606 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

kamiko kross, on 15 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

But going by what you say you manage in an lrm mech-I must actually be rather good then:) A bad match for me in an lrm mech is at least 400 damage! And that's in the group queue with dedicated ecm mechs.....
But then I'm rarely more than 400m away and usually get my own locks and am usually in LoS. I have tag and narc too....

How many times does it need to be said? It does not mean you are good, it means the enemy are bad at tactical movement.
You know what a bad match is for me with LRM's? 180 damage...all dumbfired. This happened just recently in a match where the enemy team had a lot of ECM.

And honestly, assuming you can aim, if you are getting your own LOS you will do a hell of a lot better with direct-fire weapons. The only good thing about LRM's is indirect-fire, because they suck otherwise.

[Joseph Mallan]

Exodus23, on 08 August 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

As of late, many common direct fire weapons are being nerfed, by speed, damage, or added heat and ghost heat, this has left the untouched LRMs greatly overpowered. When all projectiles have a slow travel speed, and the last buff in LRM speed, it has made it difficult, if not impossible for any direct fire 'Mech to combat against multiple, or even one LRM boat.

This unbalancing has lead to a large number of LRM boating teams in the group queue, and many LRM boats in group queue. This has made any team or player running a direct fire build or brawler an easy target for those who sit behind hills and simply fire rockets when they have a radar lock.

Now, I understand that LRM boats have a purpose, but they should not make up the majority of MWO. Never in lore has any company run with the meaning of only LRMs.

I feel that the way to balance the LRMs would be to either lower the speed on LRMs, or increase heat generated and ghost heat of firing multiple launchers.

If you have any other ideas, feel free to post them here.

The Longbow-12C was fluffed in one of the TROs as being used in Company Strength during the FedCom Civil War. That is 24 LRM20 and 24 LRM15s to rain misery on an enemy force.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 August 2014 - 01:49 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 08 August 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

LRMs in themselves are fine.

If you have issues with LRMs, run an ECM mech, or use cover, or add AMS to your ride, or bring a Radar Deprivation module, or whatever. LRMs are the single most counterable weapon system in MWO right now.

Direct fire beats LRMs in trades by the simple expedient of stepping into cover after each shot, while the LRM carriers see their volleys slam uselessly into terrain.

Brawlers beat LRMs by the simple expedient of using cover to get close. Even with cLRMs, getting close gives the brawler build a decisive edge.

ECM mech, only a select few have that. This would mean only those select mechs are the ones people run, and dear god would that make this game even more boring.

Radar Dep: Sure, but you first have to grind out the 15K GXP and the 6 million cbills to buy the dumb thing, and thats a whole lotta time spent being hammered by LRMs to get that thing.....soo yeah

AMS: Sure, its ok, but it doesnt really stop to much. Plus, you give up other weapons and stuff to mount it, some people im sure dont feel its worth the weight and space. I kinda stopped using it as I noticed it wasnt helping as much as I originally thought.


LRMs need to actually lose lock once your behind cover. They dont, ive been in cover for 10seconds, hugging a mountain side and still getting plastered, with hte missile lock ringing loud and proud as if im out in the open still....

Brawler builds...yeah, if you first survive the **** storm of direct fire, LRMs, light mech harrassment and all that to get close enough to the missile boat. I generally cant even poke out to fire without getting hammered by 4 mechs, let alone move across the map, through the enemy forces to get near an LRM boat...guess its only work for smaller lighter mechs, not really a Warhawk's job...but still...

ofc, the few times I tried to run an LRM boat Warhawk the missiles kept slamming into nothing....which was odd....people seem to hammer me nicely with htem, while my own cant do ****...even with Artemis on them all.

[Wolfways]

LordKnightFandragon, on 15 August 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

ofc, the few times I tried to run an LRM boat Warhawk the missiles kept slamming into nothing....which was odd....people seem to hammer me nicely with htem, while my own cant do ****...even with Artemis on them all.

And the reason isn't obvious?

[wanderer]

LordKnightFandragon, on 15 August 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

LRMs need to actually lose lock once your behind cover. They dont, ive been in cover for 10seconds, hugging a mountain side and still getting plastered, with hte missile lock ringing loud and proud as if im out in the open still....

Protip: You've either been NARCed, there's an active UAV near you or someone else has a clear LOS and is laughing hilariously while you flail and explode. The number of times I've been at about 800m or so flanking some poor guy like you cloaked under ECM while the rain melts in my Kit Fox is plentiful.

