21 replies to this topic

[Sahoj]

LRMS allow many different styles of play and allow support roles - if anything please continue to make them more viable for players to use.

I think it stinks that the first thing players do (and I'm guilty of this) is remove any stock LRM configs on their mechs to either remove the weapon group entirely or replace with clusters of SRM's. Cause LRM's suck.

I personally only carry a token LRM10-20 on my biggest mechs so I can click something while I'm wading towards the brawl at a brisk 50kph. I do like to use them to encourage poptarts to keep their heads down while I advance as well.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Sir, you are being rediculous.


Lrms have been a very poorly implemented weapon mechanic since day 1.


Let me be more specific -> Lrms don't need nerfs or buff. They need an entire weapon redesign. Lets start with removal of minimum range, the need for missiles to fly X distance before they can manuver, missile acceleration period, requires LoS unless by a narc or spotter with tag, and be fire and forget.

Then make ECM a soft counter like its supposed to be to level the playing field of narc, artemis, etc.

Edited by mwhighlander, 16 July 2014 - 05:22 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

mwhighlander, on 16 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Sir, you are being rediculous.


Lrms have been a very poorly implemented weapon mechanic since day 1.


Let me be more specific -> Lrms don't need nerfs or buff. They need an entire weapon redesign. Lets start with removal of minimum range, the need for missiles to fly X distance before they can manuver, missile acceleration period, requires LoS unless by a narc or spotter with tag, and be fire and forget.

Then make ECM a soft counter like its supposed to be to level the playing field of narc, artemis, etc.

Even just removing indirect LRM fire without UAV/TAG/NARC would solve a lot of issues and add to role warfare.

[Sahoj]

Playing anything with a low armor value so you can deposit narc or tags around any Remnants members generally means you're scrap metal. You may be biased Sir.

I've seen you guys shoot.

Lyoto Machida, on 16 July 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Even just removing indirect LRM fire without UAV/TAG/NARC would solve a lot of issues and add to role warfare.

Interesting - but you may need to significantly increase LRM damage to make up for added difficulty in targeting. I'd agree with it.

[Carrioncrows]

mwhighlander, on 16 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Sir, you are being rediculous.


Lrms have been a very poorly implemented weapon mechanic since day 1.


Let me be more specific -> Lrms don't need nerfs or buff. They need an entire weapon redesign. Lets start with removal of minimum range, the need for missiles to fly X distance before they can manuver, missile acceleration period, requires LoS unless by a narc or spotter with tag, and be fire and forget.

Then make ECM a soft counter like its supposed to be to level the playing field of narc, artemis, etc.

Pretty much entirely what i've been preaching.

Lrm's are a little on the weak side as a individual weapon and Extremely powerful on a team basis.

There isn't enough cover in the world when your team doesn't have ECM. Huddling around the 1-2 places that offer cover works right up until you get pinned down and flanked, then promptly murdered by LRM's because of any tom nick or harry that has LOS on you.

LRM's need reworked.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

I would love to see a toggle for IS dum fire dirrect fire mode. What I mean by this, is it shoots non-arcing shots straight forward. Granted, there should be some type of penalty to doing this. Like bay doors must be open, it may only fire missiles equal to tubes, ie if you fire a 20 rack out of 15 tubes, you waist 5 missiles. Maybe it takes a small time for missiles to program into indirrect fire mode after being in dumb fire mode. Also no tracking or lock-on can be used during this mode.

I'm not asking for the minimum range to be disabled. But it would be nice to have the option to have an extra layer of flexabilty. I'm probably asking to much...

[Karamarka]

mwhighlander, on 16 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

requires LoS unless by a narc or spotter with tag, and be fire and forget.

Bingo, You can make so many more map and gameplay options to LRMS if this was the case. The reason they don't get any love or major buffs is cause with indirect fire that's their niche already.

