83 replies to this topic

[Burktross]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

SplatCats (SRM Cats?) Absolutely! I killed dozens with an LRM40 Atlas.

Knock down Stun Lock... I drove an Atlas and folks usually ended up on the ground instead of me...

Triple max range ACs... I used it while we had it and don't complain cause its gone, We all had access to it. *SHRUG*

The Hunchback I missed out on, but I bet I would have figured out a way to compensate.

Not one of the Good reasons you claim were needed by me to beat them. It is literally a bunch of I don't want to try to think of a counter so get rid of it thinking in my book. I have successfully fought every Meta you listed. That does not imply I won against them every time, but it was often enough to keep me happy.

Full strength Clan LRMs, Well Like actual Omnis I would have to face em to give you a real answer, but I would start with using Front loaded hard hitting weapons like ERPPCs AC10s and AC20s, with SRM back up. Missiles don't do PPD so I could likely do more damage to the Missile boat than it can do to me as I use AMS... ECM would still keep the Mechs from getting missile Lock and LRMs don't dead fire so well. If that didn't work Id go back to the drawing board.

I would not ask PGI to fix it for me, that I am sure of.

Pjned is OP, he ruins the fun in every match I face him in. Force him to use slow lightly armed/armored mechs so I can have a chance to win against Pjned.

This is what is being asked for with every Nerf something thread.

Same... I've been playing since CB too. Never really had many problems with this stuff. Mind you my closed beta mech was exclusively an HBK 4SP

Edited by Burktross, 11 January 2015 - 11:55 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 11 January 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Considering they were popular because of the absolutely ridiculous splash damage that SRMs did and how that ignores a huge portion of mechs/builds that would just get instantly gibbed, that's not a great answer. Suffice to say that after SRM splash damage was appropriately nerfed, those builds were much more reasonable.

I had Zero problem killing them with the super crazy splash damage is the point. During the height of the whining I was killing them with impunity.

Quote

Obviously everybody should have just driven an Atlas and screw other mechs then.

Well.. That's kinda implied by being me Lyran!

Quote

It turned the game into a long range peekaboo crapfest and brawling was almost nowhere to be found, so it was nerfed for a good reason.

I didn't say it wasn't, But see unlike many folks I don't have a problem with what ever strategies my enemy uses. Its their mission to make me lose so I make it mine to return the favor whenever/however I can.

Quote

I bet that if you had managed to find something you would have ignored everything else as long as you found 1 or 2 situations with 1 or 2 mechs to counter it.

I have countered everything with an Atlas, A few things with a Centurion and others with a Jager40. Yes I do try to keep it simple. I revel in finding a way to win in the Mech(s) I chose to play the game with. I have to start learning how to light and Heavy since Drop decks, It'll be rough for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, but thats mostly my fault. I don't see a need to have a huge herd of Mechs I use what Works til it doesn't any more then I Change to overcome the new Meta. Oh for a while when AC10s were the laughing stock of ACs... I was hunting Atlas in a Centurion with one. I did pretty good at it but It not really my preferred style of fighting.

Quote

Actually the problem is you ignoring a huge portion of mechs & builds with your solutions, defending easy mode meta builds, and then telling everybody to just deal with the "challenge" regardless of the wide-ranging negative consequences.

Yes and No, I am finding what works for me. Cause I tried the builds and the tactics others suggest and they do not work for me. So What I suggest may not work for you but you could maybe make something else work instead of insist on PGI finding solutions for you. You asked how I handled X I told you. Now you don't like it cause I told you.

Quote

Yet again ignoring a multitude of mechs and valid strategies that would get screwed over by such a change.

Of course I do, It worked for me? instead of trying to have the problem removed I tackled it and found how I can beat it. Do I have to that for everyone? I'm not a good Light Pilot But if I applied myself I bet I could be.

Quote

Maybe if you weren't so focused on your ridiculous narrative you would see how that's wrong.

I know how wrong it sounds thats why I wrote it. Nerfs have literally been players complaining that THEY cannot win against X. So make it easier. Seriously with in hours of a change players are whining cause X is to hard! I haven't even had enough time to look at how I might be able to defeat X and others are giving up??? That is the depth of wrong.

Burktross, on 11 January 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

Same... I've been playing since CB too. Never really had many problems with this stuff. Mind you my closed beta mech was exclusively an HBK 4SP

I had fun in that Mech For a little while. I respect it a lot.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 January 2015 - 12:13 PM.

[Impossible Wasabi]

The Space Pope can only conclude this thread is an attempt at humour.

[Deathlike]

Praehotec8, on 11 January 2015 - 02:09 AM, said:

How was my comment disingenuous? It may or may not be a reasonable opinion, but in now way was I being deceitful, dishonest or trying to present a falsehood. In games, balance can work with one side getting one thing that is more effective, while the other has something else. My statement very well could fall under such a categorization. Please don't be insulting, although I will assume you were not trying to be.

I probably chose the wrong word there. My point is that suggesting that we "buff" CLRMs because Clan Ballistics is bad/terrible is totally illogical. You do NOT buff another subsystem just because another subsystem is working poorly or inefficiently. In other words, don't make that kind of leap. It's just bad in trying to get people to agree with you.

Quote

That said, forget the clan vs. IS thing. For the sake of discussion let's just consider LRMs in general. It obviously was a mistake to open THAT can of worms, and I largely put it that way because that's how it is in TT.

Secondly, you make large issue of the fact that LRMs are very situational, which they are, yet you do not address that the proposed change would certainly help make them less situational. Regardless of whether one supports the idea or not, I think that this is pretty much a fact.

