40 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Reitrix, on 01 November 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Spotting for LRMs should require TAG.

Spotting for Missiles/Arty only needs a map/radio/and anyone but a Marine Lieutenant to call a grid! You yunguns and your silly laser pointers!

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Reitrix, on 01 November 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Simple solutions.
Make ECM only double LRM lock time (increase the base lock time by 1~ second also)
Remove the ECM stealth. Basically make it like what happens when you drop a UAV above an ECM covered team, you can still LRM them, but the lock takes a while.

When thats done, TAG required on target to get an indirect lock.

If you're in view of 5 mechs with LRMs, they deserve the kill.
If you're in view of an ECM Raven at maximum Sensor range (All sensor boosts involved, i think its 1250 range) You aren't going to get any indirect locks.
But if that Raven snuck up and TAGged you, Expect LRMs in your face,

plx stop trying to pigeon hole indirect lrm fire into a tag/narc only affair. LRMS are bad weapons and are not present in high level games.

this is the real problem lrms are broken but not in the way you are talking about.

lrms are noob hunting weapons and only "really good" on maps like caustic when the enemy team doesnt have a good plan.

lrms already require teamwork to work properly i can say this from experience.

every lrm boat ive ever made has had to be a dedicated lrm mech because of how crappy lrms really are no other weapon system has to be boated in such massive amounts as lrms to be effective. im spamming LRM 50's from my stormcrow that in TT would reck anything that took more then a few salvos and in MWO i regularly spam 5+ in to a light and still barely manage to hit him with even 1/10 of those missles. im shooting more missles then he has hitpoints but lrms still dont kill hiim.

even with IS lrms in a battlemaster/stalker you have to often unload 400+ rounds of ammo just to take down an atlas or take a torso off and easily 3 times that if he has any cover or if i lose locks thats 8 salvos from a lrm 50 boat. It does not take me 8 shots of dual gauss to bring someone down. I can do it in 2 optimally and usually less then 5 even if im not hitting the same spot.

being 100% honest with you, if im taking ac5's i want at least 2 tons of ammo per gun maybe 3, gauss i like 3-4 tons per gun, ac20/10 3-4 tons per gun, ultra 5's 3-4 tons per gun ac2's 2-3 tons per gun. nice and even across almost all AC's.

when i think of LRMS it doesnt matter what size launcher there really is only two options.

A am i taking 1-2 lrms for some small support fire? yes? then 2-3 tons per launcher and im not expecting that to last long or even hit half the time, its just to suppress the enemy with bitchin betty.

am i taking a lrm boat out for a spin? IE 3 launchers or more or 2 big launchers with some backup? yes? then 7 tons of lrm ammo minimum period preferably 11-13 tons just to make sure i have enough.

my lrm 50 orion (2x 10, 2x 15+art) has 11 tons of ammo. has 1 ml backup

my lrm 50 (same) battlemaster has 12 tons of ammo and can fire almost the whole match, missing or hitting im letting the arrows rain for my team. has 3 ml backup

my 4x lrm 5+art griffin has 11 tons of ammo no backup weapon

my 4x lrm 5 shadowhawk has 12.5 tons of ammo and regularly can use it all. 1 ml backup

all of them rock bap and max JJ when applicable.

my ilya has 9 tons of ultra 5 divided amongst 3 ultra 5's

my dual gauss phract has 8 tons of ammo for 2 gauss

my dual ac20 pult has 7 tons for 2 AC20's

notice the pattern? other weapons yes you pack that ammo in so you can make up for missed shots. but LRMS you freaking PACK THAT AMMO IN. ive used as much as 15 tons of lrm ammo AND USED IT ALL. ive broken 1500 damage with lrms but really thats inflated because your peppering the enemy to death rather then executing them with a swift and precise anti-material round to the face.

lrm boats performance is entirely based off their spotters already. no good pilot uses lrms to face tank the enemy over open terrain. why? because you will get face stomped if you actually stand in the open at the wrong time.

there is no real way to make lrms competitive with direct fire weapons without creating an arms race of direct fire weapons which is a bad thing we dont need more of the same kind of weapons.

lrm's shouldnt have to be boated to be useful, lrms shouldnt be subjected to hard counters like ECM/radar dep/radar decay.

