4 replies to this topic

[ExAstris]

The patch brought 2 major changes to LRMs.

First, a straight 9% damage nerf.
Second, several of the classic 'boating' platforms were given rate of fire and heat reduction buffs.

The combination of these two has led to a 9% reduction in 'alpha' damage from lrm boats across the board, with a few chassis gaining an overall dps boost. The theoretical maximum of which is:
1/1.1*1.25 = 13.6%

That number of course assumes a tier 5 mech getting both the rate of fire and heat bonus to the exact size LRM launcher featured in its optimal configuration.

click spoiler for extended discussion.

Spoiler

I don't drive enough LRM boats to know if any have benefited as such, so I'll consider one I'm familiar with, the CPLT-C4. Its optimal LRM configuration is not 10s, but 15s. So it does not maximally benefit from its bonuses (I even tried a config with 10s and the extra 12.5% buff to them isn't enough to make up for the fact that they're 10s and not 15s). With the general bonuses, that means my mech has lost 9% alpha and gained a net 3% dps for it.

I consider this a very mild nerf overall, as the peekaboo nature of MWO makes every bit of burst just as valuable as long-term dps.


However, if the point of the quirks was to bring some of the Tier 5 mechs out of the garbage bin, this change has really slid back all the progress on Tier 5 mechs that were Tier 5 because they were LRM boats in the first place. In fact, it appears to me that LRMs are less common now that before the patch.

This may be in part because the quirk system strongly encourages boating, and at that, only maximally encourages it on certain platforms. Thus the second-hand boats not in that category get cut due to enduring a 9% damage loss. I don't know for sure if this is the right explanation, but it seems like a plausible hypothesis.



I don't know if the damage should go back to 1.1 or not. I really don't think they would be overpowered, but then again, I'm not a low tier player, so my pug matches aren't likely to get wrecked by them. (also, I bring ams )

But here is an old problem that has now been exacerbated by the changes. LRMs just suck up too much ammo. Before the change, my 65ton LRM boat needed 9 tons of ammo, and still ran out in a fair number of matches. While my 65ton AC boat needed only 7 tons of ammo, and ran out at about the same frequency.

Now, that same LRM boat goes through ammo 12.5% faster (its optimal size launcher isn't the one that was boosted), which means it needs 10-10.5 tons to last as long as it used to. Other boats with a full 25% boost will be needing several extra tons dedicated to ammo to compensate for the changes.

Given that ballistics have all gotten serious ammo boosts in the past, and LRMs have been constantly behind in ammo needs, I think this patch's damage nerf + rof buff puts us in a position where its about time LRM ammo gets a bit of a boost.


Suggestion
Increasing ammo counts to 200 missiles per ton (up from 180) would counteract this patch's damage loss quite nicely, while 220-240 would put them closer in line with ballistic consumption on similarly boated platforms and normalize their staying power given the rof increases.

[LennStar]

Oh no, LRMs are still way too stron when lots of players are boating, and you want teh rain to get even longer, so that there is 100% sure no chance to win against a boating enemy team?

Also: Ballistic need more tons then LRM launchers, so the "average" tonnage is the same.

[MindWalk3r]

so ur saying that now with the quirks u run out of ammo faster because the game lets u shoot em off faster? This is currently the golden age for LRMs in mechwarrior. Sure their was a minor nerf in damage, but thats easily overshadowed by the increased fire rate. Then stack on top of that the fact that ecm was nerfed so hard its going to be nonexistant in short order. Therefore, with no ecm umbrella holding u back, u got targets a plenty. Im sorry u were saying that with increased ability to dump lrms u wanted more rockets so they would last the same amount of time ??

[xyretire]

LRM's still get more potential damage/ton (180 missiles x 1 dmg / missile = 180 dmg, no falloff) than ballistics (150 damage per ton, affected by falloff), and only lag slightly behind SSRM and SRMs (200/T and 215/T respectively).

You do not need more missiles.

