38 replies to this topic

[Lynx7725]

I grow tired of the incessive noise of people "suggesting" to change LRMs.

I grow tired of people accusing us of mindlessly trying to follow TT rules without considering the FPS aspects of MWO.

I grow tired of people who apparently think the onus of keeping themselves alive is on others not utilizing certain weaponry.

Since the forums seem to react only to rants, I'm ranting.

Here is what I propose:

• LRMs no longer have Indirect Fire.
  
• LRMs are now restricted to 630m, as per TT rules. And no double-distance like ballistics and energy.
  
• LRM lock times are related to distance, the further away the longer the lock takes. This is to simulate the TT rules of +2 and +4 for shooting at things further away.
  
• LRM lock times are also affected by minimum range, in that it takes longer if the distance is under 180m. Again, this is to represent the aiming difficulty modifiers of the TT.
  
• LRM shake and damage can stay or reduce, I'm ok.
  
• LRM damage stays at 1 damage per missile.
  
• LRM speed need not change.
  
• Oh and ECM can stay. It'd still disrupt locks.

In return, I ask that:

• LRMs do full damage from 0m out to 630m, as per TT.
  
• LRMs are hot-loaded.

See? I only ask for two little things, in exchange for 5 nerfs. I am generous like that.

Why?

Because what I have is a pair of LRM Orions Mechs, Mechs that I have acquired over a long career. Mechs that make me a nightmare for people like you. I'll take care to move under cover as I normally do. I'll find you. I'll ambush you. I'll take your pitiful PPFLD or laser vomit fire, and when I get to a good spot, I'll hot load ALL my 45 to 50 LRMS AND FIRE THE WHOLE LOAD INTO YOUR FACE.

50 damage, all over the torsos. And in 5 seconds -- less, with cooldown quirks and modules -- I'll shoot another load.

You might want to check how much total armour you have. 100+ damage in 10 seconds would leave most mechs reeling.

Oh, and I'll shoot a couple of med lasers just to complete the picture.

Hell I might upgrade to a Awesome LRM70 build for this. The mental image of the Awesome performing a pelvic thrust prior to cutting loose with the missiles is... entertaining.

We have been nice and been using a weapon system that announces itself to the target -- "Oh hai, we're attacking you, would you kindly please move slightly to the left and into proper cover?" -- that is inaccurate, and that is largely neutralized by good personal piloting practices. Since that appears to be unappreciated, since people apparently cannot recognize that the onus of keeping themselves alive is on themselves, perhaps we should be somewhat more unnice?

Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

[Kilo 40]

Lynx7725, on 12 March 2015 - 12:35 AM, said:

• LRMs no longer have Indirect Fire.

That's the one I see the most, but I have yet to hear a reason why, other than "I don't like it".

[Lynx7725]

Kilo 40, on 12 March 2015 - 12:46 AM, said:

That's the one I see the most, but I have yet to hear a reason why, other than "I don't like it".

Shrug. I don't care. They don't want it, fine. In return, give me my <180m damage. Then instead of LRMing them to death from 500m I'll just shotgun their faces off with my LRM racks. That's the cost of getting rid of indirect.

Edited by Lynx7725, 12 March 2015 - 12:48 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

Yeah, what you want are MRMs.

If the changes you propose were made, LRMs wouldn't be LRMs. They'd be SSRM 20s with a massive range. There's absolutely no way that is a good idea.

[Lynx7725]

Onmyoudo, on 12 March 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

Yeah, what you want are MRMs.

If the changes you propose were made, LRMs wouldn't be LRMs. They'd be SSRM 20s with a massive range. There's absolutely no way that is a good idea.

Those aren't my ideas dear. Those are just a compilation/ interpretation of what they want. I just want an exchange. They get what they want, I get compensated. The consequences -- they bear it.

They want to stop us from using LRMs? It's irrelevant. I'd just adapt and then blow their faces off with massed missile fire. What they don't realised is that their "fixes" don't solve anything, it just pushes the problem around. If they can't deal with missile boats now, they won't be able to deal with missile boats ever.

[cleghorn6]

Onmyoudo, on 12 March 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

There's absolutely no way that is a good idea.

You're wrong, it's a very very good idea. Just not for anyone who doesn't use LRMs.

[Tuefel Hunden]

So...

Basically, you want table top rules for LRMs. How about direct fire weapons? Mechs? Direct fire weapons and mechs could easily be buffed.