ECM should counter BAP+ART and thats already good enough because its a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that counters another 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment AND it counters ART lockon times, which is on average an extra 3-5 slots and tons of equipment on an lrm mech.

so ECM already counters 2 kinds of equipment PER MECH for 1.5 tons and 2 slots. that is more then balanced and still leaves people the incentive to use ECM because its small and it negates lrm mechs EQ advantage but it doesnt STOP you from using them ENTIRELY.

if ECM is allowed then i want blue light shield so i can take half damage from ppcs, i want armor types so i can have AC resistant armor and i want stealth armor plus thermo-optic camo so that i can be totally untargetable and untraceable except by eye.

but right now ECM is an angel ECM suite (which is a much bigger and heavier piece of equipment in TT) and stealth armor rolled into one sexy package with a few more perks then that (sheilding your team on top of you).

straight up what should happen a ground up rework of ECM/BAP/ART/the badly envisioned modules/LRMS as a whole the shake needs to go its just stupid that tiny missles shake a 100 ton mech, the flashy flash needs to be toned down across the board for all weapons not just lrms.

lrms need to be uniqe and useful without needing to dedicate your whole mech to lrm boating. right now it is profitable to farm the nubs with lrm boats thats why we see alot of them. its also profitable to narc/uav/spot thats why we see lrm boats decimating teams because their spotters are doing it right.

and no ecm should not make target locks take longer again we shouldnt have a hard counter to one weapon system unless there are hard counters to all weapon systems.

(my ac2's cry in a corner)

Edited by Mellifluer, 01 November 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[Hrothgarr]

I play LRMs a lot, it is one of my favorite builds. Like every flavor of build it has its good times and its bad times. Over all it is VERY hot or cold. In some matches I can do 600-800 damage and 5-6 kills, but more often a winning match looks like 200-300 damage and 7-8 assists. In my battalion of the Skjaldborg we have a couple of people that will run LRM with me, even then it's far for an autowin.

Also, very rarely are we hanging out at spawn point. To be effective as an LRM boat you do need to be mobile. If lrm boats are stationary then a wolfpack of lights can eat them for lunch (my other favorite build is part of said wolfpack).

Lrm's are pretty decently balanced right now. Yes, there are times where all hell is raining down on you (or me) and it sucks. There are times when you feel like not a damn thing can be done about LRM's. I get it! I have those frustrations as well very often. There are many ways in game of negating LRMs already (ECM, Cover, Radar Dep, AMS)

As far as the line of sight issue goes, look at the GPS abilities we currently have, we can track things down to the meter. Now fast forward in time and technology to MWO time frame, don't you think that the ability to transmit those locations in real time would exist? Did something happen that caused a regression in technology? No? Then using someones LOS and computing power of their mech for targeting seems like a realistic tech.

[Reitrix]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 November 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Spotting for Missiles/Arty only needs a map/radio/and anyone but a Marine Lieutenant to call a grid! You yunguns and your silly laser pointers!

Well, i think its a fair assessment to call all of that Target Acquisition Gear too!

[Reitrix]

Mellifluer, on 01 November 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

Snipped. lol.

Where to begin, good lord.

Well, lets start with why LRMs are not present in high level play:
-full unit teams will prefer direct fire, since being able to plant 30 - 60 damage into a single pixel is 'more effective' than splattering it all over the target.
-full unit teams will be running meta builds and focus firing firing all of that pinpoint damage into one mech at a time.
-full unit teams are on comms, move as a pack, keep to cover at all times (including ye olde ridgehumppeeknshoot playstyles)
-full unit teams will push aggressively into a team that carries a lot of LRMs. (PuGs run and hide)

And there you have the reason why LRMs are missing from the 'competitive' scene. When you have 24 people actively doing EVERYTHING that counters a certain weapon system, it's going to pretty useless.