Things that SHOULD be fixed about LRMs:
1) NARCs should have a visible HUD indicator to the victim that indeed, they're gonna get it.

2) Fire rate should be reduced, damage increased. This reduces spam by increasing the space between salvos and if done right would eliminate the ultra-annoying LRM-5 barrages from being constant rattle-lock.

Quote

ofc, the few times I tried to run an LRM boat Warhawk the missiles kept slamming into nothing....which was odd....people seem to hammer me nicely with htem, while my own cant do ****...even with Artemis on them all.

Welcome to learning that with a "no-skill" weapon, it does indeed require skill to use well. And the tougher the target, the more skill you need.

[terrycloth]

How the heck do you get dumbfired LRMs to hit anything? I'll be sitting 250m from someone, put my reticle over their CT, fire a medium laser and my LRMs, and the LRMs will happily arc up into the sky over the mech and hit the terrain behind the mech somewhere, or just explode like fireworks at maximum range if they were on higher ground, while the laser carves a little glowy line over their CT.

[Aim64C]

Wolfways, on 11 August 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

You think getting a lock should take longer? (That's all i got from your post. Sorry, could be that i'm just sick of all the nerf LRM posts and i really doubt PGI will ever fix LRM/ECM. These forums are getting too depressing.)

Reduce ammo counts? No. Ammo needs increased/ton for all ammo-based weapons.

If you aren't going to bother to actually read my post, then how, pray tell, can you expect me to take your feedback seriously?

I have said it before and I will say it again - you will never be able to balance Solaris.

Never.

It can't be done.

So that is problem 1 with all of our balance issues. Simply creating a more persistent 'battlefield' (think ARMA3 or Command&Conquer: Renegade) online environment would do wonders for the current game without any changes to how the weapons work or their stats.

What I further suggest with missiles is not that locks "take longer" - but that the number of missiles locked onto the target is based on the amount of time spent to acquire the lock.

A quick lock can be had - but a larger number of missiles will be wasted.

What is also assumed, here, is that missiles are actually useful pieces of military hardware that do their job. IE - they fly in a useful ballistic arc (or, for artemis, a proportional navigation intercept flight - which is a very simple algorithm, actually) and strike the target based on 'cluster roll.'

Unlocked missiles just strike the area where the target was when the missiles were fired.

So you could hold a lock for a single second and fire with 5/15 of your missiles locked - wasting 10 missiles (unless you have Streak LRMs equipped) - or you could hold out until you get closer to 12 or the full 15 before firing.

It makes missiles more about -getting- the lock than about what happens after you let the missiles fly (since the point of missiles is to improve weapon accuracy - it is absolutely ******** to have them be one of the most statistically inaccurate weapons in the game).

See - PGI had missiles 'work' (kinda) back during the closed beta. Missiles flew high and dropped nearly straight down onto the target. Because they didn't incorporate PN into the guidance routines - anything that was moving was almost invincible - but anything standing still would be murdered (since cover was essentially useless).

That was when they changed the flight patterns and also began introducing things like ECM.

While they should have adjusted how missiles fly - they should have also adjusted how 'locks' work. If it takes me 8 seconds to get a full 'lock' on a target using a team-mate's radar contact - it gives the opposing team plenty of time to react to the threat and also makes 'locking' a per-launch event - which means continual streams of LRMs into a target are not as practical.

By upping damage of each missile (to around 2.5 for LRMs using current armor/internal structure numbers) but reducing the ammunition count back down to 100 - it places due pressure on the LRM pilot to conserve ammunition while giving them plenty of firepower to remain valid on the battlefield.

It just changes what it means to use a missile system and what is involved in countering missile platforms. Things like ECM make it more difficult to achieve a lock without being a complete shut-out of them and sensor data. Indirect target locks can still be had - but take longer while being more successful across all environments when time/care is taken. Since locks are per-launch, it makes indirect volleys less frequent.

Countering missiles becomes more about countering/interrupting the lock as opposed to blocking the missiles (although tall enough cover could still block missiles - they shouldn't be magical) or just running like a bat out of hell.

From a direct confrontation standpoint regarding missiles, it allows line of sight to play a greater role into acquisition speed as well as a very easy manner in which to introduce other factors to influence the length of time to achieve a lock and/or the outcome of a cluster roll.