You're buffing a situation that the weapon's role should not be in the first place. The whole point of SRMs (or Streak SRMs) is to fill a void that LRMs are already ill prepared to counter. If you remove the minimum LRM range, it somewhat diminishes the role of the SRMs. You're not supposed to totally rely on an ammo-dependent subsystem. That's why people will keep saying "you need to bring some backup lasers". You're giving a bad incentive for players to go full LRMs instead of SRM or energy backup, which only further exposes newbies to bad designs and behaviors. These are things are supposed to be corrected over time when you get better.

Quote

You also make it very clear that you dislike LRMs and consider them low-skill weapons. I disagree, for a variety of reasons, but to each his own. For instance. where did I ever say that when I use LRMs I stand 900m away, and tell everyone to, "get me locks?" Personally I dislike that style of LRM use for the most part, and find it very ineffective. I find LRMs most effective when used just behind the main combat line, generally with direct LOS at ranges 2-400m. I also have no problem with dumbfiring then when needed. Doing so requires as much skill as any other weapon system shot from outside brawling range. Not to mention, enjoying LRMs does not mean that players are unable (and unwilling) to effectively use other weapons. Regardless however, our various weapon tastes have little bearing on whether or not balance changes should or should not occur.

It's not really about personal beliefs... it's more about balancing the game in a way that doesn't breaking everything else in the process.

Quote

However, with the exception of mechs boating IS standard PPCs, LRM heavy mechs are the only mechs at a large disadvantage when cornered. Every other boating mech can still dish it out at knife-fighting range. Even bringing backup weapons doesn't usually cut it. A mech with 2-4 MLs will have little chance even against solitary light mechs. At least allowing damage at close range with LRMs would make it more even in a 1-1 brawl. If LRMs aren't overpowered in the 180-270m range, they won't be closer than that. I just can't see it making much change to balance one way or the other.

The fact they are literally LESS effective at outer ranges is more of an issue with how LRMs are designed. They are like "medium range missiles" except the name betrays its nature.

Quote

"Taking hits for/from a weapon subsystem that isn't guaranteed to help annoys me to no end." Let me end by asking you: since it annoys you, why not discuss ways to make them actually useful in all situations without being overpowered?

I'll speak of it towards the end.

Quote

Okay, obviously I am the crazy man out in the wilderness spouting nonsense based on my replies, so I will let this drop. It is painfully obvious that LRMs are unlikely to ever change in any significant way, and we will be stuck with vast limitations on what could be an overall useful and entertaining weapon system. I just wish there were a way to run servers with adjusted variables just to see how balance plays out. Could make for some interesting discussions.

Here's 3 simple ways... although that's up for PGI to decide.

1) Allow dumbfired LRM missiles to be more useful - like increased speed of projectile (but not as fast as the SRM). It was laughed at a long time ago when a former PGI employee had suggested "dumbfiring" missiles, and that was hilarious given how SLOW the missiles were traversing at the time. It is a very simple concept... especially if you imitate the version MW3 uses to a degree.

2) Reduce the effectiveness of LRMs at midrange by reducing the velocity at those ranges AND accelerate the velocity once it reaches past a certain distance (like 500m). When recalling the ridiculous LRM speed adjustments, the faster the missile, the more likely it will hit its target (and it was actually really violent). This assumes you are firing with a lock.

3) This suggestion is a lot more complex, but here's the basic idea. Simply REMOVE the requirement for LRMs to keep holding a lock on its target. It would be closer to the MW3/MW4 based system. HOWEVER, the counterbalance required is much easier to deal with.... the spread of LRM MUST INCREASE AND/OR the LRM damage MUST BE REDUCED (we're talking MW4 levels of .8 damage per missile). The Artemis requirement would require the LRM user to improve/reduce the spread through LOS. TAG would also reduce the spread. ECM would increase the spread of the LRMs (because now the firing system is getting the lock and fire it, reducing the effectiveness of ECM through that method) unless countered.

The arcs may have to be adjusted (you want to be able to fire the missiles with a low arc from under Crimson Strait or the cave examples I had mentioned earlier) so that they are more practical in "low ceiling" conditions.

I don't think I've seen many popular suggestions, but those are the ones I can think of that have worked before for LRMs and don't break things WHILE keeping LRMs relevant in most cases, but not strictly keeping "low skill" moniker it has (dumbfiring LRMs should be rewarded). There are tradeoffs, but I believe this to be pretty reasonable (and possibly flawed).

Edited by Deathlike, 11 January 2015 - 12:13 PM.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

I had Zero problem killing them with the super crazy splash damage is the point. During the height of the whining I was killing them with impunity.

Well.. That's kinda implied by being me Lyran!

I don't see how your self-centered views should be taken very seriously then.

Quote

I didn't say it wasn't, But see unlike many folks I don't have a problem with what ever strategies my enemy uses. Its their mission to make me lose so I make it mine to return the favor whenever/however I can.

Well, if you make brawling ineffective due to being poked to pieces before you can close the gap, that invalidates a number of weapons, builds, and to an extent entire mechs, so again it was nerfed for good reason.

Quote

I have countered everything with an Atlas, A few things with a Centurion and others with a Jager40. Yes I do try to keep it simple. I revel in finding a way to win in the Mech(s) I chose to play the game with. I have to start learning how to light and Heavy since Drop decks, It'll be rough for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, but thats mostly my fault. I don't see a need to have a huge herd of Mechs I use what Works til it doesn't any more then I Change to overcome the new Meta. Oh for a while when AC10s were the laughing stock of ACs... I was hunting Atlas in a Centurion with one. I did pretty good at it but It not really my preferred style of fighting.

