26 replies to this topic

[Col Jaime Wolf]

prior to about a week ago i was outta the loop for a bit. and i was just wondering was any reasoning given for lrms now have such a shallow arc?

[Alistair Winter]

I haven't noticed any difference. When you fire LRMs at short range, the arc is more shallow. Maybe that's what you were seeing?

[terrycloth]

It also matters where they're mounted. In the stock Stormcrow D, the LRMs are on the arms and have a ridiculously shallow arc. Move them to the high torso slots and they'll arc nicely.

The relative height of the target also matters. Never try to shoot over a hill at someone below you.

Edited by terrycloth, 03 March 2015 - 01:21 PM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Alistair Winter, on 03 March 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I haven't noticed any difference. When you fire LRMs at short range, the arc is more shallow. Maybe that's what you were seeing?

I think he's referencing the LRMpocalypse of like...2 years ago? Remember how high that arc was then?

[Col Jaime Wolf]

no i haven't been gone since then lrmpocalypse just like a month or so. ive just noticed that lrms in general just keep getting suckier and suckier. why even bother have indirect fire weapons if they dont track terrain and avoid obstacles? i mean its 3050 does PGI not think that computers in the future are capable of such a thing?

mechs have satellite hookups, laser communications and all that jazz yet missiles less advanced than a modern day hellfire cant even path find lol.

[Bacl]

Ghost Badger, on 03 March 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

I think he's referencing the LRMpocalypse of like...2 years ago? Remember how high that arc was then?

Lrmageddon, you heretic!

LRMpocalypse, pfff.

[Koniving]

Mellifluer, on 03 March 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

prior to about a week ago i was outta the loop for a bit. and i was just wondering was any reasoning given for lrms now have such a shallow arc?

People cry about not being able to evade missiles and the endless spam.

I miss the original missiles. Warning: animated Gif of missiles that come down like artillery shells.

Spoiler

According to the official magazine Battletechnology, they're supposed to launch at a high angle and come back down almost straight down (hence the min range, as it'd fire over their heads). Their range however is closer to 600 meters, not 1,000.

So PGI kinda dug their own hole there and stripped that tactical weapon from us for something that can spam.

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 01:46 PM.

[Mawai]

Mellifluer, on 03 March 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

no i haven't been gone since then lrmpocalypse just like a month or so. ive just noticed that lrms in general just keep getting suckier and suckier. why even bother have indirect fire weapons if they dont track terrain and avoid obstacles? i mean its 3050 does PGI not think that computers in the future are capable of such a thing?

mechs have satellite hookups, laser communications and all that jazz yet missiles less advanced than a modern day hellfire cant even path find lol.

"i mean its 3050 does PGI not think that computers in the future are capable of such a thing?"

PGI has nothing to do with it actually ... it is all BattleTech. PGI has chosen a particular implementation for the weapons and balances them as they see fit. However, the ridiculously short ranges, damage profiles, inter mech communications (or the lack of it if a C3 system is not installed), real ECM, ECCM and other counter measures, and on and on ... has to do with BattleTech rules and physics and nothing to do with the real world.

Even WWII unguided rocket systems could hit farther than LRMs in BattleTech. Current missiles systems are far more effective that Battletech counterparts. Laser effective ranges make absolutely no sense. The list is huge ... so it it pointless to try to cite real reasons for why some aspect of either BT or MWO should be implemented differently.

[Reitrix]

The problem with LRMs is the feast or famine they suffer from.

Take for example, my current match. My team, zero LRM, zero ECM. Other team, 1x ECM and 5x LRM boats.
my MDD got tagged by a NARC (Its Caustic) and i lost 49% of my total HP while twisting, ducking and generally skitzing the f*ck out.

Contrast this with other matches, where one team gets multiple ECM 'Mechs but no LRMs, but half the team with no ECM has LRMs.
Theres never a happy balance in the matches, its always, bar none, either target rich spammy environment or "Welp i may as well shutdown because the enemy never left ECM coverage"

And i do not think theres much that can be done to combat that.

Edited by Reitrix, 03 March 2015 - 03:04 PM.

[terrycloth]

SRMs have the same feast or famine problem, due to their hard maximum range. Some games you can't get close enough to use them without being LRM'd to death (or more likely, shot with other weapons).

It's why everyone uses large lasers or clan mechs.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

i would take dumbfire lrms if they just arced properly

[Zordicron]

Reitrix, on 03 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

The problem with LRMs is the feast or famine they suffer from.

