83 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Praehotec8, on 09 January 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

I know there have been a ton of threads about LRMs in the past, but after playing some last night, the cLRM minimum range really got to irritating me.

Technically in MWO cLRMs have no minimum range, but with the exponential drop off of damage under 180m makes them effectively useless at dealing damage unless one is 170m+ from an opponent. In otherwords, cLRMs de facto have the same minimum range as IS LRMs while suffering from chain fire (which is both blessing and curse).

Honestly, would it be so terrible to allow cLRMs to do half - or even full - damage at any range under 180m? Even if the clustered IS LRMs had no min. range they would still be much worse at range than comparable ballistics, and cLRMs are quite susceptible to AMS and damage spread can be considerable given their streaming. LRMs have significant drawbacks, including weight (albeit less than IS LRMs), need for ammo and risk of ammo explosions, yet remain worse than ballistic weapons, even clan UACs.

I think allowing cLRMs to truly have no minimum range would help make LRMs a more effective weapon system and would not make them overpowered.

Short answer: lol no

Long answer:
You will have people complaining about IS LRMs getting no love. You are able to damage mechs under 180m... and unless you're dumb enough to face hug your target, your LRMs will still be doing reasonable damage against an opponent @ 180m give or take some distance. The only opposition at that point would be directing the LRMs, as they are really poor at hitting their targets when you do have a lock @ sub-180m due to limited arcing ability.

Having weapons that have an additional benefit to its bigger weighing counterpart is bad. That almost amounts to justifying not bringing backup weapons when you are an LRM boat.

To summarize... I think this clip is the proper answer to your question:

[Bobzilla]

Clrms should have no min range, but at launch move slow and accelerate to top speed, reaching it at 180m. On top of that, no cockpit effects under 180m.

[Monkey Lover]

More than half the time when I fired clan lrms under 150 the target was running towards the side and it missed them anyway. It was rare to even hit someone until 150 unless they were an assault mech.

Min range on clan lrms could use a buff.

Lrms in general need to go back to 1.1 damage.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 09 January 2015 - 09:03 PM.

[Gyrok]

terrycloth, on 09 January 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

No, IS is 200. People keep saying 180 so I tested it. It's 200.

This is inaccurate, mwo-smurfy is your friend...the numbers are taken directly from the game files...

It clearly states 180m, and I can confirm I have hit mechs at 180-185m with IS LRMs and done full damage.

[Vox Scorpus]

LRM's like any artillery platform are first off a suppressing weapon. Artillery is a large infantry killer (check out WWII stats) - but of course no infantry in MWO. Players actively avoiding lrms will just be slightly or moderately suppressed by them - stop firing to hide behind rock, building, etc. A player not watching for them could loose their head. So the effectiveness of lrms is largely based on your target - not you. As long as you fire them correctly and stay locked on target you are suppressing the enemy and if your lucky maybe you'll get a kill. I have two missle mechs and have only been running them for 6 months but I do not run them with kills in mind - just target suppression. Especially against slow moving assaults. Nothing ruins the Dire Wolfs day like avoiding missle fire and getting chopped up from a couple of lights!

So please don't mess with or nerf lrms. They are fine where they are.
To many weapon systems have already lost out to nerfing.
No more nerfs.
No more over-balancing.

[Escef]

terrycloth, on 09 January 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

No, IS is 200. People keep saying 180 so I tested it. It's 200.

It's 180. However, it is easy to get an incorrect impression because the flight distance of the missile from the launcher to the surface of the target might be different than the listed range. Ranges are generally listed as from around the center of the hips of the observer to the same area on the targeted enemy. If you fire LRMs from a Kintaro, which has missile tubes slightly forward of the hip area, that impact the nose of a Stalker, which is well ahead of its hip area, the difference will be enough at 180 meters to have your missiles bounce off harmlessly because they aren't actually traveling the required 180 meters.

Edited by Escef, 09 January 2015 - 10:30 PM.

[Pjwned]

It's not reasonable, for either Inner Sphere or the clans, to have a weapon that does effective damage from 0-1,000m and can be fired indirectly at targets with homing precision.

It has a minimum range so that the LRM pilot needs to be actually aware of their positioning, and without a minimum range (or greatly reduced minimum range penalties) it would essentially no longer be a concern.

