80 replies to this topic

[anonymous161]

lrms are fine. Some games you just have bad luck and lrms find you all over the place and you happen to be in a bad spot, perhaps the hitbox ont he building is shorter than you thought it would be and the missiles find you when they shouldn't have or something.

stuff happens oh well.

[Wolfways]

Nightmare1, on 28 June 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

You must have missed that time of the game.

No, i missed nothing. But i'm still waiting for someone to explain what the change in speed actually did, not just "the game got harder".
Look at it this way. If PPC's had a travel speed of 175m/s you would never get hit by one even if they were self-tracking, simply because you could step into cover and completely negate them. How are LRM's any different?

Darth Bane001, on 28 June 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

lrms are fine. Some games you just have bad luck and lrms find you all over the place and you happen to be in a bad spot, perhaps the hitbox ont he building is shorter than you thought it would be and the missiles find you when they shouldn't have or something.

stuff happens oh well.

So what you are saying is that i never have bad luck?
Well actually i do i suppose. Sometimes LRM's do actually damage me.

[anonymous161]

Why are we in another lrm topic? Dont people get bored of thsi issue? pgi will either yet again tweak lrms or not.

I dont often die from lrms myself as I try to jump from cover to cover, but some days I just have crap games, and some days just killing and getting high damage across the board.

[Nightmare1]

Wolfways, on 28 June 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

No, i missed nothing. But i'm still waiting for someone to explain what the change in speed actually did, not just "the game got harder".
Look at it this way. If PPC's had a travel speed of 175m/s you would never get hit by one even if they were self-tracking, simply because you could step into cover and completely negate them. How are LRM's any different?

If I have to explain it to you, then it won't do any good.



Broken into easy info for your convenience:

LRM speed boost = bad, new meta, stagnant LRMWarrior.

PPCs are not relatable to LRMs. Two different weapon systems here - you're comparing apples to oranges.

These are short-range, surface-to-surface missiles. Not long-range (ICBM) Sound-Barrier-breaking missiles. Their current speed is appropriate.

That's my final say on it. I provided you with math (scary huh?) proving that it was not an incremental boost. You seem to be pretty loopy though, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Learn to play the game, and then you won't have to rely on LRM locks to ensure you hit your target.

[ztac]

If he wants to compare PPC's that's a very bad argument, remember when they got nerfed back to the stoneage almost?

Now if a PPC did travel at 175m/s with tracking it would be great , because you could step into cover and the PPC burst would go around the side of the cover to hit you , just like LRM goes over the top of cover to hit you (there is 'cover' and then there is cover.) Not all cover is equal!

If the missile speed was 'tweaked' , did they also 'tweak' the ams rate of fire I wonder , after all the faster the missile travels the less time an ams can shoot at it thus allowing more missiles to get through.

It would appear that you need a ridiculous amount of ams ammo too (maybe ams should be upgraded to a laser system so you don't run out of ammo although as ams is virtually useless anyway it wouldn't have much of an effect).

Oh and don't forget missile shake! kind of hard to do much whilst that is happening and its hard to see anything.Also If you have a spotter on you most countermeasures vs LRM simply wont work! (ECM countered, Radar deprivation countered , cover on the most part negated, and if that spotter has TAG or Narc .....And don't forget that only certain mechs can fit ams).

So to counter LRM you need specific mechs and modules along with battlefield awareness , to use LRM you just need someone to spot..... and any specific LRM enhancing module (tag narc ) is a bonus. Like I said earlier 9 salvos from 2 x LRM 10 + artemis IV launchers kill an Atlas.

Also you find it rare in a PUG that people are actually sporting all the counters much to the premades delight , or even the PUG missiler!

Edited by ztac, 28 June 2014 - 07:57 AM.

[Nightmare1]

ztac, on 28 June 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

If he wants to compare PPC's that's a very bad argument, remember when they got nerfed back to the stoneage almost?

If the missile speed was 'tweaked' , did they also 'tweak' the ams rate of fire I wonder , after all the faster the missile travels the less time an ams can shoot at it thus allowing more missiles to get through.

It would appear that you need a ridiculous amount of ams ammo too (maybe ams should be upgraded to a laser system so you don't run out of ammo although as ams is virtually useless anyway it wouldn't have much of an effect).

Oh and don't forget missile shake! kind of hard to do much whilst that is happening and its hard to see anything.Also If you have a spotter on you most countermeasures vs LRM simply wont work! (ECM countered, Radar deprivation countered , cover on the most part negated, and if that spotter has TAG or Narc .....And don't forget that only certain mechs can fit ams).