So if those other players pilot their favored mechs that are not the same as yours and they find they get chewed up because they're not equipped to deal with the cheesy meta it's just too bad for them I guess.

Quote

Yes and No, I am finding what works for me. Cause I tried the builds and the tactics others suggest and they do not work for me. So What I suggest may not work for you but you could maybe make something else work instead of insist on PGI finding solutions for you. You asked how I handled X I told you. Now you don't like it cause I told you.

I asked you to defend it from a balance perspective, which I would imagine kind of implies not giving a multitude of mechs the shaft and not how you alone handled things from a much more narrow perspective, so if that wasn't clear then I guess it is now.

Quote

Of course I do, It worked for me? instead of trying to have the problem removed I tackled it and found how I can beat it. Do I have to that for everyone? I'm not a good Light Pilot But if I applied myself I bet I could be.

Leaving out various mechs/builds and saying "deal with it" against unfair advantages is not a good solution.

Quote

I know how wrong it sounds thats why I wrote it. Nerfs have literally been players complaining that THEY cannot win against X. So make it easier. Seriously with in hours of a change players are whining cause X is to hard! I haven't even had enough time to look at how I might be able to defeat X and others are giving up??? That is the depth of wrong.

Your example of people whining about changes within hours does not mean every nerf thread is simply whining to make things easier.

If you haven't done so already, go in the various TDR-9S threads that are up right now and say that, and see what the response is, which I imagine would be something like "you're wrong, go read the thread."

Edited by Pjwned, 11 January 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Deathlike, on 11 January 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

A. I probably chose the wrong word there. My point is that suggesting that we "buff" CLRMs because Clan Ballistics is bad/terrible is totally illogical. You do NOT buff another subsystem just because another subsystem is working poorly or inefficiently. In other words, don't make that kind of leap. It's just bad in trying to get people to agree with you.

B. You're buffing a situation that the weapon's role should not be in the first place. The whole point of SRMs (or Streak SRMs) is to fill a void that LRMs are already ill prepared to counter. If you remove the minimum LRM range, it somewhat diminishes the role of the SRMs. You're not supposed to totally rely on an ammo-dependent subsystem. That's why people will keep saying "you need to bring some backup lasers". You're giving a bad incentive for players to go full LRMs instead of SRM or energy backup, which only further exposes newbies to bad designs and behaviors. These are things are supposed to be corrected over time when you get better.

C. It's not really about personal beliefs... it's more about balancing the game in a way that doesn't breaking everything else in the process.

D. The fact they are literally LESS effective at outer ranges is more of an issue with how LRMs are designed. They are like "medium range missiles" except the name betrays its nature.

1) Allow dumbfired LRM missiles to be more useful - like increased speed of projectile (but not as fast as the SRM). It was laughed at a long time ago when a former PGI employee had suggested "dumbfiring" missiles, and that was hilarious given how SLOW the missiles were traversing at the time. It is a very simple concept... especially if you imitate the version MW3 uses to a degree.

2) Reduce the effectiveness of LRMs at midrange by reducing the velocity at those ranges AND accelerate the velocity once it reaches past a certain distance (like 500m). When recalling the ridiculous LRM speed adjustments, the faster the missile, the more likely it will hit its target (and it was actually really violent). This assumes you are firing with a lock.

3) This suggestion is a lot more complex, but here's the basic idea. Simply REMOVE the requirement for LRMs to keep holding a lock on its target. It would be closer to the MW3/MW4 based system. HOWEVER, the counterbalance required is much easier to deal with.... the spread of LRM MUST INCREASE AND/OR the LRM damage MUST BE REDUCED (we're talking MW4 levels of .8 damage per missile). The Artemis requirement would require the LRM user to improve/reduce the spread through LOS. TAG would also reduce the spread. ECM would increase the spread of the LRMs (because now the firing system is getting the lock and fire it, reducing the effectiveness of ECM through that method) unless countered.

The arcs may have to be adjusted (you want to be able to fire the missiles with a low arc from under Crimson Strait or the cave examples I had mentioned earlier) so that they are more practical in "low ceiling" conditions.

I don't think I've seen many popular suggestions, but those are the ones I can think of that have worked before for LRMs and don't break things WHILE keeping LRMs relevant in most cases, but not strictly keeping "low skill" moniker it has (dumbfiring LRMs should be rewarded). There are tradeoffs, but I believe this to be pretty reasonable (and possibly flawed).

A. Fair enough point, and I concede that you are probably correct. I was simply thinking of games (RTS games in particular spring to mind) where one side has better "X", and one side has better "Y". That is, of course, assuming that clan ballistics are performing as planned and meant to be strictly much worse than IS ballistics.

B. I completely understand your thinking, although I confess I don't entirely agree. I argue that SRMs would remain superior for short range encounters, allowing the player to decide which they prefer taking: having the greater versatility of LRMs vs. the greater efficiency (per ton) and damage of SRMs in a brawl.

