63 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Ph30nix, on 27 August 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Not saying LRM's are OP or anything, but in the right situation they are a death sentence to their target.

Dont know about anyone else but im kinda tired of being behind cover, not in the open at all, but all of a sudden have a UAV pop up, or a spotter and next thign i know i have about 100+lrm's raining down on me non stop and there is nothing i can do about it.

It is past time to remove the linked target lock ability we currently have, let people target from an allys info but do not allow missle locks. With all the clan mechs running around there are almost always a few mechs carrying lrms in a match. Sometimes ALOT of mechs are carrying LRM's.

Before someone says L2P or use cover, realize the only perfect cover from LRM's is when you have a roof over your head. Any other cover there is almost always an angle that a launcher can hit you from. Yes some angles are obvious but sometimes all it takes is a few degrees to the side.

Require special equipment to achieve locks from allys targets if you want but the system of not requiring anything has got to go.

Sure. First remove AMS and ECM then increase LRM speed to 600m/s, halve the spread and I'll consider it.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 August 2014 - 08:49 PM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Ph30nix, on 27 August 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

It is past time to remove the linked target lock ability we currently have, let people target from an allys info but do not allow missle locks.

Require special equipment to achieve locks from allys targets if you want but the system of not requiring anything has got to go.

As somebody who has an LRM-10 or 15 on pretty much every mech I own, I am actually in favor of this. So much so, this comes as a slap to the forehead moment, and "why didn't I think of that" sort of feeling.

BTW, the "special equipment" is called a TAG laser, which occupies an energy weapon slot. That being said I also never take out LRM's without a TAG laser as well.

I don't use my LRM's as a primary weapon. To me they work great as a way to make the enemy go away and dive for cover, and occasionally I can participate in a battle that I cannot see while I am capping a flag point, or even to just fire up and over friendlies in the way.

I will add to this for what I think now would be a good weapon balance to make LRM's less cheesy and more player skill based.

1. Yes, you can lock onto a target you have line of sight to, and that icon is available to your whole team so they can know where he is.

2. Only targets that have been hit by a TAG laser can get a radar lock when you don't have line of sight.

3. ECM is powerful, but really it is hurts LRM's the most. Give LRM's a direct fire, non-lock on mode. It is known as "beam rider guidance" in military terminology, while right now LRM's are "fire and forget guidance". LRM's don't arc into the air, but instead fly straight out and chase your crosshairs ala TOW missiles from Battlefield, or the RPG from the Half-Life games. You aim it yourself, and no lock on needed. This might be pretty interesting as the firing mech would need to stand out exposed while your missiles take their sweet, slow time to reach the enemy.

I really think this is a better scheme.

[Ph30nix]

Kjudoon, on 27 August 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

Sure. First remove AMS and ECM then increase LRM speed to 600m/s, halve the spread and I'll consider it.

you are going way to extreme, but once they remove linked targeted i fully agree other tweaks are needed.
This would be step one.
step 2 is alter ECM to no longer be the god shield it currently is.
step 3 would be to then start tweaking LRM's themselves a speed boost wouldnt be out of the question, they are currently only so slow because since its so easy to get a lock on someone people have to be given time to get the hell out of the way.

[Fut]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 August 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

True. But whilst I am no "LRMS OP QQ!!!" poster, massed Gauss, etc all require Line of Sight. I think Phoenix may have a point about the interconnected targeting (aka C3 from Battletech?) Without Narc or TAG, one should be able to do indirect fire, but with MUCH reduced efficacy and accuracy.

What's the highest accuracy somebody has achieved with LRMs at this point ~ 40%? When I LRM, It's as a skirmisher, self-TAG'n my targets, and I'm at 32% Accuracy.

How much less accurate would you want them to be?

[nehebkau]

I think what you may be seeing is a benefit from a chaining the target lock time module between mechs.

[Kalimaster]

Maybe the solution would be to have maps where we can get into buildings as cover. Simple solution to the problem.

[Graugger]

Escef, on 27 August 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

If you were behind proper cover those LRMs wouldn't be hitting you. Also, take note of where the LRMs are coming from (the red flashes on the sides/top/bottom of your HUD indicate this), you may have cover from part of the enemy force, but are wide open to LRMs from every other angle. I know this is going to sound crazy, but people that know how to use LRMs don't just camp behind their main force, many can and will flank to get an angle on you.

Proper cover, like most of the maps have "proper" cover, they're designed by PGI for crying out loud. What the world have you been smoking?

[stjobe]

I get killed by LRMs sometimes.

That's invariably a direct result of me doing something stupid, being caught in a bad place, or being outplayed.

More to the point, the times I'm killed by LRMs are far outnumbered by the times I'm killed by direct-fire. Usually a PPC+AC combo, but lately also often a hilarious amount of massed Clan lasers.