[Wolfways]

Aim64C, on 15 August 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

While they should have adjusted how missiles fly - they should have also adjusted how 'locks' work. If it takes me 8 seconds to get a full 'lock' on a target using a team-mate's radar contact - it gives the opposing team plenty of time to react to the threat and also makes 'locking' a per-launch event - which means continual streams of LRMs into a target are not as practical.

8 seconds. i.e. locks take longer. That's what i was talking about.
Do you mean to also remove the cooldown on launchers? 8 seconds is a long time in combat.

Honestly though, i don't see the point of your idea.
Longer locks - They're long enough already.
Partial missile launches (wasting some missiles) - I'd never fire until a full lock was achieved. LRM's already waste enough missiles.
Less ammo/ton (even with increased damage) - Ammo-based weapons already carry less ammo/ton than they should after PGI took TT stats and increased the match length by at least three times as long.
It gives the opposing team plenty of time to react to the threat - Are you saying the incoming missile warning (which should just be removed imo) warns the target before the missiles fire? People already have time to react to LRM's unless they are running around in the open.

Tbh though i'm not sure why you would want a weapon that currently takes more effort to do well with than the point>click weapons (ELO depending) to be even more difficult to use.

[zortesh]

terrycloth, on 15 August 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

How the heck do you get dumbfired LRMs to hit anything? I'll be sitting 250m from someone, put my reticle over their CT, fire a medium laser and my LRMs, and the LRMs will happily arc up into the sky over the mech and hit the terrain behind the mech somewhere, or just explode like fireworks at maximum range if they were on higher ground, while the laser carves a little glowy line over their CT.

You lead the target... which is fundamentally incompatible wirth being used on the same button click with a laser.

Hitting stuff with dumbfired lrms is not easy and requires much practice to do with any effectiveness... i've legged lights doing it, but thats more them running incredibly perdictible paths then me aiming well.

Namely its best for hitting that ddc you cant narc.

[Wolfways]

terrycloth, on 15 August 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

How the heck do you get dumbfired LRMs to hit anything? I'll be sitting 250m from someone, put my reticle over their CT, fire a medium laser and my LRMs, and the LRMs will happily arc up into the sky over the mech and hit the terrain behind the mech somewhere, or just explode like fireworks at maximum range if they were on higher ground, while the laser carves a little glowy line over their CT.

You need to aim at the ground where you want them to land (the mechs feet). It's pretty much ineffective against anyone but an oblivious Atlas or Direwolf pilot though.

[Aim64C]

Wolfways, on 15 August 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

8 seconds. i.e. locks take longer. That's what i was talking about.
Do you mean to also remove the cooldown on launchers? 8 seconds is a long time in combat.

Honestly though, i don't see the point of your idea.
Longer locks - They're long enough already.
Partial missile launches (wasting some missiles) - I'd never fire until a full lock was achieved. LRM's already waste enough missiles.
Less ammo/ton (even with increased damage) - Ammo-based weapons already carry less ammo/ton than they should after PGI took TT stats and increased the match length by at least three times as long.
It gives the opposing team plenty of time to react to the threat - Are you saying the incoming missile warning (which should just be removed imo) warns the target before the missiles fire? People already have time to react to LRM's unless they are running around in the open.

Tbh though i'm not sure why you would want a weapon that currently takes more effort to do well with than the point>click weapons (ELO depending) to be even more difficult to use.

It's really pointless to respond as you're not actually reading what I have to say.

Which is understandable given your condition.

I'll have to get off of my lazy duff and actually code up the idea and take videos of it before you'll understand, but I'll try.

Each volley is far more effective - more damage and locked missiles are essentially going to hit the target because they will use sensible guidance routines:



Locks would -not- have to be maintained after the launch, and missiles -should- utilize proper ballistics - IE - a proper 'burn' to accelerate followed by a slowing caused by drag (though this introduces some interesting realities for missiles outside of an atmosphere). I would argue that their maximum range should be a product of their ballistics as opposed to a defined maximum range where missiles self-destruct.

This means that time-to-impact would be relatively small. Even at 1000 meters - about 3 seconds is how long it would take if properly simulated.

It should also be noted that you could fire your missiles at any time - it is just whether or not all missiles are locked that is the concern for the pilot.