I also contend that the argument of taking backup weapons is inherently flawed because - first - even some stock mechs did not carry any, and - second - many experienced and "good" players choose to boat (and very effectively) weapons of a similar type, not just the new or inexperienced players. How many ballistic boats, realistically, rely on their backup lasers? More importantly, largely every other weapon system can be used from range 0 out to its maximum (and often beyond that). Personally, I almost always bring at least some weapons for a variety of ranges, but expecting a mech with a few MLs (ex. the cat C-1 or any dedicated missile mech) to hold its own well with only its "backup weapons" simply doesn't hold up well to reality (which is exactly why people tend to rush LRM boats). Most other boating mechs can continue to use their primary weapons even while engaging their backups. LRMs (and standard IS PPCs) cannot.

C. Fair enough, but I humbly disagree that this would "break" anything. To be realistic, in a decent matchup, with a pilot reasonably skilled in the use of LRMs (and positioning, etc) the need to use LRMs within minimum range doesn't even occur THAT often. Most often an opponent can be dealt with while they remain outside of 150m, where LRMs (clan especially) still work. When it does, however, it can be very frustrating (particularly in those instances in which nothing could have been done to prevent it), given that said LRM mech essentially becomes a free meal. Even with this buff, I can't see players forsaking their SRMs for LRMs (likely with artemis given the balancing need for large spread at close range) just for the increased versatility, unless they planned on using LRMs in the first place.

D. Wasn't the max range of LRMs in TT about 630m or something? I'm not a TT player, but I've heard that before, and I looked up that hexs were 30m each, and long range for LRMs is 21 hexes. That is about the medium range of LRMs here so it seems fairly consistent, but I wouldn't mind seeing changes to how the system works as a whole to make them more useful at long range!

As for your ideas, I think they all have some merit. I especially like the idea of not requiring holding lock for the entire transit time, coupled with widened spread (requiring artemis with direct LOS for ammo effeciency , i.e. hitting with more than half of your volley). I also think missile velocity could use increasing, although I remember the rage the last time missile velocity was increased.

Basically, I think that as long as losing target information and ground cover make it simple to avoid missile fire, LRMs will be relegated to a weapon that is either useless or overpowered depending on opponent skill. Currently one has so many chances and so much time to avoid being damaged by LRMs that mostly only the inexperienced players get hammered at long range.

Cover ,obviously, will be available, but increasing missile speed (or making missiles continue to track even after loss of mech to target lock) would go a ways towards helping this, so I definitely like your third option. Unfortunately, I can't see any of these changes being made (but they would be really fun if we ever did get to test them!).

In the end, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on my original wish for LRMs, but I have really enjoyed discussing it, and would love it if LRMs could get some kind of revision before all development on the game is done. At any rate, thanks for the interesting debate!

[Rushin Roulette]

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

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

Nope. It is 180 meters LRM travel distance. Note travel distance does not equal distance to target when the LRMs are shot. For example, if you and your target are moving towards each other and you shoot at 181 Meters distance, by the time the missiles hit, the target will be within those 180 meters minimum travel distance and will therefore deal no damage at all. The same is true the other way around. If your target is moving away from you and you shoot the missiles while 179 meters away from each other, by the time the missiles hit the target, they will have traveled more than 180 meters and will deal damage.

[Eider]

Why not a laser that can scratch your ass from space too? Or an i win button, whoever presses it first wins.

[RadioKies]

I mostly play IS mechs, but I also have the Stormcrows.

I love combining LRM15 and LRM20's with my Stormcrows, backed up with a few lasers for when my ammo runs dry.. I honestly cant understand this thread. cLRM are way more usefull than IS LRM. You can do damage within 180m (I managed to kill people that way), It's a great weapon for killstealing and you can keep harassing people with the stream of cLRM coming their way.

The stats (dmg, acc% etc) are all higher on my cLRM's than in the IS LRM's. Last thing we need is a buff for cLRM. I'd even go as far as saying when comparing to IS LRM they should get nerfed. cLRM is quite balanced and is balancing towards OP. When I wan't to play a game with a mech that performs on all levels I take out my StormCrows for a drive. the SCR-D with LRM/MLas and the Prime with all MPLas are both top tier mechs. I can do way more damage and take way more kills with a SCR-D loaded with only 2*cLRM20 than with a SCR-D loaded with 5*cSSRM6. I'm used to go brawling and walk in the frontline, the cLRM is good for closing in and can even be used to brawl.

Also,
People seem to forget that the one off shot the IS LRM does is easily avoidable by hiding. After the LRM impact a wall or something, you'll have time to fire at the LRM mech. cLRM on the other hand is one stream coming at you, you don't have time to hide, wait for the impact and get a few seconds to fire at the LRM mech without getting LRM's in your face.

[Rehl]

I fail to see how the removal of minimum range to CLRMs is even being brought up as a reasonable point of discussion on the forum. Words cannot express how unbalanced change like this would be. I'm thinking that the OP was a troll post.

[Praehotec8]

RadioKies, on 12 January 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

I mostly play IS mechs, but I also have the Stormcrows.

I love combining LRM15 and LRM20's with my Stormcrows, backed up with a few lasers for when my ammo runs dry.. I honestly cant understand this thread. cLRM are way more usefull than IS LRM. You can do damage within 180m (I managed to kill people that way), It's a great weapon for killstealing and you can keep harassing people with the stream of cLRM coming their way.

The stats (dmg, acc% etc) are all higher on my cLRM's than in the IS LRM's. Last thing we need is a buff for cLRM. I'd even go as far as saying when comparing to IS LRM they should get nerfed. cLRM is quite balanced and is balancing towards OP. When I wan't to play a game with a mech that performs on all levels I take out my StormCrows for a drive. the SCR-D with LRM/MLas and the Prime with all MPLas are both top tier mechs. I can do way more damage and take way more kills with a SCR-D loaded with only 2*cLRM20 than with a SCR-D loaded with 5*cSSRM6. I'm used to go brawling and walk in the frontline, the cLRM is good for closing in and can even be used to brawl.