Right now, LRMs are extremely feast or famine, due to whether or not the other team has ECM.

The reason ECM is so powerful against LRMs is exactly because it takes only one guy in any 'Mech on your team, anywhere on the map to lock onto a red blip to cause the skies to fill with LRMs.

Requiring TAG to get Indirect Locks on a target would give meaning to the TAG system outside of "it cuts through ECM, thats its sole purpose in life".
It also keeps LRM heavy teams from huddling in a corner and firing mass missiles at something whenever someone on their team hits R.

The reason LRMs keep getting shafted is primarily because of the supreme ease of getting a Lock and firing.
If your team required a dedicated TAG/NARC Spotter in order to give anyone an Indirect Lock, PGi would be able to make LRMs better in direct fire engagements without needing to panic about making it OP because of that ease of indirect fire we currently have.

I can't see that as being anything other than a buff for the weapon.

Lastly, the final thing 'wrong' with LRMs is the maps themselves. They are far too small, with far too many wide open spaces.

[Variant1]

This seems like a pretty good suggestion, perhaps with these 2 modes of attack should have a button to switch between either firing directly (low arc, line of sight) or indirect (tag/narc spot only). The direct fire(line of sight) would have to deal full dmg and bonus if using tag/narc, while the indirect would only do 0.5 dmg per missile. Indirectly firing would have to award both spotting credits for the spotter and fire support credits for the one firing indirectly.

That way in oder for you're suggestion to work both play styles would be rewarded the full dmg for direct fire, and extra c-bill reward for indirect fire but at the cost of dmg since it shoots over hills.
One of the things also would need to be changed is that the min range for direct fire would have to be removed since direct fire would prevent shooting over hills.

Overall OP made a good suggestion to get lights more involved and lrms to be more team dependent rather than pug stompingly broken. Perhaps removing radar dep would also help afterwards.

[-Halcyon-]

Mellifluer, on 01 November 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

LRMS are bad weapons and are not present in high level games.

Not every game is a "high level" game. Plenty of PUG matches where everyone takes LRMs because they know red boxes will pop up frequently.
Even if something is bad, 80+ of something will still do tons of damage.

For the 3rd time, this thread isn't about the state of LRMs. It's about shared targeting mechanics and indirect fire.

Hrothgarr, on 01 November 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Now fast forward in time and technology to MWO time frame, don't you think that the ability to transmit those locations in real time would exist?

You're talking about lore and TT, which I specifically said I wanted to avoid comparisons to for the sake of balancing a board game vs a computer game.

I'm sure in the lore mechs weren't storing ammunition in their feet, but magically we can do it in MWO.
There is a line between realism and balanced gameplay for the purpose of fun.

[-Halcyon-]

Variant1, on 01 November 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Perhaps removing radar dep would also help afterwards.

Having it would be redundant since losing LoS would lose the lock.

[-Halcyon-]

I imaged this would have been a hotter topic.

[Thunder Child]

Personally, I would love the ability to "lob" LRMs without needing a spotter. I don't know how they would program it. Maybe a charge up like the Gauss, or a top down view like in WoTs, but I would love to be able to fire my weapons without having to rely on someone else. I don't need anyone else to help me fire my Dual Gauss. I don't need anyone else to help me fire my Quad LLs. So why should I NEED anyone else to fire LRMs, if I am running them.

Sure, having Narc/TAG Allows for Indirect TRACKING of a target. But why not allow the ability to BlindFire over hills too. Make it semi-skillful, like a Charge up Mortar mechanic, or something.

Edit: Oh, and when I do run one of my two LRM boats (which is very rarely, as PP FLD works much better), I'm usually self Spotting, or second line, within 300m of the fight.

Edited by Thunder Child, 01 November 2014 - 11:47 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Halcyon201, on 01 November 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Again, I never said LRMs were OP or suggested removing indirect fire. I made my suggestion crystal clear and still people keep bringing up OP and things I never said.
I said change the mechanics of indirect fire, of which I gave two possible alternate methods if the main method at the top of the post wasn't used.

