72 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

The problem is with indirect fire, not the LRMs themselves. The indirect fire allows a mech to attack another, without exposing itself, and allows a team to concentrate fire much more easily than with direct fire weapons.

Indirect fire is also out of line with the boardgame. In the boardgame, the indirect fire LRMs are normally inaccurate; they are only accurate against TAG-ed (with semi-active LRMs) or NARC-ed targets.
In MWO, they are effectively acting as semi-active all the time, without even needing a TAG designation.

One idea would be to nerf indirect fire in MWO so that it targets an area on the map (sorta like an artillery strike); it would need spotters revealing locations of enemy mechs to reliably score hits, and it would also require the enemy mechs to be mostly stationary.
It could also then be fired 'blind' without a spotter if the location of an enemy camp is known.

And with TAG or Narc, the indirect fire LRMs act as they currently do, significantly increasing the usefulness of those two systems.


At the same time, ECM would have to be heavily nerfed; it is currently acting more like Stealth Armor from the boardgame.

[Mercules]

RiggsIron, on 07 January 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

Funny how the same people keep posting, NEVER address the actual argument - and think they are witty by posting the same crud that has been used for years on dodge actually having an argument.

Having an argument based on logic, or understanding would be too painful a process I guess.

Funny how the solution keeps staying the same for dealing with LRMs but people keep refusing to embrace it.

I've only gotten repetitive because the solution to LRMs is , "Don't let them hit you." See I've recently started piloting Assaults because I am predominantly a Light then Medium pilot and in CW I want to use my lighter mechs and still utilize my tonnage for the team so I am going to bring at least 1 assault.

So in Assaults I get peppered with LRMs but I twist against the damage and spread it around even more than it typically does(thank you people who stream in LRM5s) as well as have an AMS to cut down on the missiles hitting me and move through cover. I get hit with LRMs in an Assault, but never to the point of it putting me in danger.

Here are the facts of LRMs from a logical standpoint.

The target of the LRM determines how effective they are. While some who is really good with them who will move to shorter engagement ranges, keep on the move, and knows the angles and can anticipate how long targets will be solid for can make them a bit more effective, the onus as to how much damage they do is mostly on the target.


See, if everyone brought AMS LRMs would fall from the sky... but no one brings AMS.
If pilots of ECM mechs stuck with their team instead of thinking it is great for slipping to the side and taking a few potshots... LRM users would have a hard time getting targets.
If everyone figured out how they worked and then used cover to advance instead of, "Oh I'll just cross this open lane."; shot down UAVs when they went up(even experienced Teams seem to sometimes leave them up till they expire); and kept an eye on their flank for spotters who they CAN shoot at, Indirect fire LRMs would be even harder to use effectively than they are.


TLDR: I keep repeating myself because the solution hasn't changed.

[Mercules]

RiggsIron, on 07 January 2015 - 09:03 PM, said:

hey another one!
"learn to play noob"

Its awesome how common that argument is.

It's common because it is what needs to happen. LRMs don't see a lot of use at high level play because people get experienced enough with them to avoid them and they stop being worth the tonnage dedicated to them. Clan has changed that somewhat since most clan groups could toss one LRM on their mech with very little impact to the build otherwise and do massive group volleys on targets of opportunity. Almost none do though. Instead they can get several lasers that they can ensure hit their target.

RiggsIron, on 07 January 2015 - 09:03 PM, said:

Could you post a picture of these awesome cover maps?

Every single one of them. Yes there are gaps but you move from cover to cover advancing and missiles that do get locks lose them as you move into the next piece of cover. This would be why we tell you that more experience and learning from the experiences will allow you to deal with LRMs. You currently don't understand how to use what you are given which is apparent by the above comment.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Mercules, on 07 January 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

This is something people don't understand to not be true. If you want to focus on LRMs then yes you want to bring a LOT but that would be because you have already decided to make them your main weapon system. Just like if you wanted to focus on PPCs you would bring things that compliment PPCs.

Look at the Clan mechs. Some of them can go big with LRMs like a Stormcrow that can bring nothing but LRMs and still be a solid mech. Or most of the Clan team can each bring an LRM launcher or two and lay down crippling support fire when they don't have direct LoS on a mech. I've seen a few team games where a 12 man has had every mech bring some sort of LRM, even a 5, and melt mechs that ended up brawling because they could focus all that fire on one mech. This would often lead to them having a slight lead in the kill count.