Also,
People seem to forget that the one off shot the IS LRM does is easily avoidable by hiding. After the LRM impact a wall or something, you'll have time to fire at the LRM mech. cLRM on the other hand is one stream coming at you, you don't have time to hide, wait for the impact and get a few seconds to fire at the LRM mech without getting LRM's in your face.

I do fine in my Mad Dogs with LRMs and some backup lasers, but that's not the point. Your personal statistics are also meaningless. Mine show the exact opposite, to be honest. The point is why, or why not, would no min. range on LRMs be overpowered. I argue that it would be fine.

Present good evidence or reasoning why said change would be overpowered. Sure, you can do more damage overall with LRM20s than SSRM6s, but at close range, SSRMs still remain more efficient for tonnage and damage. Look at the weapon numbers. All this, and I would venture that it is generally accepted that SSRMs are really most useful for hunting lights, which they would still be much better at given LRMs slower rate of fire, travel speed, greater spread, and poorer maneuverability.

An LRM20 at close range, with high spread would do AT BEST 2.5 damage per mech section (likely less as all missiles likely will not connect), for a minimum 6 ton investment in weight with a 5 second cooldown. An SSRM 6+4 would be essentially equivalent, with again, higher speed, and more chance of all missiles hitting. (and again, I feel SSRMs are largely a gimmick weapon that I would rather forgo for plain SRMs any day) For light hunting or dedicated close-quarters work, short-range weapons are still vastly more effective.

Sure, you can add other weapons to the mix, but then, what other weapon system is essentially unusable within its minimum range? (forget the IS PPC since the IS ERPPC with quirks is very viable - and the PPC always bothered me as well) I one boats ACs or lasers, they surely can continue to use even their long-range ones up close, so why not LRMs? Are LRMs so much better weapons than all of the others that they need such a limitation?

Again, provide some real reasoning for or against. Anyone can do well in just about any configuration, but just because people have good games in adders doesn't make the flamer a viable weapon and just because the stormcrow is a fantastic mech doesn't mean LRMs are god-mode (except against inexperienced pilots)

Deathlike has some other good suggestions for LRMs, which I would love to see implemented, but simply making any change to LRMs was not the original point of the thread.

[Pjwned]

Praehotec8, on 12 January 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

Present good evidence or reasoning why said change would be overpowered. Sure, you can do more damage overall with LRM20s than SSRM6s, but at close range, SSRMs still remain more efficient for tonnage and damage. Look at the weapon numbers. All this, and I would venture that it is generally accepted that SSRMs are really most useful for hunting lights, which they would still be much better at given LRMs slower rate of fire, travel speed, greater spread, and poorer maneuverability.

You're missing the point that LRM20 would be effective from 0-1000m, so even if SSRMs are more efficient at that range (which I certainly hope they would be, and like you said they still do less damage) you can't just ignore their very long range and indirect fire capabilities.

Imagine the scrubby C-LRM60 Stormcrow featured in this thread, it would be more than viable with no minimum range (or even just reduced penalties really) because getting in close range would no longer be an effective counterplay against it, unless you happen to have ECM I guess but ECM shouldn't even do what it does anyways.

Edited by Pjwned, 12 January 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Pjwned, on 12 January 2015 - 02:56 PM, said:

1. You're missing the point that LRM20 would be effective from 0-1000m, so even if SSRMs are more efficient at that range (which I certainly hope they would be, and like you said they still do less damage) you can't just ignore their very long range and indirect fire capabilities.

2. Imagine the scrubby C-LRM60 Stormcrow featured in this thread, it would be more than viable with no minimum range (or even just reduced penalties really) because getting in close range would no longer be an effective counterplay against it, unless you happen to have ECM I guess but ECM shouldn't even do what it does anyways.

1. They don't do less damage. For weight and individual missile, they do MORE damage than LRMs. I didn't miss any point. I just disagree that these factors would tip from being powerful to over-powerful. If the general population would choose LRMs over all other missiles, well, that would be "their" choice.

2. Why shouldn't it be? A mech boating only cERLL is perfectly viable, and has a max. range of about 1400m (740m for full damage). You kill it the way you kill anything else - with weapons and better aim with your opponent. The mech in your thread should be good - until it runs out of ammo (which is the limitation of any purely ammo based build)

Basically most of what i have seen is people saying they don't LIKE it, not why this would be too good. An LRM20, in my opinion should be as fearsome as any other weapon, and currently they are far from it.

Edited by Praehotec8, 12 January 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[terrycloth]

cSSRMs do less damage per ton than cLRMs. cSSRM2 (the most efficient per ton) is 1.14 DPS. The same tonnage cLRM5 is 1.43 DPS. If you go by launcher, cSSRM6 is 2.0 DPS. cLRM20 is 4.0 DPS (for 5 tons instead of 3, so it also wins on weight efficiency). With no minimum range there would never be a reason to use streak SRMs.

[Praehotec8]

terrycloth, on 12 January 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

cSSRMs do less damage per ton than cLRMs. cSSRM2 (the most efficient per ton) is 1.14 DPS. The same tonnage cLRM5 is 1.43 DPS. If you go by launcher, cSSRM6 is 2.0 DPS. cLRM20 is 4.0 DPS (for 5 tons instead of 3, so it also wins on weight efficiency). With no minimum range there would never be a reason to use streak SRMs.