Right. A set of coordinates. And then all 80+ missiles magically track the target even if it moved?
That's unbalanced game play. Now if the spotter was using TAG, that information would constantly update to the firing mechs, and the missiles would hit the target.

Oh boy. I never said "nerf LRMs". In fact, I said if indirect spotting mechanics were changed to increase LRM range to cover entire maps. That's a buff, not a nerf.

1.) If LRMs aren't overpowered, why make the change? Because you don't like the way they work? Other people do, so why make the effort to change it without a clear need?

2.) Who are all these LRM gods that stand 1000m away, lock the red triangle and consistently get 3+ kills per match and 1000+ damage, without moving from base? I find LRMs are only consistently useful/ reasonably accurate at <600m, whether indirect or direct fired. LRM mechs to me, are most useful as second line mechs that follow a bit behind the main firing line. Given that they actually do little practical damage due to spread (time-to-kill is quite poor with LRMs), the ability to indirectly fire is at this point their biggest advantage (+/- screen shake which probably should be toned down).

Making them rely on other spotters makes that unreliable in most instance, and direct fire still requires one to stare down the target for significant lengths of time, more so than any other class of weapon. Aside from the inherent vulnerability that confers, what happens in your proposal if, say, the target pops behind a rock? Lock is lost, the missiles now are useless, allowing the target to pop back out and fire back with impunity? Even if one can re-acquire lock with resumption of LOS, you're still not providing any reason to take LRMs over, say, an AC.

Basically you want to make LRMs either a totally team based firing system requiring multiple mech setups (and one barely worth the effort against another organized team using direct fire weapons), or a direct fire system that fires low damage projectiles spread all over a mech and which does not allow torso twisting to mitigate return fire. Where is the honey to go with the stick? You're talking about making LRMs pretty much pointless in all levels of play.

3.) Making LRMs with no max. range is a gimmick bonus that will have no practical effect. Accuracy beyond 1000m, even with narc, will be in the single digit percentage range against any player that has not disconnected. Add to that the it would require guiding missiles for many seconds to hit with even a single volley, and you're talking about a really, really useless addition.

4.) I can understand your though processes in wanting to change the weapon (it DOES make sense that indirect lock would require some sustained tracking info from some source). However, LRMs are very clearly NOT a very efficient weapons system at the moment, even when used effectively against bad players that can't get themselves out of the firing line. If you want to make them direct fire only, start by doubling the weapon damage and possibly increasing the speed. If someone takes the risk of locking you with direct LOS LRMs, then the payoff needs to be worth the risk, same as for any direct fire weapon system. In other words, an LRM20 rack ought to be nearly as fearsome as an AC20.

[Mercules]

Halcyon201, on 01 November 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

I don't know why people automatically talk about LRMs being overpowered when I suggest shared targeting changes.
I never said LRMs were overpowered. I didn't bring up any of their damage or velocity data in my post.

Because LRMs are pretty crappy as weapons. What you propose specifically makes them even worse. Ergo it would horribly unbalance them. So we go, "No... bad puppy... no make horrible weapon WORSE".

[-Halcyon-]

Praehotec8, on 01 November 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:

1.) If LRMs aren't overpowered, why make the change? Because you don't like the way they work? Other people do, so why make the effort to change it without a clear need?

2.) Who are all these LRM gods that stand 1000m away, lock the red triangle and consistently get 3+ kills per match and 1000+ damage, without moving from base? I find LRMs are only consistently useful/ reasonably accurate at <600m, whether indirect or direct fired. LRM mechs to me, are most useful as second line mechs that follow a bit behind the main firing line. Given that they actually do little practical damage due to spread (time-to-kill is quite poor with LRMs), the ability to indirectly fire is at this point their biggest advantage (+/- screen shake which probably should be toned down).

