.

Seems odd too that sometimes you do actually get the odd good match where only a few players pack LRM, but these are very rare. I wish you could have a select function on the MM for LRM heavy or light games... I wonder which one people would choose?


The best games are the ones where players get close and personal ,( see the colour of the paintwork up real close!).

Edited by ztac, 28 June 2014 - 07:35 AM.

[Davers]

If LRMs were as powerful as people claim then we would see competitive 12 man teams if dedicated LRM boats. But we don't.

[Wolfways]

ztac, on 28 June 2014 - 01:08 AM, said:

Don't you find that overpowered at all? Considering your target will probably never see you!

That is exactly why i suggested the indirect-fire nerf. Most players get killed by, and complain about, indirect-fire.

I understand that players don't like to admit that they are bad at the game, but it's just a fact that if you get hit a lot by LRM's you are a bad player, at least as far as piloting is concerned.
I expected many players to disagree with my OP simply because it includes buffs to LRM's, even though the changes would make very little difference. People are afraid of one of the worst weapons in the game. I mean people are complaining that they can't completely negate LRM's with just AMS. AMS is not supposed to negate LRM damage, just reduce it. Also, LRM's are very easy to almost completely avoid without any countermeasures.
The first thing my wife does with any new mech is remove the LRM's as she considers them worthless. The way they work right now LRM's might as well not be in the game, at least above low ELO.

I often wonder what LRM boaters do as their ELO changes.
They get loads of damage and kills every match and their ELO goes up. Then it get's really hard to use LRM's and they have a choice, stop using LRM's or keep using them and let their ELO drop until their boat is OP again, until their high kills and damage raise their ELO...etc. and just stay on a circle never getting better.

Nightmare1, on 27 June 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

Agreed!

@ the author: When they moved at 175 m/s, they were way too fast. I was getting hit before the missile alarm even went off. It completely ruined my HBKs and non-ECM Lights. Everybody and their uncle was running LRMs, and that was only at 175 m/s! At 300, it will just be LRMWarrior.

Please tell me how a slight speed boost made any difference.

[Nightmare1]

Wolfways, on 28 June 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Please tell me how a slight speed boost made any difference.

You must have missed that time of the game. PGI boosted the LRM speed from 120 m/s up to 175 m/s. That's an increase of 55 m/s, or a 45.8% (rounded) speed boost. That's nearly a 50% increase to speed! That's hardly a slight boost! When they were at 175 m/s, it happened during one of the weekend Challenge events. Nearly everyone ran LRM boats, and those that didn't simply got shredded. Assault Mechs that weren't LRM boats would get torn asunder just trying to move cover to cover. Slower Mechs like the HBK couldn't close to range in time to deal damage before getting smashed to pieces. Lights that didn't mount ECM were blown apart. Basically, the game changed overnight into an ECM+LRM+TAG/NARC meta where the team with the most of these won. As a non-LRM boat player myself, I found it very frustrating to play. I know of many people that quit the game over PGI's shock to the system.

The outcry against the 175 m/s boost was so great, that PGI backed them down to 160 or 165 (I forget which). Assuming 160 m/s, that's still a 33.33% (rounded) speed boost. Again, hardly incremental. They increased the speed by a third! And now you want to increase it to 300 m/s? Assuming 160 m/s again, that's an increase of 87.5%! Again, not incremental!

Tell me, in the land where you live, are there pink fluffy clouds and Unicorns?

I, for one, think that the current state of LRMs are just fine. An LRM boat can really ruin your day, while not being so broken as to change the nature of the game. Since the 175 m/s fiasco, I retooled my BLR-1S into an LRM boat (was previously an SRM boat). I have to say, running matches in that Mech are usually the easiest out of all my BattleMechs. With the abundance of TAG and NARC (I myself run TAG), it is so easy to shell the enemy into oblivion.

Because of my experiences on both ends of the LRM, I would have to say that your proposal is ludicrous. Surely you are just trolling and are not seriously suggesting these changes!