Take for example, my current match. My team, zero LRM, zero ECM. Other team, 1x ECM and 5x LRM boats.
my MDD got tagged by a NARC (Its Caustic) and i lost 49% of my total HP while twisting, ducking and generally skitzing the f*ck out.

Contrast this with other matches, where one team gets multiple ECM 'Mechs but no LRMs, but half the team with no ECM has LRMs.
Theres never a happy balance in the matches, its always, bar none, either target rich spammy environment or "Welp i may as well shutdown because the enemy never left ECM coverage"

And i do not think theres much that can be done to combat that.

I agree with most of this, for PUG matches of course. Multiple ECM VS no ECM is pretty well a roflstomp in the making regardless of LRM counts. Too many unaware players in pugland that rely on red doritos for guidance on where to point there mech at.

[lsp]

I remember the days of old when Artemis came out, they came straight down ontop of your mech. No matter where you tried to hide, through mountians too, lol.

Edited by lsp, 03 March 2015 - 04:28 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

OP you need to tell us exactly on what mech(s) you're noticing this.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

all lrm mechs. lrms come out with a slight upward angle making them not very useful under 300m against a target just barely behind cover or in a whole lot of places where they should be working because they refuse to go over cover when they will otherwise turn on a dime to track a target. im not asking or talking about when lrms dropped straight on top of you (i remember that too) im asking why LRMS keeping getting dumber and dumber when it comes to path finding.

i don't mind that they come out at a low angle but when they slam into a ridgeline 100m in front of me while barely trying to gain any altitude its just kinda stupid especially on mechs like the KC where the launchers look as if they are meant to toss the lrms up rather then out.

im guessing PGI doesn't actually communicate these changes which was my original question. has PGI said anything about this nerf war going on?

edit also i used to be able to use the orion VA's arms (and pults and other mechs with missiles in the arms) to "toss" lrms around a corner or skip them across the ground in some underpasses, or lob them higher in the air so they clear a short building. now lrms exit my arm launchers at the same angle and heading straight forward regardless of whether or not my arms are level and straight or aimed in any particular direction.

again has PGI said anything as to why LRMS are getting dumber? this really seems to be taking away from the game rather then adding anything. specifically being able to use arms to aim lrms better. it was skill based and allowed different LRM boats to have distinctions (Orion VA's missiles all in arms vs an atlas or KC that has all torso missiles)

second edit i just tested the orion vs battlemaster vs KC and it seems to me that the missiles are using the clan lrm path finding because clan LRMS have always behaved with this "low arc". while it does at least appear to "toss" lrms slightly in the direction your aiming your arms they snap to their "shallow arc"almost instantly effectively nullifying the tactic of lobbing lrms with arms.

Edited by Mellifluer, 03 March 2015 - 05:55 PM.

[Escef]

I have not noticed any change in LRM trajectories. PGI hasn't touched them in a long while.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

ive noticed something, i noticed the new trajectory right away but i have been messing around with my new KC for a bit so i didn't get down and start testing things. but there is a difference IS LRMS use the same flight path as clan LRMS and when clan lrms came out it was very noticeable that they had a much shallower arc then IS LRMS.

[Lightfoot]

"The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a Battlemech like other components. In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy."

So when this gets simulated in a MechWarrior game the LRMs have a lower trajectory. In MW3 Artemis gave the LRMs some minor terrain avoidance they were so low. In my opinion if the Mech has line-of-sight with Artemis guidence the LRMs should go just about straight to the target with very low arcing. It would be a nice buff for the extra ton per launcher and would be based on the technology described above in Battle Tech.

[El Bandito]

Reitrix, on 03 March 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

The problem with LRMs is the feast or famine they suffer from.

Take for example, my current match. My team, zero LRM, zero ECM. Other team, 1x ECM and 5x LRM boats.
my MDD got tagged by a NARC (Its Caustic) and i lost 49% of my total HP while twisting, ducking and generally skitzing the f*ck out.

Contrast this with other matches, where one team gets multiple ECM 'Mechs but no LRMs, but half the team with no ECM has LRMs.
Theres never a happy balance in the matches, its always, bar none, either target rich spammy environment or "Welp i may as well shutdown because the enemy never left ECM coverage"

And i do not think theres much that can be done to combat that.

Just make GECM the canon version of the GECM, and balance LRMs from there.

[Kilo 40]

LRM arc hasn't changed at all.