Or

Is what your after really a nerf on something you don't like and you want direct fire weapons and mechs to remain nerfed?

[Sjorpha]

My solution is to ignore the complaints about LRMs completely, and understand that they are already fine and balanced as they are.

[mogs01gt]

This makes zero sense. If these changes went through, people would sit outside of 630m and snipe you to death.

Edited by mogs01gt, 12 March 2015 - 05:11 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Kilo 40, on 12 March 2015 - 12:46 AM, said:

That's the one I see the most, but I have yet to hear a reason why, other than "I don't like it".

Not defending the idea, but I have a great reason why:

Allowing indirect fire at the ranges you can do it leads to selfish, lazy gameplay, whereby the missile boat assumes none of the risk of actually getting shot at and reaps all the rewards while being a parasite to mechs that actually do take the risks necessary to fight. This is not to say the current LRM system does not support a more proactive missile boat, but it tends to breed that sort of selfish gameplay style.

[Kilo 40]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 March 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

Not defending the idea, but I have a great reason why:

Allowing indirect fire at the ranges you can do it leads to selfish, lazy gameplay, whereby the missile boat assumes none of the risk of actually getting shot at and reaps all the rewards while being a parasite to mechs that actually do take the risks necessary to fight. This is not to say the current LRM system does not support a more proactive missile boat, but it tends to breed that sort of selfish gameplay style.

That is the myth of the LRM boat pilot that's propagated by those, who are either angry they died from LRMs(and want a way to make themselves feel better about dying to "inferior" pilots), or people who think "kill stealing" is an actual thing.

The truth is that people who take no risk get no rewards, and those who sit in the back lobbing LRMs at max range will get the poor scores that go along with that behavior.

[NextGame]

Lynx7725, on 12 March 2015 - 12:35 AM, said:

I grow tired of the incessive noise of people &quot;suggesting&quot; to change LRMs.

.
.
.
.
.
.

List of changes for LRMs

LRM's are fine, just ignore the whiners who don't even have the mental gumption to stand behind a wall.

Edited by NextGame, 12 March 2015 - 05:41 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 March 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

Not defending the idea, but I have a great reason why:

Allowing indirect fire at the ranges you can do it leads to selfish, lazy gameplay, whereby the missile boat assumes none of the risk of actually getting shot at and reaps all the rewards while being a parasite to mechs that actually do take the risks necessary to fight. This is not to say the current LRM system does not support a more proactive missile boat, but it tends to breed that sort of selfish gameplay style.

Those are the LRMs either doing no damage or using the benefit that they have good scouts. Or simply someone used UAV and the other team didnt know about it.

I've shot down 4 UAVs in one match once.

[Pariah Devalis]

Kilo 40, on 12 March 2015 - 05:40 AM, said:

That is the myth of the LRM boat pilot that's propagated by those, who are either angry they died from LRMs(and want a way to make themselves feel better about dying to "inferior" pilots), or people who think "kill stealing" is an actual thing.

The truth is that people who take no risk get no rewards, and those who sit in the back lobbing LRMs at max range will get the poor scores that go along with that behavior.

The truth is I have snuck up on more than a few of these supposed mythical bad LRM pilots, and experience far too few of the good types. Every third drop I can almost expect to see "please hold locks" indicating another mythical beast is on my team. I love seeing proactive missile boats. I do. Hell, the few times I do run LRMs, it is as an intermediate ranged platform with either ample supporting laser systems or at the least a big gun to add some direct fire to the mix while lobbing lurms. They are far more effective, even, but the risk vs reward for LRMs is currently out of whack should one choose to hang back and get lucky with a UAV popping team.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 12 March 2015 - 05:45 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Kilo 40, on 12 March 2015 - 12:46 AM, said:

That's the one I see the most, but I have yet to hear a reason why, other than "I don't like it".

Indirect fire has proven to be a bit broken and makes it quite difficult to take cover against.

I'm all for removing indirect fire, and I use and abuse the **** out of it as an LRM support mech, and someone who mounts LRM's as a support weapon on many of my mechs.

[Vandul]

If all you are worried about is the 'selfish' or 'lazy' player, you are missing the bigger picture. Are there pilots who boat 40+ tubes because of this. Sure.

But what about that guy who continually streams LRM's at range to keep the enemy down so his own team can move up and gain a tactically superior position? What about that LRM pilot who softens up the enemy before the knife fighters close and find mechs with reduced armor, missing limbs, or open juicy critical sponges?