MW4 had line of sight LRM and the maps were super massive and open. The maps in MWO are made to accomodate LRMS, not the other way around (Notice all the random mech high cover on every map? Perfectly placed to dodge LRMS lol)

[Xarian]

Indirect fire should require setup (e.g. NARC, TAG, etc) rather than being the norm. Non-Artemis LRMs should also ignore ECM when the firer has LOS, as in tabletop. Couple that with removing the ECM invisibility umbrella; suddenly the game gets a lot more fun.

[Sahoj]

Xarian, on 16 July 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Indirect fire should require setup (e.g. NARC, TAG, etc) rather than being the norm. Non-Artemis LRMs should also ignore ECM when the firer has LOS, as in tabletop. Couple that with removing the ECM invisibility umbrella; suddenly the game gets a lot more fun.

I think you should certainly reward a player with LRM's for acquiring their own LOS (via negating ECM) - they're certainly likely to risk damage from a high pinpoint alpha player for doing it.

[BoomDog]

I think the problem with LRMs is that, unlike almost every other weapon in the game, it requires no skill and no risk. In TT, pilot skill was an issue, and it should be here too.

The other problem is if your team doesn't have ECM, they're forced to huddle behind whatever cover is high enough to protect them.

I like the mandatory LOS idea. Except with NARC and TAG.

[Sahoj]

I very much dislike the pilot skill argument in regards to LRM's. I'm also confused how there is no risk in largely forfeiting close range defense.

I would go as far as saying 50% of MWO is positioning, 30% is Mech loadout and only 20 percent is ability to hit what you shoot at. (Heat management should probably be in here too)

Even an LRM user needs to position themselves appropriately and build a capable machine.

Edited by Sahoj, 16 July 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[Lykaon]

BoomDog, on 16 July 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

I think the problem with LRMs is that, unlike almost every other weapon in the game, it requires no skill and no risk. In TT, pilot skill was an issue, and it should be here too.

Let's look at those incredible skills used for every other weapon in the game...

let's see I believe it's move a curser over a target and click.

Have you ever tried using LRMs in actual real game play (pugging is the sandbox)

Let's see..try to get hard locks and big damage numbers when the enemy knows how to use ECM,AMS,Cover,Radar Dep. modules,suppression fire and focus fire and knows that a UAV can be shot down.

Meanwhile in Derp town it's wait for some idiot to poke out to far and punish them with volley after volley because they don't bother to move out of the way.

LRMs are only skill less when the target is even more skill less.


However I do agree that the entirety of the interactions between LRMs and information warfare equipment is terrible.

LRMs should require some advanced equipment for indirect fire. However this presents a problem when it comes to the solo PUG queue.

The solo queue randomly assembles teams.There is no way assuring that an LRM carrier will be matched with appropriate spotters with proper spotting gear like TAG or NARC.

So,we will end up with a near completely exstinct weapon system since playing in the group queue you need to deal with organized counter LRM tactics and gear and the PUGGIES will not be counting on a benificent match maker to give them a spotter or a LURM boat to spot for so won't take either spotting gear or LRMs.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

mwhighlander, on 16 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Sir, you are being rediculous.


Lrms have been a very poorly implemented weapon mechanic since day 1.


Let me be more specific -> Lrms don't need nerfs or buff. They need an entire weapon redesign. Lets start with removal of minimum range, the need for missiles to fly X distance before they can manuver, missile acceleration period, requires LoS unless by a narc or spotter with tag, and be fire and forget.

Then make ECM a soft counter like its supposed to be to level the playing field of narc, artemis, etc.

It is exactly how LRMs work in MW:LL and it is WAY better than in MWO.I love when I can fire and forget at TAGed or NARCed target from anywhere and LRMs will aim automaticaly .

[Quxudica]

Sahoj, on 16 July 2014 - 05:16 PM, said:

LRMS allow many different styles of play and allow support roles - if anything please continue to make them more viable for players to use.

I think it stinks that the first thing players do (and I'm guilty of this) is remove any stock LRM configs on their mechs to either remove the weapon group entirely or replace with clusters of SRM's. Cause LRM's suck.

I personally only carry a token LRM10-20 on my biggest mechs so I can click something while I'm wading towards the brawl at a brisk 50kph. I do like to use them to encourage poptarts to keep their heads down while I advance as well.