Making them rely on other spotters makes that unreliable in most instance, and direct fire still requires one to stare down the target for significant lengths of time, more so than any other class of weapon. Aside from the inherent vulnerability that confers, what happens in your proposal if, say, the target pops behind a rock? Lock is lost, the missiles now are useless, allowing the target to pop back out and fire back with impunity? Even if one can re-acquire lock with resumption of LOS, you're still not providing any reason to take LRMs over, say, an AC.

Basically you want to make LRMs either a totally team based firing system requiring multiple mech setups (and one barely worth the effort against another organized team using direct fire weapons), or a direct fire system that fires low damage projectiles spread all over a mech and which does not allow torso twisting to mitigate return fire. Where is the honey to go with the stick? You're talking about making LRMs pretty much pointless in all levels of play.

3.) Making LRMs with no max. range is a gimmick bonus that will have no practical effect. Accuracy beyond 1000m, even with narc, will be in the single digit percentage range against any player that has not disconnected. Add to that the it would require guiding missiles for many seconds to hit with even a single volley, and you're talking about a really, really useless addition.

4.) I can understand your though processes in wanting to change the weapon (it DOES make sense that indirect lock would require some sustained tracking info from some source). However, LRMs are very clearly NOT a very efficient weapons system at the moment, even when used effectively against bad players that can't get themselves out of the firing line. If you want to make them direct fire only, start by doubling the weapon damage and possibly increasing the speed. If someone takes the risk of locking you with direct LOS LRMs, then the payoff needs to be worth the risk, same as for any direct fire weapon system. In other words, an LRM20 rack ought to be nearly as fearsome as an AC20.

1. I explained multiple times the benefits of the changes.

2. Never said they get 3+ kills per match, or 1,000 dmg per match. You're putting words in my mouth. I said they farm assists for cbills with little to no risk.
I also said that it's not one single LRM user that's the problem. With free shared targeting, as soon as one red box pops up on the map everyone with LRMs fires and it's an 80+ LRM problem with no risk.

3. It's a beneficial change to the weapon to compensate for the removal of tracking indirect fire.

4. LRMs are very efficient when everyone fires at the same time on one target, no matter if they have LoS or not. Efficient in mass group damage, and free assist xp.

I am all for increasing the damage and speed if indirect fire is nerfed. The extra range would be the first step.

Mercules, on 02 November 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

Because LRMs are pretty crappy as weapons. What you propose specifically makes them even worse. Ergo it would horribly unbalance them. So we go, "No... bad puppy... no make horrible weapon WORSE".

Read above. They're powerful in groups with the current indirect fire mechanics.

[Mercules]

Halcyon201, on 02 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Read above. They're powerful in groups with the current indirect fire mechanics.

Read here: "Experience tells me otherwise."

Ask yourself why, if they are so powerful in groups, the current group queues tend to NOT take LRMs? It's because the power of LRMs is determined by the target to a large extent.

Good shooter + good target = okay weapon system but there are much better
Bad shooter + good target = hardly even worth mounting
Good shooter + bad target = armageddon from the target's perspective
Bad shooter + bad target = "Wow, these things actually work pretty well."

[-Halcyon-]

Mercules, on 02 November 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Read here: "Experience tells me otherwise."

Ask yourself why, if they are so powerful in groups, the current group queues tend to NOT take LRMs? It's because the power of LRMs is determined by the target to a large extent.

Good shooter + good target = okay weapon system but there are much better
Bad shooter + good target = hardly even worth mounting
Good shooter + bad target = armageddon from the target's perspective
Bad shooter + bad target = "Wow, these things actually work pretty well."

And I disagree. My experience differs from yours.

[Praehotec8]

Halcyon201, on 02 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

1. I explained multiple times the benefits of the changes.

2. Never said they get 3+ kills per match, or 1,000 dmg per match. You're putting words in my mouth. I said they farm assists for cbills with little to no risk.
I also said that it's not one single LRM user that's the problem. With free shared targeting, as soon as one red box pops up on the map everyone with LRMs fires and it's an 80+ LRM problem with no risk.

3. It's a beneficial change to the weapon to compensate for the removal of tracking indirect fire.

4. LRMs are very efficient when everyone fires at the same time on one target, no matter if they have LoS or not. Efficient in mass group damage, and free assist xp.