First off, the double negative is throwing me off a bit, but maybe that's your intention...

---

Seriously though, you illustrate one of the concerns I have with LRMs. They can be an effective force multiplier at times for sure, but clan LRMs also have reduced impact on builds due to their weight and smaller crit requirements, and can be mixed in fine. Like this SCR build.

At 55 tons for the IS, maybe the KTO-18 can try to do the same sort of build or one of the Trebs maybe, but you'd be spending more on something, be it less speed, ammo, armor, laser damage/range and so on.

And with a team coordinating like that, if they are sustaining locks for that sort of targeted fire where most of those mechs do not require being able to see the intended targets, then they will be more effective with how LRMs currently work, which is what makes balancing LRMs better that much harder to do.

That's why I suggest limiting locks to specific circumstances, and if a player is able to land LRMs without locks, indirectly, then that is good use of LRMs with indirect fire.

So again the issue is how they can achieve locks right now. Also on the flip side, I want to have missiles be able to achieve locks with targets that are within line of sight and would not be blocked by ECM; so that ECM would simply counter other factors such as the speed of the paperdoll update and Artemis like in the original game.

Quote

Why? That means they aren't on the front line doing anything effective with ACs/Lasers/SRMs/Gauss/PPCs. Let them lob missiles that are not going to hit any but the foolish and waste time and tonnage. About all those accomplish is area denial, which is valuable mind you, but as a threat I don't mind them at all. I simple flank them and kill them in close.

Fine, that still does not provide improvements to the weapons themselves, just demonstrating known ways to counter them and players having a hard time learning how the game works.

Quote

So LRMs are just bigger and worse functioning SRMs? No... LRMs are capable of indirect fire at long range. They bring an important aspect to the game and should remain.

I guess I should have done a better job of planting my tongue against my cheek with this one!

I mean you were being sarcastic first with your Brilliant comment.

---

So let me try to clarify what I wrote in that post.

Missiles in MWO are not the most efficient weapon, with SRMs often being described as mech sized shotguns by players and LRMs being rather ammo inefficient with their slow speed.

I've been preferring to have missiles be able to track and lock as we see with contemporary anti-tank missiles. So that missiles can either be fire and forget or be made to require the player to sustain tracking with the crosshair/reticle on target for guidance, which ever is better for gameplay is fine by me, otherwise I would still look to limit when a lock can be achieved.

That way, at least for indirect fire, non-Streak missiles can fire without a lock and zero in on a point on the map as they currently do, or would need to achieve a lock through Line of Sight, TAG, NARC and maybe also UAV.

This way missiles can then consider improvements to how they work (Such as flight path and missile speeds) and not simply need to be boated to get the most out of them. Also with any missile needing a lock to track a target sustains a better distinction between Streaks and non-Streaks; where one will not fire without a lock and the other can, instead of where one only fires with a lock, the other is dead fire, a shotgun like weapon with variable choke/spread based on using Artemis or not.

Hope that makes sense as to what I'm thinking about in regards to missiles.

[Screech]

RiggsIron, on 07 January 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

Missing the point.

Solo queue you have no guarantees at all about what the rest of the team is going to do.

And even mechs that can equip ECM, only 1 of the multiple models can do it - but you have to level up 3 to master it. So even in a mech that can take it - you have to spend 2/3 your time leveling up non-ECM versions just to get to play the one with it.

at the VERY least - let all mechs of a line be able to equip it. So all Ravens, all Spiders etc.

Yes I think you are missing my point. All I have said is that by allowing ECM on all mechs they would be forced to finally balance it to some non-magical form. I don't think they will ever do it but that is the root of all ECM problems to me.

Not sure what the rest has to do with anything I said, maybe just got me confused with someone else.

[Insects]

Hi Only new but LRM seem pretty weak to me, yeah they mess up my little spider if caught out in the open with no rock/tree to hide behind but the big mechs shrug it off. A good weapon to harass non ECM lights and keep the ememys head down, but a lights job is to distract big guys from the front line and LRM boating assault standing at spawn = mission accomplished.
What has a bigger impact to the game is when most of a teams assaults are taken off the front line. It doesnt take long to realize that those 100 tons of armor should be spearheading at the front tanking damage and blasting alphas into the enemys face while everyone else uses them as a meat shield, not standing at the rear.