So to counter LRM you need specific mechs and modules along with battlefield awareness , to use LRM you just need someone to spot..... and any specific LRM enhancing module (tag narc ) is a bonus. Like I said earlier 9 salvos from 2 x LRM 10 + artemis IV launchers kill an Atlas.

Also you find it rare in a PUG that people are actually sporting all the counters much to the premades delight , or even the PUG missiler!

Regarding AMS:

LAMS were available in MW:4. However, at the time of the Clan Invasion, they were still theoretical. There was a scene in the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy where a Clanner explained to Phelan Kell, a newly reborn Clanner himself, that they had purposefully left off an AMS system for his Wolfhound, since they felt it would betray the Mech's purpose as an all-laser machine. However, they promised him a LAM as soon as they became operational.

I don't know when LAMS went live in the BattleTech Universe. However, since PGI is trying to adhere to the Clan Invasion timeline (somewhat), it is doubtful that we will see them for a while. That being said, when they premier, I want to be one of the first in line to get mine.

In the meantime, I would like to see an On/Off switch so that I don't waste my ammo.

[Wolfways]

Nightmare1, on 28 June 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

If I have to explain it to you, then it won't do any good.



Broken into easy info for your convenience:

LRM speed boost = bad, new meta, stagnant LRMWarrior.

Yeah you can't explain it, exactly as i thought.

Quote

PPCs are not relatable to LRMs. Two different weapon systems here - you're comparing apples to oranges.

No i'm not. I didn't use a PPC as an example, i just compared two ways that weapons fire.

Quote

These are short-range, surface-to-surface missiles. Not long-range (ICBM) Sound-Barrier-breaking missiles. Their current speed is appropriate.

MWO is not comparable to RL.

Quote

That's my final say on it. I provided you with math (scary huh?) proving that it was not an incremental boost. You seem to be pretty loopy though, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Learn to play the game, and then you won't have to rely on LRM locks to ensure you hit your target.

I say it's almost impossible to die to LRM's and you tell me to L2P lol. And you say I'm the loopy one.
I play LRM's because it's harder than direct-fire weapons. If i get the same scores in my CPLT-C1 that i get in my JM6-S then that is an incredibly good game.

You any many other players would have a fit if PGI said they were buffing a weapon you didn't like, and even if PGI said they didn't do it people would still whine that's the weapon is suddenly OP. It has already happened a few times before. People complain about things that aren't even in the game yet because they think they are.

[Wolfways]

I guess there aren't many players that want weapon balance then

[Deathlike]

Just rethink my LRM speed proposal.

The missiles are launched @ some lower speed... say 100 (of whatever the metric missiles are using). As the missiles traverse further in distance, the speed increases... and tops out @ 200 (or so) when it reaches 500m or so.

Missiles "become OP" when speed ratchets up. So, it makes sense to keep their speed low @ min to mid-range distance as that is currently their optimal usage. While you may argue that AMS may eat through that in the mean time (in the shorter range), it makes decision making with respect to targeting far more important. What could happen is a corresponding health increase and/or AMS damage decrease to compensate for that behavior.

Once missiles reach that "max speed" at the designated range, then they become far more formidable at the extreme ranges that they simply are not good at in the current game.

This also causes the proper initiative for players to get aggressive against the LRM boat, instead of trying to hide out at the extreme ranges.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 July 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[Tezcatli]

I think the real problem is Clan LRMs weigh so much less that you can throw one on and it won't be a big deal. If you tried that with an IS mech. It'd be kind of a waste weight without adding tag, artemis, or narc. Unless you have someone spotting for you. I mean LRM 20 for 5 tons, yes please?

[Fiona Marshe]

The "instant lock loss" module has exasperated the situation. Its now impossible to get counter-battery fire going against mechs that are self-locking, as they fire, pop down and use Target Decay to hold the shot while you instantly lose the lock.

It's made pop-tarting by LRM-boats a problem now.

[ztac]

I gather this a thread about buffing already OP LRM? ( I don't think you just want your cake and eat it, but you want all the cakes!)

My fix is to remove indirect fire , make all LRM boats have to use TAG , their missiles only follow their TAG. This way all cover will work correctly against them just like any other direct fire weapon! And we wont have to worry about LRM magically hopping over any cover and hitting you.