[ExAstris]

Opinions on LRM strength are off target. Besides, even if we want to admit those, my record sheet shows significantly superior w/l and k/d on every ac and/or laser based mech I run compared to the LRM and SRM mechs. Its definitely not because I suck with missiles either. My catapult C4 (in many people's opinion one of the worst mechs in the game) averages 500 damage a game. And its w/l and k/d are vastly inferior to my jager, hunchbacks, atlai, kitfox, and even one of my cicadas.

I'm not suggesting an LRM ammo buff because I want LRMs to be uber. That ruins low level games for scrubs who can't deal with steel rain. I'm suggesting a way to undo what was likely an unintended second nerf with the rof increases.

LennStar, on 10 November 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

Also: Ballistic need more tons then LRM launchers, so the "average" tonnage is the same.

This is patently false, my Jager uses 7 tons of ammo for its 34 tons of acs (two 5s and two uac5s). While my C4 needed 9 tons to last as long using 32 tons of LRMs (4 a15s). Now that the C4 shoots 12.5% faster, it runs out of ammo far more often than that Jager, despite feeding fewer tons of weapons with more tons of ammo.

MindWalk3r, on 10 November 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

so ur saying that now with the quirks u run out of ammo faster because the game lets u shoot em off faster? This is currently the golden age for LRMs in mechwarrior. Sure their was a minor nerf in damage, but thats easily overshadowed by the increased fire rate.

"Golden age" is a glowing review for one of the least effective and least common weapon systems in the game. I enjoy using them from time to time, but even I know they aren't that good. Only 3 of my mechs mount a single LRM and only 1 is a boat (out of over 20). But even granting that, your claim that the damage nerf is overshadowed by the rof buff is addressed thoroughly in the OP. There are only a couple of mechs in the game that actually benefited significantly (because very few LRM boats actually had their optimal size LRM buffed, which meant they're dealing with 'off' bonuses). For example: my primary boat, despite being tier 5, lost 9% of its burst for less than a 3% increase to dps. (2.273% to be exact)

That's hardly "more than makes up for", that's "remain at tier 5 until second quirk pass".

MindWalk3r, on 10 November 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Then stack on top of that the fact that ecm was nerfed so hard its going to be nonexistant in short order. Therefore, with no ecm umbrella holding u back, u got targets a plenty. Im sorry u were saying that with increased ability to dump lrms u wanted more rockets so they would last the same amount of time ??

And in the absence of as much ECM, I still see fewer LRMs than before. The damage nerf (and perhaps an increase in AMS use?) is the likely culprit, but its hard to tell without the full match data from the servers themselves. So yes, if changing the damage back is out of the question (for whatever reason, maybe those 2-3 boats that are still as good as they were pre-patch), then an ammo boost is appropriate compensation.

xyretire, on 10 November 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

LRM's still get more potential damage/ton (180 missiles x 1 dmg / missile = 180 dmg, no falloff) than ballistics (150 damage per ton, affected by falloff), and only lag slightly behind SSRM and SRMs (200/T and 215/T respectively).

This is an irrelevant metric. Total potential damage doesn't equal actual damage. And actual damage doesn't equal useful damage.

LRMs miss a ton of missiles by no fault of the user. Then, even when they hit, they necessarily spread damage. While ac's on the other hand can put everything into a desired location. The circumstances in which you fail to do so (i.e. fast and small targets) is precisely the situation in which LRMs are guaranteed to miss even more missiles entirely due to spread and lack of maneuverability.

So for LRM ammo to be even remotely balanced to usefully applied damage as opposed to the irrelevant theoretical maximum, then they clearly need a lot more than they're currently getting.

Judging by theoretical maximums is just silly. All energy weapons would be egregiously overpowered by that standard. Rather, usefully applied damage is the appropriate metric. How much damage can they apply in a match? How accurate/effective is the damage applied? Can they purposefully disarm or core particular sections? etc.

Edited by ExAstris, 10 November 2014 - 05:59 PM.