Sigh, so easy to observe what wins, so impossible to make it happen.

[wanderer]

Quote

Indirect fire is also out of line with the boardgame. In the boardgame, the indirect fire LRMs are normally inaccurate; they are only accurate against TAG-ed (with semi-active LRMs) or NARC-ed targets.

IDF fire in TT an effective +1 to hit- which, given the need to avoid plowing LRMs into random bits of terrain in most maps is accurately simulated by MWO fire. It does not reduce the numbers of missiles hitting the target either way.

Take it from someone who used to be the lance's Archer pilot in tournament play. I was more accurate in TT than I am in MWO,given the % of missiles to-target I get here from IDF launches.

[Zergling]

wanderer, on 08 January 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

IDF fire in TT an effective +1 to hit- which, given the need to avoid plowing LRMs into random bits of terrain in most maps is accurately simulated by MWO fire. It does not reduce the numbers of missiles hitting the target either way.

Take it from someone who used to be the lance's Archer pilot in tournament play. I was more accurate in TT than I am in MWO,given the % of missiles to-target I get here from IDF launches.

Indirect fire gets more penalties than just the +1 to hit; it also suffers from any movement penalties from the spotting unit (in addition to movement penalties for the unit that makes the indirect fire attack), and an additional +1 penalty if the spotting unit made any weapon attacks that round.
That is a +1 to +5 penalty in total, and outside of the spotter being a hidden or stealth armored unit that can stay motionless without taking significant damage, the higher penalties are more likely; most indirect attacks end up with a +3 penalty.

On the positive side, indirect attacks don't suffer from terrain penalties, so in urban or forest maps, the LRM indirect fire can end up being more accurate than direct fire.


The spotter penalties is one area the indirect fire mechanics in MWO differ significantly from the boardgame; so long that the spotter has a lock on the target, there is no difference what the spotter is doing.
They can be running around dodging enemy shots and shooting back, or sitting on a hill 750 meters away, and it won't matter to indirect fire LRM accuracy.


And from a gameplay balance perspective there are serious problems with indirect fire LRMs with MWO; there are a great many parallels with artillery in WoT.
Main problem is that they give defensive tactics incredibly strong, as players on the offense lose most of their hard cover, while defenders with LRMs don't need to move out of cover to engage the enemy pushing towards them.
This results in gameplay that is overly static, with 'camping' being the normal tactic seen in battles with significant LRM use.

Sure I can deal with them (even without ECM), but I can still see the negative effect on the gameplay they have.


And it is worth noting that the sole reason ECM is so much more powerful than in the boardgame is to provide a hard counter to indirect fire LRMs.
...and hard counters aren't good gameplay balancing either, due to how weak they make the things they are countering when used effectively.

It is simply not good how powerful indirect fire LRMs can be when they aren't hard countered by ECM, nor how effective ECM is at countering LRMs.

Hard counters should only be used when a game is constructed around such mechanics (eg rock/paper/scissors) or when there is simply no other way to balance the game.

[wanderer]

Zergling, on 08 January 2015 - 09:58 PM, said:

Indirect fire gets more penalties than just the +1 to hit; it also suffers from any movement penalties from the spotting unit (in addition to movement penalties for the unit that makes the indirect fire attack), and an additional +1 penalty if the spotting unit made any weapon attacks that round.
That is a +1 to +5 penalty in total, and outside of the spotter being a hidden or stealth armored unit that can stay motionless without taking significant damage, the higher penalties are more likely; most indirect attacks end up with a +3 penalty.

On the positive side, indirect attacks don't suffer from terrain penalties, so in urban or forest maps, the LRM indirect fire can end up being more accurate than direct fire.