You would not have to wait eight seconds (which was an arbitrary number) to achieve an indirect lock - it is just that the statistical odds of achieving a lock across all of your battery is expected at 8 seconds. It could occur at 5 seconds - it could take 13. Each missile's lock status is independent of the others. If I begin locking onto a target in the open and it walks behind concealment (but my team still has sensor contact with it) - the remaining unlocked missiles have a reduced statistical odds of achieving a lock on any given sample increment (which I suggested at 100ms - which is forever and a day in the world of computers and sufficient for internet gaming).

If 30/40 of your missiles are locked when that happens - you can still fire - or you can chance losing the contact to try and squeeze the extra 10 missiles into that lock.

When Streak LRMs come along in the future - you'll understand precisely why anyone would bother with Streak LRMs - since only locked missiles would fire from the battery.

And it would also make the Clan ATM that much more sensible of a system to have - since it is essentially Artemis combined with Streak systems (assuming the only ones we bother to include are the iATM - and there is really no reason for it to -not- be the iATM).

[Jon Gotham]

Wolfways, on 15 August 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

How many times does it need to be said? It does not mean you are good, it means the enemy are bad at tactical movement.

Oh I get it now! They are bad at tactical movement where they break my LoS, use terrain and ecm intelligently and I STILL hammer them with lrms! Shooting over said cover, or slightly around it!
the ONLY time I have any issues with using my lrms is with ECM overlap and radar Dep module-that's it. When I'm on direct fire it's a whole lot harder to get into a good firing position......
As for my aiming, I can smack a 152kph light with ease with a gauss rifle and I STILL do better with lrms.
So it's either the weapon or me that's good, and as we both agree it ain't me.....

[Jakob Knight]

kamiko kross, on 15 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. NONE of what you said is "FACT" it's your opinion, just like mine. You came across as quite arrogant in your post my friend, you are not "right" others are not "bad" or "wrong" just because you hold a different viewpoint.

But going by what you say you manage in an lrm mech-I must actually be rather good then:) A bad match for me in an lrm mech is at least 400 damage! And that's in the group queue with dedicated ecm mechs.....
But then I'm rarely more than 400m away and usually get my own locks and am usually in LoS. I have tag and narc too....


I could say like you, I'm done trying to point out the fallacies with the viewpoints defending the lrms completely. I use both direct and indirect weapons,, I know which I have greater success with-I know which is easier to apply more of the time. I don't want to see them nerfed to uselessness as I use them myself! But 3-4 lrmers all targetting one guy from 600m away, behind cover has more of an effect than 3-4 ac users. ALL cover works vs the acs yet only certain cover works vs the lrms. I know this because I use this myself. I shoot over and around cover quite regularly.

But lets agree to disagree with civility yes?

I will agree to disagree civilly any day. However, that is not what we have here. What we have here, and have had since the beginning of the game (I know. I've seen this exact same thread come up time and time again, and it's always the same thing), is that those people who can't accept LRMs as a viable weapon in the game won't accept them until they are removed from play entirely. Not on civil discussion, but on purely 'anyone who disagrees that LRMs are not OP are wrong, no matter what they say'. And yes, that was said in more than just this thread, over the past years.

You say none of what I say is 'fact'. You therefore claim another weapon system has a greater number of counters in the game. You also claim that all maps do not offer cover from LRMs. Very well, Please provide your evidence to these effects.

I also believe any mech killed by LRMs would have died just as fast or faster to massed direct fire from the same mechs with similar class of those weapons. And, those weapons would have done their damage within only a few seconds, not the extended time the LRMs take.

These points have all been made over, and over, and we -still- get people who ignore everything presented to them and believe LRMs should be a non-issue on the battlefield. That mechs such as the Catapult should never be serious threats unless they expose themselves to direct fire....and be at the mercy of the direct-fire mechs they are supposed to be avoiding.

I will, however, propose the following. If people truely don't want LRMs to be able to fire indirectly, then it follows they need to be converted into direct-fire weapons comparable to those they will be facing. That means removal of minimum range, missile speed upgraded to that of autocannon rounds, and damage converted to pinpoint damage. If these are not all acceptable changes, then there is something wrong with the proposals to remove the weapon as an indirect fire weapon, as all of the restrictions on minimum range, slow projectile speed, and spread damage are the direct result of counterbalancing their indirect fire ability.

Yet, no one is ready to accept the above.

