126 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

I think its pretty fun, and I don't even play dedicated LRM boats.

[Cyberiad]

Reintroduce 8v8 and remove target sharing and you will retain more new players, old players who quit before will come back, matches will be shorter with less hiding behind buildings and more action. I dont see any negative points to lowering drop sizes and removing indirect fire without NARC/TAG/C3.

[Apnu]

Kay Wolf, on 03 November 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

3) Indirect Fire is one of the rules of the tabletop game that should NOT have been transferred directly into the game.

Without indirect fire for LRMs, we'd never see them now that dual gauss & PPC direwhales are seen in every single PUG match.

With the implementation of clan weapons, exposing yourself and waiting forever and a day (because of the LRM lock bug, or the ECM, psych-out bug where you get a lock but have to wait for the tone to confirm it and once the tone happens it disappears) LRM boats would be a joke. We'd get cored waiting for lock and missile travel time -- all while holding out own target locks.

As much as people whine and moan about LRMs, the game's emphasis on pin-point damage, at distances comparable to and exceeding LRMs, make LRMs of the weakest weapon systems in the games. Only small lasers suck less than LRMs. Direct fire weapons are vastly superior to LRMs. Clan weapons more so.

[Mercules]

Silicon Life, on 03 November 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

12 v 12 is not fun.
Free target sharing without need for Narc/TAG/C3 is not fun.
/thread

I find it fun and that is from the perspective of a non-ECM Commando cockpit.


See if you all think I have a horse in this race, I don't. I don't typically run LRM heavy mechs and when I run spotters I do so with TAG and NARC to give them the best shot they might have at landing LRMs.

Silicon Life, on 03 November 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Reintroduce 8v8 and remove target sharing and you will retain more new players, old players who quit before will come back, matches will be shorter with less hiding behind buildings and more action. I dont see any negative points to lowering drop sizes and removing indirect fire without NARC/TAG/C3.

I could go for this. Leave Community Warfare at 12 and make the general queue 8v8.

[Livewyr]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 November 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Then you are not Clanners in the truest sense. Now if YOU killed me at 1,200 Meters while your Star killed everyone else... That's Still Clan.

Perhaps if I was driving a clan mech in the truest sense, fighting I.S. mechs in the truest sense, then I would be fighting in teh truest sense of clan style. (As it is..nope.)

Mercules, on 03 November 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

If this is the issue you would be better off hopping in a Light mech that cruises along fairly fast and go back and teach them the errors of being unsupported artillery with very little means of fighting back in a close up fight. That's what I do instead of trying to Nerf an entire weapon system that is already marginal because I don't like the person's playstyle.

You say "Nerfing." I say "Side-grade."

400m/s makes the missiles actually viable in direct fire and long-range engagements, where they are *not* right now. (As I said, have not died to missiles in a very long time.)

Removing the freebie IDF (Indirect fire) does not mean removing all IDF. It means making the missiles actually need an active spotter to be launching IDF at 400m/s, and gives ECM a purpose without being Null-Sig.

Effect? More effective fire in both IDF and DF capacities.

Nerf? Pfft.

[Joseph Mallan]

Apnu, on 03 November 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Without indirect fire for LRMs, we'd never see them now that dual gauss & PPC direwhales are seen in every single PUG match.

With the implementation of clan weapons, exposing yourself and waiting forever and a day (because of the LRM lock bug, or the ECM, psych-out bug where you get a lock but have to wait for the tone to confirm it and once the tone happens it disappears) LRM boats would be a joke. We'd get cored waiting for lock and missile travel time -- all while holding out own target locks.

As much as people whine and moan about LRMs, the game's emphasis on pin-point damage, at distances comparable to and exceeding LRMs, make LRMs of the weakest weapon systems in the games. Only small lasers suck less than LRMs. Direct fire weapons are vastly superior to LRMs. Clan weapons more so.

back In Closed Beta I used LRMs to counter GaussPults. Working with my Light pilots and Mediums, adding my LRM 40 to the damage they delivered. Worker really well and had me a 2.9 KDr on a Laptop with an average 7FPS. We won a lot back then too!