Thank you, this is what I am talking about, some more evidence. However, I still respectfully disagree on the relative effectiveness. As I stated earlier:

An LRM20 at close range, with high spread would do AT BEST 2.5 damage per mech section (likely less as all missiles likely will not connect), for a minimum 6 ton investment in weight with a 5 second cooldown. An SSRM 6+4 would be essentially equivalent, with again, higher speed, and more chance of all missiles hitting.

You're talking DPS and I'm talking burst damage. In a brawl, straight focused burst damage is much more effective than DPS. You won't live long enough to burn through a ton of ammo against a brawler using either weapon. I would assume that SSRMs would retain a higher hit percentage and increased maneuverability (i.e. tracking) at close range. Plus, in my opinion, SSRMs are really a garbage weapon system too, and I always would rather have SRMs in a brawl for their efficiency of weight and ability to focus damage in a brawl. Streaks really are only efficient for light hunting, and as long as LRMs have poor tracking up close, streaks would retain that niche.

Finally, at the end of the day, let me re-iterate again, I suppose we will all have to agree to disagree, because I cannot convince you, and you cannot convince me (and none of us can really say who is right, although we obviously all feel we are). Good arguments though.

Edit: also note that if you look at DPS/ton, the LRM20 and SSRM6 have identical DPS/ton (0.67). The SSRM2 has a DPS/ton of 4(!!), and the LRM5 has 1.43. I just don't find DPS of much practical use in a brawl, where pinpoint burst damage is mso much more useful.

Edited by Praehotec8, 12 January 2015 - 04:12 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

No, being able to deal 0.1pts of damage per LRM firing less then 180m is not OP......do not start lol......I didnt read the OP, but if at any point someone starts to say it is OP somehow...its not.

[Latorque]

Praehotec8, on 12 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

1. They don't do less damage. For weight and individual missile, they do MORE damage than LRMs. I didn't miss any point. I just disagree that these factors would tip from being powerful to over-powerful. If the general population would choose LRMs over all other missiles, well, that would be "their" choice.

2. Why shouldn't it be? A mech boating only cERLL is perfectly viable, and has a max. range of about 1400m (740m for full damage). You kill it the way you kill anything else - with weapons and better aim with your opponent. The mech in your thread should be good - until it runs out of ammo (which is the limitation of any purely ammo based build)

Basically most of what i have seen is people saying they don't LIKE it, not why this would be too good. An LRM20, in my opinion should be as fearsome as any other weapon, and currently they are far from it.

AC20 weighs 5 tons more; you need to count in the ballistics of an extremely slow projectile; Max range is 540, and you're packing so precious few shots that you better stay within those 270m ideal range - oh; and you're quite likely at least half exposed to an enemy who has quite a say in regards to you shooting him.

Gauss can fight it out on the very same ranges as the LRM, right down to *gasp* 0 meters. Oh, it just weighs 5 tons more; explodes when you look at it in a funny way; and it has a nasty habit of needing a charge before being triggered. You better know what you're doing with those; because i sure hate being stuck with them in a brawl. Now that i think of it; i hate them in general - gauss firing is a skill i haven't mastered, and i don't plan to.

ER PPCs? Just 7 tons! Count me in! Oh; they just fry your ass off unless you're in an overquirked build (which pose more of a threat in the bottlenecked CW maps than on the normal maps) and their projectile is roughly the size of a school bus and tends to collide with everyone and everything on the way to the target.

Large lasers remaining. You need to keep these on target; which is quite challenging on great distances; and you better let go of that beam if you see those LRMs flying your way; because those aren't half as slow as Lurmers want to believe so very very badly.

SSRMs? Yeah, fine, they pack more of a punch within 270m MAX; and you still need to track your target; which more often than not is a) movin quite a bit faster now that you'e up close and possibly shooting at you.

Help me out here:

The LRM is blessedly devoid of any serious disadvantage over range. Loads of ammo per ton in comparison, for a measly 10 tons of weight (8 if you go for the far more popular LRM15 PLUS Artemis) you get a weapon that has no ballistics, no serious heat unless fired in continuous salvoes and on top of that it is the very only weapon able to fire indirectly. Oh, and the steep firing arc even means that you don't have to worry overmuch about friendly fire - just pump away in that melee. Considering that i don't even expect a "sorry" when i'm killed by an AC20-wielding teammember when 6 mechs are blast-humping each other; that is quite an advantage.

It's one of TWO weapon systems with a whole series of countersystems and -modules specifically designed to keep other players relatively safe. Anyone packing AMS and RDM mostly because of SSRMs?

And then there are serious demands that the range bracket should be lowered down to zero meters, because... really, how do you look in the mirror? Those weapons listed above are mostly fielded by mechs that go around 80 kp/h, mostly 60kp/h - they need to move toward the missile boat; and every time they are exposed for a while (unless protected by the oh-so-overpowered ECM ) the missile boat has a very solid chance to hit them. Cover of adequate height to protect you from LRM salvoes isn't as ubiquitous as one might believe. On some maps; it's quite nonexistent.

If you boat missiles; and someone manages to break the 180m line; he has deserved it to chew your ass off. Most of the time; he's an armless wreck who had to go through at least two of your teammates.

Buffs to LRMs are pretty much the only reason i could think of to make this game permanently unfun. It has its issues and flaws; but nothing gamebreaking. I can live with LRMs in their current state; but increase their power; and the game becomes a godawful boring static quagmire.