[Kilo 40]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2015 - 10:59 PM, said:

It's not reasonable, for either Inner Sphere or the clans, to have a weapon that does effective damage from 0-1,000m and can be fired indirectly at targets with homing precision.

It has a minimum range so that the LRM pilot needs to be actually aware of their positioning, and without a minimum range (or greatly reduced minimum range penalties) it would essentially no longer be a concern.

well...no. They have a minimum range because if they didn't there would be no reason to use SRMs. SRMs are there to cover that minimum range. why would anyone take a SRM2/4/6 or streaks that are only useable to a couple of hundred meters, when you could take a "SRM20" that is usable from 0-1000m.

[Otto Cannon]

Praehotec8, on 09 January 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

I think allowing cLRMs to truly have no minimum range would help make LRMs a more effective weapon system and would not make them overpowered.

[Praehotec8]

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

Short answer: lol no

That almost amounts to justifying not bringing backup weapons when you are an LRM boat.

The main answer I see so far is basically your short answer. I have yet to see any real justification as to why no minimum range LRMs (clan or IS) would be overpowered, assuming spread at <180m is large. Certainly it would make the weapon system something it generally is not currently - feared - but they would still do less concentrated damage than an LBX, and less damage per ton that SRMs. So a cLRM-20 is 5 (6 with artemis) tons vs. 1.5 (2.5) tons per cSRM-6 that deal double damage per missile. Even were the spread to be identical, it would still be more efficient at close range to carry SRMs. So why would it be so overpowered? Honestly, how can one make the claim without real testing? Heck, if it turns out to be, do 1/2 damage until 120m or something. Sorry, but I just don't buy the arguments I've seen thus far (other than that people would cry about it if it were actually implemented).

As for your second point, well, ballistic boats often do not require backup weapons, nor do laser boats, nor really even streak/SRM boats. LRMs are the ONLY weapon system that when boated, can leave a mech completely powerless against its position being compromised (granted if you are caught dead alone, you're often in trouble regardless, but that is another discussion). Add in the number of systems in place largely to counter LRMs, and the only real benefit of the weapon system is the questionable benefit of being able to fire without LOS up to 1000m. However, the accuracy without LOS beyond about 4-500m is likely approaching 10-20%, making such firing largely pointless.

Sorry, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that LRMs in general are not a really competitive weapon system at this time, and this is a thought for its improvement. As I said, I would be cool if all LRMs had no min. range.

Otto Cannon, on 10 January 2015 - 12:56 AM, said:

Would you care to provide some reasoning? Bottom line, LRMs are not as feared as most other weapon systems, and you and everyone here is aware of it (barring the bottom barrel players).

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

In lore (if any of you would consult your rulebooks), the minimum ranges aren't "arming" ranges or anything at that sort.

I've killed mechs in TT with LRMs that were only a hex away (that's 30m for you that don't know).

Same as gauss rifles, which have a 2 hex (60m) minimum range.

Even PPCs with one of the revisions had the 3 hex (90m) no damage minimum range changed to just a massive to-hit penalty like LRMs, Gauss, AC2, AC5, etc.

[Deathlike]

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 01:12 AM, said:

The main answer I see so far is basically your short answer. I have yet to see any real justification as to why no minimum range LRMs (clan or IS) would be overpowered, assuming spread at <180m is large. Certainly it would make the weapon system something it generally is not currently - feared - but they would still do less concentrated damage than an LBX, and less damage per ton that SRMs. So a cLRM-20 is 5 (6 with artemis) tons vs. 1.5 (2.5) tons per cSRM-6 that deal double damage per missile. Even were the spread to be identical, it would still be more efficient at close range to carry SRMs. So why would it be so overpowered? Honestly, how can one make the claim without real testing? Heck, if it turns out to be, do 1/2 damage until 120m or something. Sorry, but I just don't buy the arguments I've seen thus far (other than that people would cry about it if it were actually implemented).

You honestly did not read what I wrote.

Let me repeat what I wrote, for proper context:

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

You will have people complaining about IS LRMs getting no love.

If you're going to buff Clan, you're going to have to buff IS as well. If anything, it is far worse with the IS given how tracking in blobs does not favor them... if anything it favors Clan a bit more.