It is fair enough and I believe that as the game stands a TAG on a mech under ECM will override it as I have been hit by LRM under ECM cover with a TAG on me. AMS is pretty useless anyway so should only ever be metioned as a joke in any 'counter LRM' thread. The fact is all those 'counters' that LRM users hate so much are not hard counters, the only real hard counter is the very rare high cover , or tunnels and maybe under bridges... maybe all maps should be changed into systems of tunnels!

And if there is ECM any team worth its salt would jus take that out as priority.. then blot out the sky's with your missiles. LRM have to be a real problem when players in a whole team all report that their AMS ammo is at 0 .. that's packing 4k ammo by the way in case you were wondering! (been in games where you AMS is constantly firing too! until it ran out of ammo).

Maybe the matchmaker should limit the number of total LRM tubes in a game?

LRM are really th only weapon in the game that do not have a hard counter other than certain maps having certain features that work (as mentioned above), just think about that, any other weapon is negated if a target is in cover.

The fact is that LRM is a broken mechanic that the users fail to understand! (they are doing well out of it, my own LRM boat a clan mech (people say clan LRM is not as good as IS incidentally) does very well just using LRM , 300+ damage and not even ever seeing the mechs I fired at ..per match.).

[Karamarka]

As poster above pointed out, the defence against LRM is the "arena maps"

arena maps = always have random rock formations or stuff for cover.... There are literally no empty spaces in MWO.

compared to say MW4, where LRMs were line of sight for lock, yet there was hardly any condensed arena spaces.

[ztac]

Well just had an awful game.... I carry AMS , I have a radar dep module , I was on the canyon map in a canyon and started getting by hit LRM .. so I duck around a corner .. still being hit .... I power down (in case of narc) still being hit .... 10 seconds after power down I am dead!

Now say LRM are ok and actually need a Buff because people can evade them. The guys in the map chat said it must have been a bug.... considering how many times I have come under LRM fire this has never happened to me before.

Edited by ztac, 06 July 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[Gyrok]

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

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.

LRMs need no help...I rolled up several 4+ kill 700+ damage matches in a row the other night (5 in a row to be exact before I felt too much like I was "cheating" and put the boat away). I am also not in the steering wheel underhive either...I drop against players from many of the comp teams regularly, and still put up those numbers.

So, if you think LRMs need more help than they got last time...look at the way you play the game...if you think I am wrong, I can post a screenshot this evening of 1 of our matches where one of our 4 mans had 2 LRM boats that put up 2250 damage between them, and our lance had all 12 kills. That is but one example.

LRMs are fine...any stronger and they become OP. (I would even argue they are OP in the right hands now...but there are very few that can play them that well it seems, as you all constantly call for buffs)

[Wolfways]

Gyrok, on 06 July 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

LRMs need no help...I rolled up several 4+ kill 700+ damage matches in a row the other night (5 in a row to be exact before I felt too much like I was "cheating" and put the boat away). I am also not in the steering wheel underhive either...I drop against players from many of the comp teams regularly, and still put up those numbers.

So, if you think LRMs need more help than they got last time...look at the way you play the game...if you think I am wrong, I can post a screenshot this evening of 1 of our matches where one of our 4 mans had 2 LRM boats that put up 2250 damage between them, and our lance had all 12 kills. That is but one example.

LRMs are fine...any stronger and they become OP. (I would even argue they are OP in the right hands now...but there are very few that can play them that well it seems, as you all constantly call for buffs)

How much were you using LRM's as direct-fire? How many times did you fire at targets anywhere near max range? Were you using T2 equipment?

The OP is about changing the balance of power between indirect and direct-fire to make the weapon more like it was in BT, a direct-fire weapon that has the ability to indirect-fire. In MWO LRM's are mainly used as an indirect-fire weapon.
AFAIK most who complain about LRM's are complaining about indirect-fire supporting the mechs they are fighting, which is why i made the suggestions about reducing the effectiveness of indirect-fire.

I don't expect LRM's to be great direct-fire weapons, they do spread the damage, but the way they work now they are not Long Range Missiles at all but are more like Medium Range Missiles. Plus targets have a ridiculous amount of ways to reduce or even completely remove LRM's from play.

LRM boats are a different problem, and should be fixed/reduced, but having a mech with LRM's as main weapons (without boating) like a Catapult or Mad Dog is just wasting a mech slot imo....but i'll continue to do it anyway

I have no idea why higher ELO players couldn't completely negate LRM's though. Maybe they just aren't used to facing them? Players that i'm matched against certainly know how to use cover well enough to mostly avoid LRM's, and i practically forget they exist unless i'm using them and then i know it's a PITA to do well.