[Praehotec8]

Latorque, on 12 January 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

AC20
Gauss
ER PPC
Large lasers
SSRM

Help me out here:

The LRM is blessedly devoid of any serious disadvantage over range. Loads of ammo per ton in comparison, for a measly 10 tons of weight (8 if you go for the far more popular LRM15 PLUS Artemis) you get a weapon that has no ballistics, no serious heat unless fired in continuous salvoes and on top of that it is the very only weapon able to fire indirectly. Oh, and the steep firing arc even means that you don't have to worry overmuch about friendly fire - just pump away in that melee. Considering that i don't even expect a "sorry" when i'm killed by an AC20-wielding teammember when 6 mechs are blast-humping each other; that is quite an advantage.

It's one of TWO weapon systems with a whole series of countersystems and -modules specifically designed to keep other players relatively safe. Anyone packing AMS and RDM mostly because of SSRMs?

And then there are serious demands that the range bracket should be lowered down to zero meters, because... really, how do you look in the mirror? Those weapons listed above are mostly fielded by mechs that go around 80 kp/h, mostly 60kp/h - they need to move toward the missile boat; and every time they are exposed for a while (unless protected by the oh-so-overpowered ECM ) the missile boat has a very solid chance to hit them. Cover of adequate height to protect you from LRM salvoes isn't as ubiquitous as one might believe. On some maps; it's quite nonexistent.

If you boat missiles; and someone manages to break the 180m line; he has deserved it to chew your ass off. Most of the time; he's an armless wreck who had to go through at least two of your teammates.

Buffs to LRMs are pretty much the only reason i could think of to make this game permanently unfun. It has its issues and flaws; but nothing gamebreaking. I can live with LRMs in their current state; but increase their power; and the game becomes a godawful boring static quagmire.

AC20 - The IS AC20 is the premier brawling weapon in the game. It puts huge holes in things, I don't think anyone can argue that even buffed LRMs would come close. I would kill to have an IS AC20 on many of my clan mechs. Remember we're talking essentially about a change to LRMs at effectively 0-100m.

Gauss - Assuming personal anecdotes such as you put forth, I have no problem in a brawl with gauss. They do very efficient and cool pinpoint damage, and most of the time when it explodes you've already lost. I'm much happier getting up close when running gauss than I am when running LRMs.

ERPPC - Yes, it is quite hot, but the fact remains that if needed, it can be used (and very effectively) all along its range.

Large lasers - See ERPPC, same thing.

SSRM - Read my last few posts. Plus, cSSRMs have a range of 360m by the way.

AMS - Sure, AMS is useful to varying degrees against LRMs, and some people do run it, but the bald fact is that LRMs are not good enough to make MOST experienced players bother running AMS. Most players would rather have the extra 1.5 tons for other things. Plus, it has little bearing on this particular discussion.

All the rest of your post is basically why you don't like LRMs, but as far as I understand, the LRMs are not really top tier weapons by anyone's imagination.

"If you boat missiles; and someone manages to break the 180m line; he has deserved it to chew your ass off. Most of the time; he's an armless wreck who had to go through at least two of your teammates."

First of all, often in a PUG game, even if you are only 150-200m behind the main battle line, a single enemy light often can sneak up on an LRM boat, and often no one on your team will notice or bother to assist you. Why do they deserve a kill without any real effort or skill required anymore than an LRM mech can indirect fire at long range (about 20-40% accuracy by what I've seen posted for people's LRM accuracy)? Sneaking up behind is pretty easy to do, but is useless against any other mech except LRM boats.

Most of the time close combat can be kept at between 150-200m (which already overlaps with the range for streaks and SRMs), which is fine for an LRM boat, and no one is screaming that LRMs are godlike there, so why would letting them keep the same power to 0m be worse? We're talking about a few limited scenarios.

I know I won't convince you, you've already decided you don't enjoy LRMs, but hey, thanks for posting anyways.

Edited by Praehotec8, 12 January 2015 - 05:12 PM.

[Pjwned]

Praehotec8, on 12 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

1. They don't do less damage. For weight and individual missile, they do MORE damage than LRMs. I didn't miss any point. I just disagree that these factors would tip from being powerful to over-powerful. If the general population would choose LRMs over all other missiles, well, that would be "their" choice.

a) I meant C-SSRMs do less total damage than C-LRMs, I acknowledged C-SSRM is more efficient at the range it's meant for because it clearly is.

b) The general population would have a good reason to exclusively boat a ton of C-LRMs because, aside from jesus box ECM on the enemy, it would allow LRMs to be a decently effective brawling weapon in addition to long range and indirect fire capability which is not reasonable.

Quote

2. Why shouldn't it be? A mech boating only cERLL is perfectly viable, and has a max. range of about 1400m (740m for full damage). You kill it the way you kill anything else - with weapons and better aim with your opponent. The mech in your thread should be good - until it runs out of ammo (which is the limitation of any purely ammo based build)

a) C-ERLL is a direct fire weapon and its very long burn time would be a nightmare in a brawling situation, meanwhile C-LRMs have very little flight time at that range; I also question the effectiveness of a mech with only C-ERLL unless you're talking about a light mech sniper, which isn't exactly "boating" it.

b) No, boating LRMs that heavily (and exclusively) should not be encouraged, or at the very least not on a mech of that size, so if you want lots of LRMs then you either deal with your weakness in close range or you bring some backup weapons; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Additionally, even if it did happen (which it shouldn't) it would be overwhelmingly unfair compared to IS LRMs in a game where clan tech is not supposed to be grossly OP.

c) Ammo isn't really that much of a concern with a build like that, you could fit as many as 8 tons of ammo (9 if you shave armor off a useless arm) and even more ammo could be packed in if you dropped just 5 tubes from 60 to 55.