Quote

As for your second point, well, ballistic boats often do not require backup weapons, nor do laser boats, nor really even streak/SRM boats. LRMs are the ONLY weapon system that when boated, can leave a mech completely powerless against its position being compromised (granted if you are caught dead alone, you're often in trouble regardless, but that is another discussion). Add in the number of systems in place largely to counter LRMs, and the only real benefit of the weapon system is the questionable benefit of being able to fire without LOS up to 1000m. However, the accuracy without LOS beyond about 4-500m is likely approaching 10-20%, making such firing largely pointless.

Yes, ballistic boats DO need backup weapons, generally speaking. While that even 1 ton of ammo is precious... having zero backup weapons means that even a cherry red target would require some actual ammo to finish off... and in the worse case, you have nothing to hit him with when you are out of ammo.

Even the ammo-driven pilots know that they ONLY have a certain lifespan before they are useless once ammo is depleted. This includes the Catapult-A1 and even the Centurion-AH. Since every other missile boat has a laser hardpoint, you literally have no excuse at that point.

Quote

Sorry, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that LRMs in general are not a really competitive weapon system at this time, and this is a thought for its improvement. As I said, I would be cool if all LRMs had no min. range.

LRMs are not competitive for various reasons... and are highly dependent on how bad your target is AND the situation/map. Adding more stuff to a weapon system that annoys me when teammates with CLRM manage to hurt my back because they fire at will instead of firing intelligently does not help your cause.

[Kilo 40]

Deathlike, on 10 January 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:

Adding more stuff to a weapon system that annoys me when teammates with CLRM manage to hurt my back because they fire at will instead of firing intelligently does not help your cause.

I'm not saying you do this, but I have zero pity for most people in situations like that. I can't count the number of times I've been launching volleys only to have someone walk right in front of me, and they take 30 LRMs to the back.

[Deathlike]

Kilo 40, on 10 January 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:

I'm not saying you do this, but I have zero pity for most people in situations like that. I can't count the number of times I've been launching volleys only to have someone walk right in front of me, and they take 30 LRMs to the back.

Fortunately for those cases, minimum range damage drop off on CLRMs deals very little, and not full as the OP is wishing for.

Imagine all the CLRMs shake your mech from its entire volley. That would be the start of the new complaints based on this executed idea.

[Kilo 40]

Deathlike, on 10 January 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

Fortunately for those cases, minimum range damage drop off on CLRMs deals very little, and not full as the OP is wishing for.

Imagine all the CLRMs shake your mech from its entire volley. That would be the start of the new complaints based on this executed idea.

I'm just saying, I want the clan ranges to stay as they are, but I don't think that is an argument for keeping them the way they are. The better argument is, if there is no minimum, then what's the point of SRMs? IMO anyway.

[Otto Cannon]

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 01:12 AM, said:

Would you care to provide some reasoning? Bottom line, LRMs are not as feared as most other weapon systems, and you and everyone here is aware of it (barring the bottom barrel players).

You specifically stated clan LRMs should be buffed, not both types- which I guess is why you cut the quote out. I don't think Timberwolves are so underpowered that they need extra help to be competitive against IS.

Even if you removed minimum range on both sides though, you'd just make SRM/SSRM pointless and lurmboats would be everywhere. I say this as a fan of LRM mechs for nearly 30 years who is well aware of their weakness at the moment in this game. Changes are needed, but not to the extent that you want, and certainly not only for the benefit of the clans.

[Praehotec8]

Deathlike, on 10 January 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:

1. You honestly did not read what I wrote.

If you're going to buff Clan, you're going to have to buff IS as well. If anything, it is far worse with the IS given how tracking in blobs does not favor them... if anything it favors Clan a bit more.

2. Yes, ballistic boats DO need backup weapons, generally speaking.

3. Even the ammo-driven pilots know that they ONLY have a certain lifespan before they are useless once ammo is depleted. This includes the Catapult-A1 and even the Centurion-AH. Since every other missile boat has a laser hardpoint, you literally have no excuse at that point.

4. LRMs are not competitive for various reasons... and are highly dependent on how bad your target is AND the situation/map.

5.) Adding more stuff to a weapon system that annoys me when teammates with CLRM manage to hurt my back because they fire at will instead of firing intelligently does not help your cause.