[Fleeb the Mad]

You're going to have to let this one go.

In order for LRMs to become a meaningful direct-fire weapon they have to become harder to use. The current problem with the dominant poptart meta is the ability to inflict damage with minimal exposure time and risk of return fire. If LRMs can continue to be fired from behind cover using other players as spotters and are also effective direct-fire weapons, they will become capable in more roles than direct-fire weapons on top of having a much lower skill cap to use. There'd simply be no reason for people to run anything else, particularly in the mid and low ELO games where there may not be a large enough skill pool to effectively execute counters.

You have to change more than numbers. Similar to what ztac said, in order for LRMs to be an effective direct-fire weapon you'd have to change the mechanics of how LRMS work so that using them exposed mechs to return fire. Such as doing away with indirect spotting for mechs that weren't fitted with NARC or TAG, or requiring the firing mech to maintain LOS. Even something so small as being able to lob LRMs over small ridges and hills that people use as cover against direct-fire weapons is a huge advantage, because players will ruthlessly exploit any situation where they can shoot but can't be shot back.

MWO in general is not very friendly to new players. It's very complicated and has a rather steep learning curve (non intuitive movement, heat management, having lots of various weapons with different mechanics, locational damage, etc. etc.). The role LRMs occupy in this game is a new-player friendly weapon that's easy to use and allows players to participate with low risk. As a low-risk weapon they're going to have fairly mediocre rewards for the tons and slots required to field them. That's why they're common at the lower ELO range and nearly nonexistent at the top. That video Sug posted is actually rather good at explaining the reasoning. Changing them to be more competitive at higher levels of play must require taking away their relative ease of use, which is more fundamental to the game design than any of us realize. Otherwise they would follow in the pattern of the current meta, which is highly effective while remaining low risk in terms of return fire.

[Gyrok]

Wolfways, on 06 July 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

How much were you using LRM's as direct-fire? How many times did you fire at targets anywhere near max range? Were you using T2 equipment?

The OP is about changing the balance of power between indirect and direct-fire to make the weapon more like it was in BT, a direct-fire weapon that has the ability to indirect-fire. In MWO LRM's are mainly used as an indirect-fire weapon.
AFAIK most who complain about LRM's are complaining about indirect-fire supporting the mechs they are fighting, which is why i made the suggestions about reducing the effectiveness of indirect-fire.

I don't expect LRM's to be great direct-fire weapons, they do spread the damage, but the way they work now they are not Long Range Missiles at all but are more like Medium Range Missiles. Plus targets have a ridiculous amount of ways to reduce or even completely remove LRM's from play.

LRM boats are a different problem, and should be fixed/reduced, but having a mech with LRM's as main weapons (without boating) like a Catapult or Mad Dog is just wasting a mech slot imo....but i'll continue to do it anyway

I have no idea why higher ELO players couldn't completely negate LRM's though. Maybe they just aren't used to facing them? Players that i'm matched against certainly know how to use cover well enough to mostly avoid LRM's, and i practically forget they exist unless i'm using them and then i know it's a PITA to do well.

Typically, indirect fire early, and once the battle progresses and forces engage, direct fire on enemies who are preoccupied. Hence they do not run for cover...

High ELO players do not bother to run AMS much, and the few that do are usually PUGs that fell in from a small group. When they expose to brawl, they are susceptible like anyone else. Perhaps more so because of the lower % of AMS to mechs in the match.

[Wolfways]

Gyrok, on 06 July 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

Typically, indirect fire early, and once the battle progresses and forces engage, direct fire on enemies who are preoccupied. Hence they do not run for cover...

High ELO players do not bother to run AMS much, and the few that do are usually PUGs that fell in from a small group. When they expose to brawl, they are susceptible like anyone else. Perhaps more so because of the lower % of AMS to mechs in the match.

Maybe i should stop trying to keep my ELO down if higher ELO players aren't used to avoiding LRM's

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Lrms are a blight on fun and interesting gameplay. All they ever do is cause cover humping and then the ****** pop tards on their team pick off the helpless fish in a barrel. It doesn't work in organized play because team composition can be controlled and ecm is always availible. A competent team with 3+ lrm boats and one or more spotters will nearly always win in the solo queue if the opposing team doesn't have enough counters.

Edited by Tw1stedMonkey, 07 July 2014 - 03:09 AM.