Which since MWO IDF -does- suffer from terrain penalties, pretty much balances that out. In TT, you can't suffer an automatic miss because between shot fired and impact, the target breaks LOS. Or stepped behind a building. Or a cliff was between you and the target. Of course, on maps with less terrain to interfere, MWO's IDF mode drives people mad- which is why Caustic and Alpine can cause missile haters to transform into salty salt mines of lurmrage. I honestly wouldn't mind longer lock-ons for IDF mode- if ECM was no longer a perfect missile shield.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Locusts should be able to carry 4 ERPPS and 2 gausee and 500 rounds!
Raven 4x should be able to cary 4 gauss and 2 erpps 200 rounds!
jenners should be able to carry 6 erpps and no heat sinks!



lets face it, no matter the weigh class you should be able to carry max of the best no matter your weight class or what your hard points are, unless your a light, and then every one else should be able to bring what little advantages lights have plus more... more... more... more give me, give me give me....
"Lights HAHAH you die face princess head licker face meme frome 1995", we want what makes you unique and eff off lights go sit on it and spin if you QQ when the rest of us wants what you have. EFF you if you want what we have, we need what you have. Everyone else is worth more then lights..... a non ECM mech should have ecm, but a light that can be cored CT in 1/4 of an alpha that actually misses but your ego thinks its a hit... does not need more armor...becaue you cant aim, but MOW and HSR makes misses hits. WHAAAAA... HSR is making misses hits.. or hits misses... and no bad ping VS good ping facts facts... WHAAAAAA>...... exactly!



Do you get it yet? No you dont... thats the sad thing.... you wont get it.... and if PGI wants this game to fail, thats a good thing.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 09 January 2015 - 10:19 PM.

[Errinovar]

OP: Everybody can have what is essentially a personal ECM, its called the radar dep module. But seriously if you are getting stripped in 5 seconds by LRM fire you made a mistake and got caught because the only time that it happens is when you can't get to cover aka pilot error.

Seriously, people would continue to complain about LRMs even if they required direct LOS, because most of the people dying to LRM fire are people who are blinded by tunnel vision and don't notice that LRM boat staring right at them and hammering them with missiles. When I use LRMs I shoot for the 400-600m sweet spot with direct sight because I don't rely on others to keep locks. The only exception to this is a narced or tagged target or UAV spotted target that I have seen so I know what cover they have and whether I can actually hit. I think you will find most decent LRM boaters will be following the same basic pattern, and are far more out in the open than people admit. It is just when you are in the thick of a brawl it is easy to get caught up in your target and not notice what is going on around you. The hail mary method of LRM that many players seem to believe is the majority of LRM spam is horribly inefficient with pretty crappy results on average when compared to pilots who use the previously mentioned methods.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 09 January 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

Locusts should be able to carry 4 ERPPS and 2 gausee and 500 rounds!
Raven 3x should be able to cary 4 gauss and 2 erpps 200 rounds!
jenners should be able to carry 6 erpps and no heat sinks!



lets face it, no matter the weigh class you should be able to carry max of the best no matter your weight class or hard points are, unless your a light, and then every one else should be able to bring what little advantages lights have plus more... more... more... more give me, give me give me....
"Lights HAHAH you die face princess", we want what makes you unique and eff off lights go sit on it and spin if you QQ when the rest of us wants what you need even if you need more. Everyone else is worth more then lights..... a nonECM mech should have ecm, but a light that can be cored CT does not need more armor.... gat it yet? No you dont... thats the sad thing.

I apologize in advance, but my brain often does get confused reading these forums.

For example, seeing the name Funkadelic Mayhem has me drifting towards stuff like Uptown Funk and so on!

Then I read the post with sarcasm and go...



I might be off my rocker, but that seems strangely normal for me and worth sharing at least for a moment of levity!

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Praetor Knight, on 09 January 2015 - 09:58 PM, said:

I apologize in advance, but my brain often does get confused reading these forums.

For example, seeing the name Funkadelic Mayhem has me drifting towards stuff like Uptown Funk and so on!

Then I read the post with sarcasm and go...



I might be off my rocker, but that seems strangely normal for me and worth sharing at least for a moment of levity!

the people who want what lights have need it and deserve it. But if a light needs more armor and less coding to make misses hits everyone looses their minds.

slash "if its my world its more important your world it can burn!"

In other words. Play War thunder for 1 day. You will learn no matter your speed the others speed and angle makes a difference.


Oh man Im so wrong, I get it now. I truly got it as I was typing this. The old people who play this game want a 2D shoot in the general direction and get the points. And the generation that will keep PGI afloat (under 20) wants a 4d/5d game where skill matters and not hope on a string while crossing your fingers for luck and knocking on wood for a hit matters.

in other words... The QQrs are to old to kep up with hand eye coordination "PGI aim 4 me"

HAND EYE CORONATION! Most 30+ers lack it. "PGi aim 4 me"

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 10 January 2015 - 12:29 AM.