This is why I said I am tired of pointing out the obvious time and again. I will readily accept civilized discussion, but not unfounded calls for changes to the game based on nothing but personal preferences. And that is what those on the 'nerf LRMs' side have always relied upon, not reason.

So, please answer the above questions truthfully and completely, and I will accept your reasoning as valid.

Regardless, you may have your opinion and I will accept that. Until you start calling for a change to everyone's game based on that. That is the point where you are obligated to prove the point beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, not just speculation or popular opinion.

If you cannot do that, then let us all let the entire point drop, and end all these threads as pointless. We will agree to disagree and simply walk away from the issue. Sound acceptable?

Edited by Jakob Knight, 15 August 2014 - 09:23 PM.

[Wolfways]

Aim64C, on 15 August 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

It's really pointless to respond as you're not actually reading what I have to say.

I am reading, but maybe i'm missing something because i don't see why you'd think i'm not understanding what you're saying.
I don't see what is wrong with what i wrote in my post you quoted above. Maybe i'm simplifying it too much?

Quote

Which is understandable given your condition.

My condition?

[Wolfways]

kamiko kross, on 15 August 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Oh I get it now! They are bad at tactical movement where they break my LoS, use terrain and ecm intelligently and I STILL hammer them with lrms! Shooting over said cover, or slightly around it!
the ONLY time I have any issues with using my lrms is with ECM overlap and radar Dep module-that's it. When I'm on direct fire it's a whole lot harder to get into a good firing position......
As for my aiming, I can smack a 152kph light with ease with a gauss rifle and I STILL do better with lrms.
So it's either the weapon or me that's good, and as we both agree it ain't me.....

No, it means the enemy players weren't good. Breaking LOS means very little against LRM's. Using terrain as hard cover (hugging it) completely negates LRM's.
I've seen players wandering about in the open thinking they are safe from LRM's because they can easily break LOS. It usually turns out bad for them.

[Kjudoon]

Tonight in Derptown, the Short Bus has let off teams... frequently with 4+ ECM and 14+ AMS.

This is an utter joke proving once and for all IMHO the two systems are broken and OP. The team with superior AMS/ECM always won by a landslide no matter how much direct fire or LRMs was on the other team.

ECM must be limited to 1 per lance on the battlefield or fixed to be a much larger, far heavier piece of equipment, or nerfed back to affecting the mech it is mounted on ONLY.

AMS without fixing its ability to shoot through walls, mountains and other mechs must be nerfed to shoot only at missiles targeting that mech.

I'm watching entire rainbows of fire and explosions over the heads of these mechs where hundreds of missiles a second are being blasted to confetti and not a single missile gets through. A single launcher is a joke! Under 20LRMs a joke! Even 20, you can't use them till the AMS has chattered dry. Where is the defense against ACs and Lasers that does this??? How is this considered "Balanced" or "Working as intended"?

PGI needs to fix this unmitigated and completely preventable disaster of imbalance.

Edited by Kjudoon, 15 August 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

lockwoodx, on 14 August 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

When it comes to soloing, welcome to lurm paradise because you can't rely on a spotter unless you bring your own, can't rely on ECM unless you bring your own, and you can't rely on the maps to provide consistent cover for individuals so without ECM you're SOL sometimes. Players have apologized for "making it rain" usually when the match results in a stomp, but other times in response to backlash as well. You won't see them posting here because they aren't tryhards trying to prove something or waggle peen... they're average joes who know the quickest way to make a cbill, and have received enough flak from others they realize it negatively impacts the community.

Anyways, I'm loving players agreeing with me a 6yr old can easily spam lurms and do well, because it's the truth, and your claim that decent human beings are those who group is laughable at best, pathetic overall. There's plenty of decent people left in MWO if you don't look down upon them from your ivory tower of elitism. It's attitudes like yours that are dragging this community through the mud with your vain attempts to force everyone to conform to a style of gameplay you deem acceptable when the majority of the game thinks there's a problem. I've been as flexible as I can, compromising to the point my only humble request of PGI is to fix the broken maps so cover works and missiles don't clip through terrain but that's not good enough for jar heads with tunnel vision who feel this game should be a military simulation.

I know you're above soloing like some sort of elitist, but give it a try some night and play enough matches you'll see all sorts of things. I just provide observations in the form of anecdotes because PGI doesn't like it when I provide the damning proof in the form of screenshots.