I am all for increasing the damage and speed if indirect fire is nerfed. The extra range would be the first step.

1.) this is what you said about the changes:

What Does This Do?

- Discourages LRM users from loitering near spawn waiting for the inevitable red target box to appear on their HUD which they can fire on

- Gives scouting mechs an actual role for forward observation and target support.

- Forces teams to rebalance their weaponry makeup.
You've explained what your change would do, but not why these effects are necessary or beneficial. LRMs are not OP, as you yourself stated in at least one of your posts. Therefore, why is this really needed? Change for the sake of change is not necessarily worth it.

2.) Fair enough, you did not actually say that, but in discussions to change LRMs, the point of LRM boats camping spawn lobbing missiles mindlessly at red triangles always is pointed at as a key reason LRMs are skill-less and should be changed. Sure, Such players may farm some CBs, but they aren't really helping their team that much. No one likes seeing the atlas LRM boat at spawn as the last player alive on spawn, but it's not really upsetting the balance of the game. See my original post for how I feel LRMs are really useful (especially in PUG games).

3.) See my original post for why this is not really beneficial. The ONLY players who would get any benefit (and a miniscule one at that) from no max range on LRMs would be the spawn camping LRM noobs. For the rest of us this would not make LRMs any more useful. Period.

4.) No argument that they can be effective, but again, they are not any better than all of those LRM boats and spotters just bringing direct fire weapons and making a coordinated, focus-fire assault on the enemy. Even when coordinated LRMs can be negated using proper tactics and gameplay. This is why the top tier groups don't fear LRMs, and bad PUG players get annihilated. Everyone else falls on the spectrum in between, which is fine, as LRMs SHOULD be dangerous when used effectively.

I would not be averse to changes to, or removal of indirect fire, but there needs to be a change to LRM design (and peripheral equipment, i.e. tag, ECM, etc.) so that LRMs stay at least as useful as they are now, and in some ways they should be better. So far I have not been convinced that any proposed changes would do that.

Edited by Praehotec8, 02 November 2014 - 01:50 PM.

[Mercules]

Halcyon201, on 02 November 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

And I disagree. My experience differs from yours.

So are you attempting to tell us all that good players get killed by LRMs all the time? Because I can assure you there are many others besides myself who will explain to you why that is not true.

The most telling evidence that LRMs are not overpowered is that the "power players" of MWO rarely... if ever... use them. If they were as potent as you are attempting to claim then you would see a lot more use of them in the 12 man groups. As you do not see much use of them in 12 man groups we can then make the connection that they are not as potent as you are making them out to be.


We can also use the inverse. The place you most commonly see them is in the PuG queue. Why do you see them in the PuG queue if they are force multipliers as has been claimed in this thread? You don't have tons of teams using them when apparently a large number of mechs with them is devastating. The reason you see them in PuG queues is the reason I outlined above. Now, not all PuG players are bad, in fact there are a ton of really good ones. However, the chances of running into at least one bad player in a PuG game are much higher than running into one in the group game. Thus your chances of LRMs being effective are much higher in PuGs.....

Because the TARGET doesn't understand how to deal with them.

Edited by Mercules, 02 November 2014 - 05:49 PM.

[Vaderman]

Mercules, on 02 November 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

So are you attempting to tell us all that good players get killed by LRMs all the time? Because I can assure you there are many others besides myself who will explain to you why that is not true.

The most telling evidence that LRMs are not overpowered is that the "power players" of MWO rarely... if ever... use them. If they were as potent as you are attempting to claim then you would see a lot more use of them in the 12 man groups. As you do not see much use of them in 12 man groups we can then make the connection that they are not as potent as you are making them out to be.


We can also use the inverse. The place you most commonly see them is in the PuG queue. Why do you see them in the PuG queue if they are force multipliers as has been claimed in this thread? You don't have tons of teams using them when apparently a large number of mechs with them is devastating. The reason you see them in PuG queues is the reason I outlined above. Now, not all PuG players are bad, in fact there are a ton of really good ones. However, the chances of running into at least one bad player in a PuG game are much higher than running into one in the group game. Thus your chances of LRMs being effective are much higher in PuGs.....