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Perhaps if I was driving a clan mech in the truest sense, fighting I.S. mechs in the truest sense, then I would be fighting in teh truest sense of clan style. (As it is..nope.)

in the truest sense of the words... I understand and agree.

[Cyberiad]

Apnu, on 03 November 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

Without indirect fire for LRMs, we'd never see them now that dual gauss & PPC direwhales are seen in every single PUG match.

With the implementation of clan weapons, exposing yourself and waiting forever and a day (because of the LRM lock bug, or the ECM, psych-out bug where you get a lock but have to wait for the tone to confirm it and once the tone happens it disappears) LRM boats would be a joke. We'd get cored waiting for lock and missile travel time -- all while holding out own target locks.

As much as people whine and moan about LRMs, the game's emphasis on pin-point damage, at distances comparable to and exceeding LRMs, make LRMs of the weakest weapon systems in the games. Only small lasers suck less than LRMs. Direct fire weapons are vastly superior to LRMs. Clan weapons more so.

If they remove indirect fire for LRMs (without special equipment) it should be along with making ECM reduce targetable range instead of making mechs completely untargetable. This way LRMs will still always be useful but mechs can no longer be targeted and rained on by 12 mechs just from 1 mech spotting it. The problem with LRMs is it's binary nature, either its OP due to target sharing or useless due to ECM. The binary nature needs to be removed and LRMs should always be useful. I'd also argue that in the lore IS LRMs don't have a minimum range but instead are just extremely inaccurate at short ranges. In table top the minimum range is an artifact of tactical turn based games (all fantasy tactical turn based games have a minimum range for archers) and really this doesn't belong in a real-time computer (simulation?) game. Instead I would rather have LRMs just be inaccurate at short ranges such that they can only hit targets that aren't moving but if the target is moving, most of the missiles should miss due to slow tracking, maybe something like full tracking at 180m and 0 tracking at 0m.

Edited by Silicon Life, 03 November 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[Apnu]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 November 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

back In Closed Beta I used LRMs to counter GaussPults. Working with my Light pilots and Mediums, adding my LRM 40 to the damage they delivered. Worker really well and had me a 2.9 KDr on a Laptop with an average 7FPS. We won a lot back then too!

I was also in CB, we didn't have ECM back then. Those K2s were damn annoying! I wasn't running LRMs much then, mostly HBKs. I was very happy when the JM6's came out. I still dislike K2s because of CB. I know why people did it, we had only a few mechs back then, but those things were the kings of cheese.

[Mercules]

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Removing the freebie IDF (Indirect fire) does not mean removing all IDF.

No, but it does make taking LRMs into a PuG queue a "Nope". and since they are typically "Nope" in group queues they just become a "Nope" across the board. 400m/s is still a losing proposition in directed fire since you will have to stare at a target that is twisting the already spreading damage across their torso while they turn back and fire at your stationary CT with gauss/AC/PPC.

The time when LRMs are solid (other than players who walk out into the open for you) is when you are about 200-400 meters from the enemy with the teams ridge humping and you can drop them just over the ridge with short lock ons. Limiting the targeting will remove the only good use of them since you will rarely ever have someone doing that with a tag and holding it there.

[DasSibby]

LRMS are easy mode.

It really is that simple, so easy mode without designated spotters and specialized equipment to hit non-LOS targets? That's UBER easy mode, and that's why so many players hate LRMS. I bust out my LBX-10/3 LRM 5 Centurian, and get generally 1-2 kills, and 500+ damage every game as fire support.

If NARC or TAGs, or maybe even a command module were required to LRM indirect targets... I don't think this would be nearly as much of a contentious issue.

*But seriously guys, ad hominem (personal) attacks are the lowest form of argument. Skill arguments on forums are BS.*

[Apnu]

Silicon Life, on 03 November 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

The binary nature needs to be removed and LRMs should always be useful.

Totally agree. LRMs are feast or famine. That's got to stop.

There are core issues with BT and MWO that need to be addressed. Because of those issues, powergamer players will seek to exploit imbalances and we'll all hang out on the forums complaining about it.

Although countering LRM rain isn't hard. It takes game awareness and positioning.