Wait, when on earth did I say that decent players are only those that group??? You need to seriously give me some of whatever it is you're smoking.

I said decent human being play on my teams. No wehre in there did I say they group dropped with me. I do solo drop a lot in fact. Seriously, either check facts, or stop posting crazy conspiracy theories.

It's minds like yours that are actually dragging this community down. Too many electrons have been wasted trying to fix a mistake you made by:
1- Not reading properly
2- Assuming weird things about people without understanding the context of their statements.

kamiko kross, on 14 August 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

*sidenote*
Some of the comments from people in this thread proclaiming those that get lrmed to be either skill-less or noobs......really? Often you can just be the one that gets singled out and have no suitable cover to hand.Hint:It ain't the latter.

See, the problem is that THOSE players, wouldn't complain about LRMs, they already know how to counter them, and realize where the mistake happened. The ones that keep complaining are usually the ones that keep repeating the exact same mistake day in day out, and that's why the skill argument is there.

Talsha, on 14 August 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Did anyone ever actually test AMS against CLRM and ISLRM?
Now with the private matches one should be able to set it up right?
Situations like LRM20, LRM40 vs different clusters of AMS aso...
Also the modules would be nice...
Hmm I would feel tempted to activate my 61 days just to set such a test up with a few other premiums

Looking look up the AMS threads, testing has been done. Clan LRMs suck against AMS, regardless of launcher, the IS LRMs are always better.

DaRkInLiGhT, on 14 August 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

irrelevant, with how many clerms the opposing side typically has and how much ammo they typically pack that matters little.

No, it's not. It's even more important the more LRMs they have. You are reducing their damage by a massive chunk, instead of getting killed by that extra 400+ damage you stopped.

[DaRkInLiGhT]

Wolfways, on 15 August 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

I have no idea what happens in your games but River City is nothing but cover except for the water, and it's easy to move around Tourmaline Desert because of the huge crystals.
The only mechs that can get to you fast are lights, and if they're killing you it has nothing to do with LRM's...or shouldn't have if you're using cover.

-__- # ..your like talking to a brick wall, never mind.

[Jon Gotham]

Wolfways, on 15 August 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

No, it means the enemy players weren't good. Breaking LOS means very little against LRM's. Using terrain as hard cover (hugging it) completely negates LRM's.
I've seen players wandering about in the open thinking they are safe from LRM's because they can easily break LOS. It usually turns out bad for them.

Glad you cleared that up then! I must face nothing but the dregs when I climb into my lrm mechs! I'd best keep spamming them then!

As DaRkInLiGhT said, it's like talking to a brick wall. People either CAN'T see, or more likely WON'T see. How come some of us, who use both types of weapons and equal amount can see the difference?
If the players I face when I play lrms are so bad, how come they only come out to play when I load up on lrms? Where do they go when I play direct fire?

Who knows, but I think I may have discovered a phenomenon! Here's to science!

I think it's pointless trying to discuss this. I can see the pro lrms point, but they can't/won't see mine. Blinkers surgically grafted on methinks.

[Kahoumono]

Seems like a waste of time discussing cause no one is listening and we just end up arguing amongst ourselves. Efficiency in boating any weapon type is the key problem of this game. Any single weapon on its own is nearly useless, you need at least 2+ to be effective in most cases. There in lies the problem, you nerf LRMs and the next boated weapon type becomes in vogue. It is just a vicious cycle of correction and the root of the problem is never fixed. We have seen this cycle before, streaks, srms, ppc/lasers, lrms, ac and back to lrms again...in some order like that.

The easiest fix for boating weapon should be diminishing returns. If the 3rd and 4th lrm launcher/ppc/laser you fired as a group within a 2-5 second interval is less effective you'll promote people to put another weapon in its place. The tipping point for each weapon will be different of course.

Diminishing returns cannot be the only adjustment either, there needs to be real heat penalties. The people want to talk about this game as the thinking man's game but there isn't much thinking involved with one button alphas. Ghost heat for the madness that it is did alleviate the problem a little. There needs to be real penalties for running hot, simply shutting down is not much of a penalty. Mechs should slow when then run hot, possible have a flickering/disappearing hud/reticle, or random weapon fire delay. This will force people to fight smarter and prolong fights which will be more intense. This may drive some players away but I honestly think it'll be for the better. Also it would be easy to promote different mechs if some were better at running hot...say mediums and some lights.