There is a real tactical side to being a LRM jock, but you have to be serious about it. You have to understand your role, and the composition of your team before you ever hit "/" to open your missile doors. If you dont, then you just lend credence to the fact that anyone who uses LRM's is 'selfish' or 'lazy'.

[Lynx7725]

Tuefel Hunden, on 12 March 2015 - 04:57 AM, said:

Basically, you want table top rules for LRMs. How about direct fire weapons? Mechs? Direct fire weapons and mechs could easily be buffed.

Or

Is what your after really a nerf on something you don't like and you want direct fire weapons and mechs to remain nerfed?

Good. You're thinking.

Neither. I'm doing two things. First, I'm giving the people who have been suggesting bad suggestions for LRMs what they want, and showing them possible consequences. IF they want to make suggestions, they cannot just assume good things would come out of those suggestions -- they must understand gamer behaviour is to exploit, and exploit extremely.

Second, I'm taking their own behaviour -- considering changes to a weapon system in isolation, in a vacuum -- and dishing it back. What happens when I don't give a crap about other weapons and suggest changes that will break the overall balance?

And this change will cause severe problems. The ability to dish out massive FLD damage, even if not PP, will alter player behaviour. Suddenly, missile boats would become more prevalent. And if you've feared the SplatCat previously (SRM36 Catapult), imagine a build that can throw out 50% more throw weight at ranges beyond 270m. Or a build that can chainfire LRMs in volleys all the way down to 0m. Suddenly the maps become "unplayable"... because a lurking missile boat can suddenly appear and strip you bare down to bones, leaving you an easy kill.

And these are changes that the LRM-nerfers want. Not me. I only asked for full damage under minimum, as compensation... but that one compensation would break the meta. So why did I ask for that? Because if the LRM-nerfers don't want to compensate the missile boats for all the suggested nerfs, then what they are actually doing is trying to buff their playstyle above a particular playstyle, and not actually about balance at all.

The whole point is about consequences. People shouldn't suggest changes without thinking about both positive AND negative consequences. A lot of rosy pictures about how this tweak to LRMs would make gameplay more fun. NULL! Some of the stuff suggested I would happily support because it makes LRM boats deadlier!

mogs01gt, on 12 March 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

This makes zero sense. If these changes went through, people would sit outside of 630m and snipe you to death.

Heh. You are assuming that LRM users don't have brains or don't use them. I used to play Boom Jager builds. I have no problems getting into range to use those -- and I mean close range. Close enough that I can't miss with AC40s. Having a big boomstick like the proposed stuff won't be difficult. Like the mythical Boom Jager, I won't survive too long, but that's irrelevant -- the damage would have been done.

[wanderer]

Lynx7725, on 12 March 2015 - 12:35 AM, said:

Here is what I propose:

• LRMs no longer have Indirect Fire.

Nope. IDF is the only thing that gives the LRM any hope of viability: Without it, missiles are doomed to be scatter-shot, slower-than-instant damage junk.

Quote

LRMs are now restricted to 630m, as per TT rules. And no double-distance like ballistics and energy.

LRMs WERE that range before. This meant they were effectively outranged by most -medium- range weapons in the game that it easily outdid in TT.

Quote

LRM lock times are related to distance, the further away the longer the lock takes. This is to simulate the TT rules of +2 and +4 for shooting at things further away.

I don't have a problem with this.

Quote

LRM lock times are also affected by minimum range, in that it takes longer if the distance is under 180m. Again, this is to represent the aiming difficulty modifiers of the TT.

Or this.

Quote

LRM shake and damage can stay or reduce, I'm ok.

LRM damage stays at 1 damage per missile.

LRM speed need not change.

[Lynx7725]

wanderer, on 12 March 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

Hotloading also reduces missile hits, you know. And you have to do it BEFORE the match starts, meaning you've got yourself a nerf there too.

Heh. I'm going to bring myself so close that I can't miss. People want changes so that Long Range Missiles aren't Long Range Missiles. I can give them that... and then turn around to exploit that. I don't even need to lock. I just get close enough where the missiles would mostly impact, and cut loose.

[wanderer]

So, basically SRM's -1. Because they'll do more damage, better clustered, and for less tonnage if you slap an SRM in vs. hotloaded LRMs. Hotloading was a crutch to allow LRM-equipped 'Mechs not to be utterly hosed in areas with close environments, like cities: And it also makes the launchers explosive too.