I rarely die from LRM rain. I don't usually carry ECM or AMS, nor am I usually found on a fast mech. (They're a bit too twitchy for my limited skills). I'm always looking for cover, how I can use it, and how far I am from it. If I'm getting LRMs, I break off and seek cover and wait for the LRMs to stop. Radar Dep. helps, but I don't always run that due to module limitations. Oftentimes my brawlers have Seismic, which I find far more useful for brawling and setting traps, than Radar Dep.

Countering LRMs isn't hard for the solo pug w/out ECM. Because of that I place LRMs at a lower threat level than auto cannons and medium to large lasers, PPCs and gauss rifles. I only consider small lasers lower than LRMs on my mental threat scale.

But anyway, in a perfect world, we'd have some mechs that are LRM focused (say the CPLT-C1) w/out being all LRMs and nothing else (I loathe the CPLT-A1 for that reason). My CPLT-C1, which I love packs 2 LRM15s, 3 MLs and TAG. Its almost the perfect mech for that fire support role. There should be a limit of the number of repeat weapons a mech can carry. I don't mean ghost heat -- that doesn't work right. I mean a system to keep people from building 6 SRM6 boats. But if a mech is, stock, boating a particular weapon (like the HBK-4P), it should have a quirk to boat that one weapon system.

[van Uber]

Livewyr, on 03 November 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

I do not think those things because I think LRMs are broken/OP by any stretch. (It has been a long time since I have died to an LRM boat.) I think so because I don't want players to be encouraged to sit back behind the lines with lazy boats demanding people hit "R" for them.

It encourages bad players using missile boats and dragging down their team.

When I run my Founder Catapult, I always pretend that LRMs have a maximum of 600m range. Tends to earn me a lot more c-bills (and it's a lot more fun too).

[Mercules]

DasSibby, on 03 November 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

LRMS are easy mode.

*But seriously guys, ad hominem (personal) attacks are the lowest form of argument. Skill arguments on forums are BS.*

Irony... a painful mistress.

[AlmightyAeng]

Halcyon201, on 29 October 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

OP post

Our group does this on purpose...hell I even take a TAG or NARC on some of my brawlers to help it along. If you're too busy worrying about missiles, you can't brawl me effectively. Teamwork is OP.

[Jacob Side]

If I die from Lrm rain it's because I screwed up bad. Plain and simple.

Edited by Jacob Side, 03 November 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Jacob Side, on 03 November 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

If I die from Lrm rain it's because I screwed up bad. Plain and simple.

Every once in a while...SOMETIMES...it's because I'm in something fat and slow, and I spawn in the farthest point from the rest of my team, and the enemy lance CLOSEST is rocking LRM's. Sometimes, that just happens, and I can't waddle my butt to cover fast enough

[Jacob Side]

True. On those matches you just have to suck it up and say excrement happens.

[Almond Brown]

CapperDeluxe, on 30 October 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

Personally I'd like to try seeing what would happen if you could only achieve LRM lock on an indirect target via Narc or TAG, otherwise you'd require direct Line Of Sight to the target to lock.

Then maybe later they could add actual C3 hardware which you could optionally install to also have indirect locks without Narc/TAG.

A wonderful thought but it wouldn't fly. Players refuse to take AMS and other various defensive gear because it detracts for their ability to carry more "pew pew, daka daka. Anything that has weight, and offers little without a Team effort (Master/Slave) would just forgo it and LRM's would be shelved in the PUG game.

Now for CW, if it was possible, that would be the best. Teams carrying good Maters/Slave setups would be very difficult to deal with and promote that gears use along with the Defenses required as well.

OR it would just cause more Derp QQ'ing about it, like everything else around here.

[Almond Brown]

Mercules, on 30 October 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Because LRMs are semi-guided and track you. "Why should a tracking munition track my mech?" The question answers itself.

Again... because that is the way the rules are written. Remember, as with any game, if you don't like the rules you don't have to play.

And remember House Rules always take precedence and this is PGI's House.

[Josef Nader]

C3 systems specifically state they don't work for LRM IDF, nor are they neccisary for sharing targeting data. This is a core aspect of the game we are playing. This is a team game. Teamwork will always beat solo skill. Nerfing teamwork by making it nearly impossible for IDF to happen in pugs just so you only die to good, honorable direct fire is dumb.

Edited by Josef Nader, 03 November 2014 - 09:21 AM.