Quote

Basically most of what i have seen is people saying they don't LIKE it, not why this would be too good. An LRM20, in my opinion should be as fearsome as any other weapon, and currently they are far from it.

I already told you why it would be too good and you didn't listen, and to be honest I don't see why C-LRMs need to be so much better than they are now when they weigh significantly less than IS LRMs, regardless of their stream fire nature.

Praehotec8, on 12 January 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

First of all, often in a PUG game, even if you are only 150-200m behind the main battle line, a single enemy light often can sneak up on an LRM boat, and often no one on your team will notice or bother to assist you. Why do they deserve a kill without any real effort or skill required anymore than an LRM mech can indirect fire at long range (about 20-40% accuracy by what I've seen posted for people's LRM accuracy)? Sneaking up behind is pretty easy to do, but is useless against any other mech except LRM boats.

So what I'm getting from this part is that because you have bad teammates and apparently don't carry backup weapons to deal with light mechs you want to just be able to chew them up with homing missiles at any range if they engage you at all; you're also wrong on both assertions that sneaking up on mechs is particularly easy or that it's useless against non-LRM mechs.

Quote

Most of the time close combat can be kept at between 150-200m (which already overlaps with the range for streaks and SRMs), which is fine for an LRM boat, and no one is screaming that LRMs are godlike there, so why would letting them keep the same power to 0m be worse? We're talking about a few limited scenarios.

The "close combat" is usually at those ranges because it doesn't need to be closer, except in the case of LRMs or the increasingly rare (standard) PPC mech. I think what you mean to say is that if you stay at those ranges with LRMs then you're really pushing your luck with the minimum ranges, and additionally this seems to contradict your point about complaining that light mechs kill you too easily when you boat LRMs.

It's not just "a few limited scenarios" where 0-1000m range LRMs would be useful, it's eliminating a rather large drawback on a weapon system where such a drawback is more than reasonable.

LordKnightFandragon, on 12 January 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

No, being able to deal 0.1pts of damage per LRM firing less then 180m is not OP......do not start lol......I didnt read the OP, but if at any point someone starts to say it is OP somehow...its not.

Maybe you should read before posting.

Edited by Pjwned, 12 January 2015 - 11:41 PM.

[Praehotec8]

Pjwned, on 12 January 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

a) I meant C-SSRMs do less total damage than C-LRMs, I acknowledged C-SSRM is more efficient at the range it's meant for because it clearly is.

The general population would have a good reason to exclusively boat a ton of C-LRMs because, aside from jesus box ECM on the enemy, it would allow LRMs to be a decently effective brawling weapon in addition to long range and indirect fire capability which is not reasonable.



a) C-ERLL is a direct fire weapon and its very long burn time would be a nightmare in a brawling situation, meanwhile C-LRMs have very little flight time at that range; I also question the effectiveness of a mech with only C-ERLL unless you're talking about a light mech sniper, which isn't exactly "boating" it.

No, boating LRMs that heavily (and exclusively) should not be encouraged, or at the very least not on a mech of that size, so if you want lots of LRMs then you either deal with your weakness in close range or you bring some backup weapons; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Additionally, even if it did happen (which it shouldn't) it would be overwhelmingly unfair compared to IS LRMs in a game where clan tech is not supposed to be grossly OP.

c) Ammo isn't really that much of a concern with a build like that, you could fit as many as 8 tons of ammo (9 if you shave armor off a useless arm) and even more ammo could be packed in if you dropped just 5 tubes from 60 to 55.



I already told you why it would be too good and you didn't listen, and to be honest I don't see why C-LRMs need to be so much better than they are now when they weigh significantly less than IS LRMs, regardless of their stream fire nature.



So what I'm getting from this part is that because you have bad teammates and apparently don't carry backup weapons to deal with light mechs you want to just be able to chew them up with homing missiles at any range if they engage you at all; you're also wrong on both assertions that sneaking up on mechs is particularly easy or that it's useless against non-LRM mechs.



The "close combat" is usually at those ranges because it doesn't need to be closer, except in the case of LRMs or the increasingly rare (standard) PPC mech. I think what you mean to say is that if you stay at those ranges with LRMs then you're really pushing your luck with the minimum ranges, and additionally this seems to contradict your point about complaining that light mechs kill you too easily when you boat LRMs.

It's not just "a few limited scenarios" where 0-1000m range LRMs would be useful, it's eliminating a rather large drawback on a weapon system where such a drawback is more than reasonable.

...Just read the posts I've made previously. If you feel the way you do, then so be it, I've already listed my thoughts and my numerical observations. My opinion is worth as much as yours, and neither of us will convince the other. However, I strongly feel that LRMs would benefit from some adjustment such that they are not the most situationally (in)effective weapons system in the game. Unfortunately, it does feel that for some reason a large portion of the player base just plain dislikes them or feels they should only be effective at weakening, rather than killing.

For the record, I don't run any "boating" mechs (especially LRM mechs) without some type of backup weapons, but often said backup weapons are more of a gesture than something that is often useful, as a few MLs are usually insufficient to handle most dedicated LRM hunters. I DO feel though that your stormcrow player there has every right to run whatever build he likes, and the Cat A-1 would like a word with you. As for my team - well, you don't get to pick your PUG-mates, so please get off your pedestal.