146 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Sounds promissing the more controll the better

[Mordin Ashe]

OP, you are right and you posted an epic cat picture. I think you may have just won the internet...!

[Big Tin Man]

Agree with OP. This 'bug/feature' maybe went a little too far with just how tight you had to aim, and locking a fast light at range was probably a little too tough, and zooming in provided quite a bit of help (adv. zoom lrm boats? LOL). I almost felt safe going outside of ECM cover without radar derp. This is a good thing, instead of making radar derp mandatory on all mechs.

If it were to stay as tight as it was, base time to lock needs to be reduced and this would make artimis more desirable. Missile speed should be bumped a hair as well.

If it was loosened a bit (but still tighter than pre 3/17 patch, keep the time to lock but still bump missile speed.

If it is left alone, can the time to lock be dynamic to allow dead center aim to lock significantly faster, and people who can't have a longer TTL?

Please don't ignore this PGI, you stumbled onto what could be a very good thing.

What were people's feelings on streaks? They were affected by this as well. My locusts would like life to be harder for the clan streakboats.

[terrycloth]

Streaks are already impossible to use against lights who know what they're doing. Well, and that notice you.

[Madcap72]

The bug made me glad I hve enough time in the game to be able to fire without locks and still hit targets.

Dumbfiring missles and hitting people 1000m away is hilarious when you don't have to take the time to lock, and just use advanced zoom instead.

[1453 R]

Okay. This thread’s got me thinking, and that thinking runs into the same stumbling blocks as literally every other ‘new LRM mechanics’ thread everz.

1.) Forcing LRM launchers to maintain lock cripples a bombardment ‘Mech’s defensive capabilities; the ‘face time’ issue.

2.) LRMs are far and away THE most telegraphed weapon in the game, with a Betty warning, AMS systems, and the incredibly super-mega-ultra-visible TAG laser all warning of impending missiles, to say nothing of the laughable slow travel time.

3.) AMS. ECM. Radar Derp. Minimum range. Missiles have multiple direct countermeasures and inherent problems going against them, while the only direct countermeasure against direct-fire weapons is armor – which the missiles have to contend with as well.

3.) the above render LRMs largely pointless in a direct-fire confrontation, and yet everyone I see wants to try and force LRMs to compete with direct-fire weapons via new mechanics, without any sort of compensation, by drastically weakening indirect fire and also trying to make it much more difficult to achieve a lock without reducing the defensive penalties of the lock system itself.

So. We had an accidental demonstration last night of what so many people have been requesting for a long time now – requiring an LRM machine to gain locks via direct aim at the enemy, i.e. “@1M1NG SK1LLZ!!1!” It was…awkward, but as Alistair pointed out, it shows some promise.

Let’s take it further and try to actually solve some of those problems above.

1.) LRM targeting is tightened up, making it difficult to know where to hold lock for indirect fire, but missile velocity is increased by at least 30%, and lock time itself is cut down. Quicker locks with quicker missiles help reduce the telegraphing problem, making it easier to punish bad positioning (less time for the enemy to correct their error), and also allowing LRM machines that aren’t that worthless godawful Stalker to do more damage with less ammo, so we can maybe stop seeing ‘Mechs with fourteen tons of missile ammo in a match.

2.) The ‘must maintain lock’ functionality is loosened or removed entirely. If gaining the initial lock is going to be made difficult/dicey, then the requirement to hold it shouldn’t be necessary. This permits LRM machines to make full use of defensive twisting/cover as needed, which means they stop being free food in direct-fire confrontations.

3.) TAG rework to coincide with the above. TAG must be held on the target for a full second (or 1.5s, who knows. Whatever feels right) before taking effect, but after that the effect ‘sticks’ for five seconds after TAG is removed, refreshed by any further TAG ‘hits’ later on. After five seconds the ‘Mech is un-TAG’d and TAG must be held on it for a full second. Thusly, spotters can also engage in defensive twisting as needed, and TAG becomes not-suicide for the light ‘Mechs intended to act as TAG spotters.

4.) Active TAG/NARC on an enemy re-enables red-box targeting rather than ‘Mech-itself targeting, with the faster missiles and lock speeds unabated. If you’re being spotted for missiles, you should be in a world of hurt and doing everything you can to not be spotted for missiles. Spotters should be dangerous threats, not jokes.