[Bishop Steiner]

Fut, on 28 August 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

What's the highest accuracy somebody has achieved with LRMs at this point ~ 40%? When I LRM, It's as a skirmisher, self-TAG'n my targets, and I'm at 32% Accuracy.

How much less accurate would you want them to be?

for indirect fire? Minus NARC or TAG, on a moving target, a fair bit. Not talking about hit% but the actual spread and number of Missiles that hit.

Right now, we feed targeting telemetry exactly like the C3 computer. Without having 1 ton slave units, or the 5 ton master (and for 12 man, the 10 ton overseer). That is just plain and simple, BS.

When NARC'd or TAG'd or you have your own telemetry feed, I am all for accuracy. But that is the one area that LRMs are buffed beyond where they should be. And if they better defined the differences, not only does that enhance the value of TAG and NARC (which should also get higher rewards, IMO) and make c3 viable again (otherwise what...the c3 will speed up your projectile, like their "brilliant" TC design idea?) but it would probably allow for some overall buffs to LRMs, like higher projectile speed.
In the Btech universe, Mechs don't share targeting feeds. (without c3). They should not here, either.

[Kjudoon]

Ph30nix, on 28 August 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

you are going way to extreme, but once they remove linked targeted i fully agree other tweaks are needed.
This would be step one.
step 2 is alter ECM to no longer be the god shield it currently is.
step 3 would be to then start tweaking LRM's themselves a speed boost wouldnt be out of the question, they are currently only so slow because since its so easy to get a lock on someone people have to be given time to get the hell out of the way.

You want to get rid of THE second most important aspect of LRMs and I'm being to extreme putting them on par with ACs? Why not get rid of indirect fire all together? Turn LRMs into nothing more than Streaks?

Edited by Kjudoon, 29 August 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[topgun505]

Let's break that down shall we?

Average pilot gunner is a 3 (leaning to the optimistic side and saying we are all better than average shots).
Let's say the LRM unit was merely walking. +1 on the to-hit roll.
Let's say the target was at medium range, +2 on the to-hit roll.
Let's say the spotter was also just walking +1 on the to-hit roll.
+1 on the to-hit roll for the indirect shot.
Let's say the target wasn't moving very much, +1 on the to-hit roll.
Spotting unit makes an attack within that 10 seconds. +1 on the to-hit roll.

So this is a relatively 'easy' shot for an indirect ... and you need a 9 on 2d6. That's what, around a 27% chance of a hit?

Here in MWO. If a target is being painted by sensors ... from anyone friendly ... you have a 100% to get a shot off.

Between that and the fact that nearly 100% of any missile volley will hit the target as long as you keep lock ... these are some of the reasons why LRMs can be a terror. LRMs were balanced in TT by the fact that a large portion of a rack still miss the target even after you nailed the to-hit roll. So a LRM-40 Catapult, for example, would hit you with an average of around 24 LRMs even if both racks hit you. AND that damage was spread all over ... which is not what we see in MWO as well which tends to focus on only 1 location and maybe the adjacent location.

Bottom line ... LRM spread needs increased ... to the point that some portion of the rack still misses the target. And indirect should probably be limited to direct sensor lock modes such as TAG/NARC/UAV. This is one area where MWO by defintion MUST deviate from TT in order to remain balanced.

stjobe, on 27 August 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

LRMs could be indirectly fired without C3, without Narc, without TAG:


(Total Warfare, p. 111)

And as for C3, we have free C3 and more in MWO already.

Edited by topgun505, 30 August 2014 - 06:20 AM.

[Escef]

topgun505, on 30 August 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's break that down shall we?

Average pilot gunner is a 3 (leaning to the optimistic side and saying we are all better than average shots).
Let's say the LRM unit was merely walking. +1 on the to-hit roll.
Let's say the target was at medium range, +2 on the to-hit roll.
Let's say the spotter was also just walking +1 on the to-hit roll.
+1 on the to-hit roll for the indirect shot.
Let's say the target wasn't moving very much, +1 on the to-hit roll.
Spotting unit makes an attack within that 10 seconds. +1 on the to-hit roll.

So this is a relatively 'easy' shot for an indirect ... and you need a 9 on 2d6. That's what, around a 27% chance of a hit?

Here in MWO. If a target is being painted by sensors ... from anyone friendly ... you have a 100% to get a shot off.

There's a huge difference between "getting a shot off" and getting that shot to connect. My accuracy with LRMs varies from the high 20s to mid 30s percentage wise (with a weird outlier of almost 40% for the Inner Sphere LRM5.)

I might recommend you check your own stats to see where they fall.

[C0VVB3LL]

Lyoto Machida, on 27 August 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Get rid of the locked links ASAP...would help role warfare dramatically. Or at least no indirect LRM fire without NARC/TAG/UAV.

If PGI does something about this, it will probably in 2017 or 2018 (after CW Phase 11: Decals).

I nominate this for post of the week!
Do we even have one of those?