Because the TARGET doesn't understand how to deal with them.

The reason they are so ineffective in groups is ECM. You have a group of people that carry that hard counter to lurms, they are also more coordinated and can focus on threats more effectively through comms.

The reason they are so effective in PUGs is because there is no overall cooperation in the design of the team, thus that hard counter ECM is entirely random.

Think how devastating it would be if gauss rounds could lob over obstacles without LOS based on indirect fire. The end result is the same.

[Mercules]

Vaderman, on 03 November 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

The reason they are so ineffective in groups is ECM. You have a group of people that carry that hard counter to lurms, they are also more coordinated and can focus on threats more effectively through comms.

My group might bring a hard counter... sometimes I'll hop in a mech with ECM and/or multiple AMS with upgrades and do that. More often though, I am out hunting down the LRM mechs. We use cover and routes to close on the enemy and so the LRMs are not all that effective most of the time, especially after a couple of us Lights run into the enemy group and raise some havoc while our guys push.

Vaderman, on 03 November 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

The reason they are so effective in PUGs is because there is no overall cooperation in the design of the team, thus that hard counter ECM is entirely random.

Yes, part of the effectiveness in PuGs is the lack of cooperation. It's not design though. It's things like someone keeping an eye on the background and clearing out spotters or warning others when NARC'd. It's things like one guy pushing up alone and so being the sole focus of all the targeting and all the incoming LRMs, instead of a team pushing over/around all at once.

Even better than ECM is knowing how to come in out of the rain. ECM is brought in the Group Queue because it allows your team to maneuver without being as noticeable for flanking and means they can't easily target you and pick off your weak points. The LRM coverage is just a bonus. Instead when we watch a teammate get smashed by LRMs we give them hints and tips and train them. We practice in private matches and actually do things like one side will arm up with a NARCer and multiple LRM boats and see how the other team adapts and then we talk about the matches and what could have been done better.

"I knew before I did it I shouldn't have pushed in B4."

See, that tips/hints/training goes a really long way. Groups are also a LOT less likely to have people who are brand new to the game than the PuG queue. So it's not that the guys in the group queues are better than PuGgers and PuGgers suck... it's that they often have learning options not open to PuGgers and so learn to deal with things like LRMs.

Vaderman, on 03 November 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

Think how devastating it would be if gauss rounds could lob over obstacles without LOS based on indirect fire. The end result is the same.

Yes... a weapon that deals somewhere between 1 and 20 damage spread all over a mech is as devastating as one that deals 15 to a single location. It's especially devastating because your AMS eats part of the damage for you, as well as any team AMS, and you get a great big warning LONG before they hit you.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Halcyon201, on 01 November 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

Not every game is a "high level" game. Plenty of PUG matches where everyone takes LRMs because they know red boxes will pop up frequently.
Even if something is bad, 80+ of something will still do tons of damage.

For the 3rd time, this thread isn't about the state of LRMs. It's about shared targeting mechanics and indirect fire.



You're talking about lore and TT, which I specifically said I wanted to avoid comparisons to for the sake of balancing a board game vs a computer game.

I'm sure in the lore mechs weren't storing ammunition in their feet, but magically we can do it in MWO.
There is a line between realism and balanced gameplay for the purpose of fun.

you idea is bad and you should feel bad. stop trying to nerf an already bad weapon system. your veiled attempts would only convince those noobish to believe that lrms are no skill camper weapons.

the skill cap on lrms is the highest in the game because they are the hardest weapons to use against good players.

ergo stop. your not convincing anyone and making lrms into a direct fire weapon will just turn them into a missle lbx at which point why? we already have almost nothing but direct fire weapons anyways.

really just stop what you want amounts to "i dont like this just nerf it, make it like all the other weapons so i can feel good killing them for not taking gauss/ac's"