1. I did, in fact, read what you wrote, and responded to it. "...people would cry about it if it were actually implemented." and, "I would be cool if all LRMs had no min. range." All that aside, clan ballistics are far worse than IS ones, so if cLRMs have an edge, so be it.

2. I'm not advocating not carrying backup weapons, but right now LRMs (and missiles in general) are the most dependent on backups of all weapon systems. Take a ballistic boat, and you can dakka at long range, medium range, and close range until your ammo runs out. Take a laser boat and you can pew pew at pretty much any range. Get LRMs at close range and you're done. It would be nice to have more options for LRM heavy mechs than only having a couple of medium lasers when someone sneaks up on you.

Plus, be honest with yourself, how often does running dry on ammo matter in this game? Yes, you can, but it isn't often (if you are indeed boating), and it often doesn't change the course of a match by much (again, noting that there are no 100% absolutes).

3. No offense, but I'm not sure what point you are making here. That A1s have no excuse for running dry and not making each shot count, or that mechs with other hardpoints have no excuse not to take other weapons? Either way, it has little to no bearing on a discussion of LRM min. range.

4. EXACTLY....I feel this would make them less situational. It would be much easier to justify taking heavy loadouts of LRMs if one knew that they could be used to effect in any matchup. Seriously what is wrong with that?

5.) If anything that is a drawback that would provide some measure of balance. Right now getting hit with cLRMs below 180m is not damaging, just annoying. Aside from that, you need to stay out of the firing lane of friendly mechs (and they yours) as much as possible. We're all guilty of not paying attention to this (me as much as anyone), and again, I don't feel this is a good reason to NOT remove minimum range. If anything it is an argument FOR removing minimum range.

I respect your opinion (and everyone's) on balance, but thus far I still don't see any evidence that the proposed changes would severely unbalance the game, but I do see a lot of people saying they wouldn't like it. I would like to see some compelling arguments why this would be unfair. Again, SRMs would do more damage at close range for less tonnage, so I still do not see where it would make a big problem.

As an aside, if you feel I did not address your points, please just ask me to clarify. You may rest assured that if I respond to a post I have read it and considered it thoroughly. If I don't address your point either I misread it, or it did not come across in text the way you meant it.

[Praehotec8]

Otto Cannon, on 10 January 2015 - 02:15 AM, said:

You specifically stated clan LRMs should be buffed, not both types- which I guess is why you cut the quote out. I don't think Timberwolves are so underpowered that they need extra help to be competitive against IS.

Even if you removed minimum range on both sides though, you'd just make SRM/SSRM pointless and lurmboats would be everywhere. I say this as a fan of LRM mechs for nearly 30 years who is well aware of their weakness at the moment in this game. Changes are needed, but not to the extent that you want, and certainly not only for the benefit of the clans.

Timberwolves aren't doing well because of LRMs, they do well in spite of them.

As stated above, why would SRM boats be useless? They still do significantly more damage per ton, have shorter cooldowns, weigh less overall, and spread could be made very wide on LRMs at sub-180m ranges.

Honestly, why then, did cLRMs have no minimum range in TT? How did you deal with it there?

cLRMs historically had no minimum range, but if both sides had no min. range, that would be fine.

[Otto Cannon]

Praehotec8, on 10 January 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Timberwolves aren't doing well because of LRMs, they do well in spite of them.

As stated above, why would SRM boats be useless? They still do significantly more damage per ton, have shorter cooldowns, weigh less overall, and spread could be made very wide on LRMs at sub-180m ranges.

Honestly, why then, did cLRMs have no minimum range in TT? How did you deal with it there?

cLRMs historically had no minimum range, but if both sides had no min. range, that would be fine.

As you say, Timberwolves are overpowered in spite of using LRMs- so imagine making that weapon OP too.

You're entitled to the opinion that SRMs would still be worthwhile, but we'll have to disagree on that point.

Clans in TT were supposed to be very overpowered, and the lack of minimum range was just part of that. In MWO we play 12 vs. 12 so there has to be some attempt at balance.

[CaptainScumBa11s]

Otto Cannon, on 10 January 2015 - 02:32 AM, said:

Clans in TT were supposed to be very overpowered, and the lack of minimum range was just part of that. In MWO we play 12 vs. 12 so there has to be some attempt at balance.

I think this is the best thing Ive ever seen said on the forums.