[Wolfways]

Ph30nix, on 27 August 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Before someone says L2P or use cover, realize the only perfect cover from LRM's is when you have a roof over your head. Any other cover there is almost always an angle that a launcher can hit you from. Yes some angles are obvious but sometimes all it takes is a few degrees to the side.

So nerf LRM's because someone else has better positional awareness than you?

If the enemy team are spread out that much it should have been easy for your team to pick them off one by one.

[Wolfways]

Willard Phule, on 27 August 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

simply changing the trajectory would go a LONG way toward fixing the problem. As it stands now, LRMs always...ALWAYS...arc up and come down. If they were closer to a straight line, then indirect fire would take a hit.

In short...remove indirect-fire.

Quote

I don't know how it is in the group queue or at the top tier Elo brackets you guys play at, but down in the Derp Dungeon of the Solo queue, our biggest problem are the LRM boats that absolutely require teammates to get and hold locks for them. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not about to just stand in the open and hold locks so they can spam the air. The learning curve down here is pretty steep.

I only play solo and I'm not high ELO, and LRM's are the least of my worries. Every map except Alpine has lots of cover and i have no trouble moving around the map.
If someone wants to use my locks to fire LRM's then fine, but I'm not going to risk myself for the chance of a teammate doing minimal damage with LRM's.

[wanderer]

Ph30nix, on 27 August 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Not saying LRM's are OP or anything, but in the right situation they are a death sentence to their target.

Dont know about anyone else but im kinda tired of being behind cover, not in the open at all, but all of a sudden have a UAV pop up, or a spotter and next thign i know i have about 100+lrm's raining down on me non stop and there is nothing i can do about it.

It is past time to remove the linked target lock ability we currently have, let people target from an allys info but do not allow missle locks. With all the clan mechs running around there are almost always a few mechs carrying lrms in a match. Sometimes ALOT of mechs are carrying LRM's.

Before someone says L2P or use cover, realize the only perfect cover from LRM's is when you have a roof over your head. Any other cover there is almost always an angle that a launcher can hit you from. Yes some angles are obvious but sometimes all it takes is a few degrees to the side.

Require special equipment to achieve locks from allys targets if you want but the system of not requiring anything has got to go.

In Battletech, a single man with a walkie-talkie can call in LRMs.

Doing it with the equipment on a 'Mech or UAV link is trivial.

No.

Reduce shake from hits. Increase reload times, but -also- increase damage. LRM spam is the big problem here.

And FFS, start treating NOT bringing AMS to a match like the dumb move it is. ECM or AMS. If they aren't bringing those, call people out on it. They're the ones making your team increasingly vulnerable to LRMs, especially Clan launchers.

[Wolfways]

Ph30nix, on 28 August 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

you are going way to extreme, but once they remove linked targeted i fully agree other tweaks are needed.
This would be step one.
step 2 is alter ECM to no longer be the god shield it currently is.
step 3 would be to then start tweaking LRM's themselves a speed boost wouldnt be out of the question, they are currently only so slow because since its so easy to get a lock on someone people have to be given time to get the hell out of the way.

Why should people be given a chance to get out of the way? You don't get that option with AC's, PPC's, or any other weapon, yet it's fair for a weapon that spreads the damage all over and already cannot be used in its intended role (i.e. low damage, long range) due to the incoming missile warning?

[InspectorG]

Biggest Salami, on 27 August 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

MTE. Sadly, when situations aren't ideal or you make a mistake, it will be a death sentence in a match. That's kind of how it works; someone has to be the loser and die, and while it sucks when it's you, it's just part of the game.

AKA: Learning can be painful.

[InspectorG]

wanderer, on 30 August 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

In Battletech, a single man with a walkie-talkie can call in LRMs.

Doing it with the equipment on a 'Mech or UAV link is trivial.

No.

Reduce shake from hits. Increase reload times, but -also- increase damage. LRM spam is the big problem here.

And FFS, start treating NOT bringing AMS to a match like the dumb move it is. ECM or AMS. If they aren't bringing those, call people out on it. They're the ones making your team increasingly vulnerable to LRMs, especially Clan launchers.

Agree with the LRM change.

Disagree on the AMS, its a waste of tonnage(maybe not for assaults). I would rather have more weapon/ammo or engine/cooling.

ECM needs fixed but people shouldnt count on others to bring it. Only a (rightfully so) handful of mechs can use it and its the closest thing to role-warfare we have(light pilots).
If someone REALLY wants ECM, they can bring their own. Its annoying when im running lights and people complain i didnt bring an ECM. Ill complain they didnt bring an Atlas DDC. They have nothing to say after that. Mind you, team/comp play is different and ill bring it if my team wants. Pugland? Get your own.

[stjobe]

InspectorG, on 30 August 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Disagree on the AMS, its a waste of tonnage

That attitude is why we still have people complaining about getting killed by LRMs.

If not for yourself, take it to help your team.