I've been saying since closed beta that the lock on mechanic for both LRM and SSRM is problematic. The majority of variables that make LRMs in particular an effective weapon are outside the control of the pilot firing them. Whether or not the target has a countermeasure or takes cover is entirely up to the target (and all countermeasures are boringly passive things), whether or not the target remains locked is almost entirely up to the teammate that is spotting them, only in limited circumstances will an LRM boat purposely try and achieve their own LoS lock. Most of what an LRM boats actions consist of are "Keep the circle red" and learning not to fire into rocks.

As a result, the power of LRMs swings wildly from game changingly powerful to utterly worthless based on factors that have little to do with the actual pilot using them. The weapon system in it's current form offers a very low skill ceiling to master while providing unreliable performance in a way that no other weapon system does.

As for solutions, I like the idea of indirect fire being something that requires NARC or TAG, that would bring the weapon system in line with the rest of the game.

As an aside, I'd also really love to have a light on light dogfight again that doesn't end in 3 seconds because one of our teams sent in hundreds of indirect fire missiles from 1000m out. I can't remember the last time I had a fun dust up with a scout that didn't end with one of us running away after only a couple pot shots because of missile spam. It makes the game boring.

Edited by Quxudica, 17 July 2014 - 02:52 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Running LRMS is not easy mode in the environment as it stands but I would not change anything. It takes a lot of experience to be effective with them as it should. Its a support weapon before anything else so those who want to buff or nerf are wrong. I know they are in a good place because the hunter/killers are generally right on me shortly into a match. Its one of the true team weapons in the game right now. It can work for the team like no other wep holding assaults at bay or moving them where you want them. With direct fire I can drop an arty behind them then push them back. One of my favorite tactics. You cannot just hop into an lrm boat and get high damage unless its a herd of noobs your up against. Only a 1000 matches will bring you where you need to be. Make sure you run tag with any build too or your useless against skilled players

All the whine and cheese posts mean they are where they should be.

[Malleus011]

I'd really like to see LRMs get a flat-trajectory, high speed firing mode, that has something closer to canon minimum range - they're not useless up close, just not accurate.

The indirect 'lock and arc' mode could be useless under 180. Fine with that.

[Sprouticus]

sneeking, on 16 July 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

too much nerfing already and its small minded, think big buff not nerf.

balance up not down because eventually everything will be equally useless !

these are suposed to be fearsome 31st century war machines.

Balancing up reduces TTK, which can be a problem. TTK is already damn low in this game due to PP FLD. If they got rid of PP FLD then I would totgally support balancing up.

[L A V A]

Carrioncrows, on 16 July 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

There isn't enough cover in the world when your team doesn't have ECM. Huddling around the 1-2 places that offer cover ....

Yep, the problem is cover and the reason the problem is cover is because of the ridiculous terminal dive angles and fantastic turn rates.

I've know a number of really good LRM players... they were almost brawlers! No sitting behind some building asking for locks. They pushed with the rest of us and kicked arse.

Now if you take a position behind your main body and do nothing but wait for someone to provide you with a target... you are taking advantage of this poor design... and are the reason folks want to nerf LRMS.

If, however, you are a really good LRM player and are not afraid to take some hits for the team, then you should be begging PGI to fix the damn missile trajectory and loop de loops the missiles carry out to ensure they hit.

[Alex Warden]

LRMs COULD be one of MWO´s most interesting mechanics... but imho they are just cheaply implemented... i (and others) made a few posts with several ideas how to rework them so that they´d really become an INTERESTING system, but the current indirect-streak-lrm system is not ... you can buff or nerf them as much as you want, they will always be a broken weapon with how they work in MWO... my opinion, and i know that it´s just ONE opinion...

Edited by Alex Warden, 17 July 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[Zervziel]

Just remove all weapons and replace them all with a nerf bat hung between your mech's legs that can only be utilized by hip thrusting at the enemy and thus making things so awkward that they log off.

Seems stupid right? So does almost every "Implement my idea" thread ever

Edited by Zervziel, 17 July 2014 - 07:40 AM.