Anyone else have any similar sorts of thoughts? If we’re going to rework LRMs, we need to do it thoroughly, not just half-assedly reclassify a bug as a ‘feature’ and make the weapons more difficult to use without offering any fixes or corrections for the legions of problems their current ease of use have prevented fixes or corrections for.

[KraftySOT]

I wonder how many words have been written about lrms in this forum...millions? Billions?

[Madcap72]

KraftySOT, on 18 March 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

I wonder how many words have been written about lrms in this forum...millions? Billions?

No kidding, and yet the most effective LRM counter still is "Hey lights, go sneak around and kill the LRM boats".

[Alistair Winter]

Madcap72, on 18 March 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

No kidding, and yet the most effective LRM counter still is "Hey lights, go sneak around and kill the LRM boats".

The lack of effective counters isn't really a problem, and I dare say you're wrong about the most effective one too. The most effective one is just staying near cover, shooting anyone with LRMs in the face with lasers and ballistics, and then moving into cover before their LRM return fire arrives, ten seconds later.

The reason I'm starting this thread is, as stated in the OP, because they're good against new players but terrible against skilled players. They're not underpowered or overpowered, they're just very poorly implemented.

Effective counters are irrelevant to this thread.

[LordNothing]

its not like it was a real fix anyway. i didnt even notice that locks (i do use ssrms, and as far as i know they use the same lock code because pgi is lazy) were harder to get because i know how aiming works. the forum has gone over ways to improve lerms ad nauseam, and the consensus is that everything that has anything to do with lerms is broke. i have noticed a huge decline in lerm usage in games, and i cant even remember the last time i used them. most of my lights are setup as fighters and not recon mechs.

lerms are supposed to be the end all beat all teamplay weapon, but should be an inferior weapon for a pug. the exact opposite is true now. teams seldom use them, and pugs use them a lot.

Edited by LordNothing, 18 March 2015 - 11:46 AM.

[Fonzie260]

I'm so sick of hearing people cry about LRMs....

Let's broaden the subject shall we.....

Range

Large lasers ... should have a min range and the closer the target is to you the less damage it should do.

Med Lasers..... should be just that... do only damage at med range..... too close no damage... too far no damage....

Small Lasers ..... should be just that close range only....

Auto Cannons seem to be ok on range in my opinion

Lazer sizes should count for something other than the ability to allow lights to run around assaults without care.

Large lasers should have a weight penalty.... where if a light mech decides to take them... the slower they can move....
should also go for Auto Cannons...

Auto cannons should loose accuracy the longer you hold the trigger down... ... the hotter you get the less accurate.


I'm so tired of people bashing missiles because they are too stupid to work with a team... "the solo Artist" and yes this applies to the almighty "Russ" too

This is a team game... hence why you drop with a team...... Learn to play as a part of the dam team ..... stop crying for nerfs because your too dam lazy to change your playstyle.

[Alistair Winter]

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

I'm so sick of hearing people cry about LRMs....

And I'm sick of people writing wall of texts without even reading the OP or understanding what's actually being discussed.

I'm also a not fan of excessive use of the ellipsis, to be perfectly honest with you.

[1453 R]

One of the people in this 'debate', Fonzie, is a longstanding and respected member of the community trying to foster a decent discussion of potential LRM fixes and improvements.

One of them is a nobody with a grammatically incorrect signature and a chip on his shoulder.

I leave it to you to decide for yourself who's who. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll give you a hint. The top one is Alistair.

[stjobe]

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

I'm so sick of hearing people cry about LRMs....

Great way to start a post.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Large lasers ... should have a min range and the closer the target is to you the less damage it should do.

Why? Laser beams don't converge, there's no attenuation at the ranges we're talking about, and most importantly, they didn't have a minimum range in BattleTech - the universe this game is (however loosely) based on.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Med Lasers..... should be just that... do only damage at med range..... too close no damage... too far no damage....

No. Just no. Lasers don't work that way. At all.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Small Lasers ..... should be just that close range only....

They are.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Large lasers should have a weight penalty.... where if a light mech decides to take them... the slower they can move....

They do, insofar as taking too many makes you have to take a smaller engine. Other than that, 'mechs can carry their weight no problem without slowdowns.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Auto cannons should loose accuracy the longer you hold the trigger down... ... the hotter you get the less accurate.

While this might actually be realistic, it's highly unlikely to happen, seeing as we've been pleading with PGI for both recoil and heat penalties for roughly three years now.

Fonzie260, on 18 March 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

I'm so tired of people bashing missiles because they are too stupid to work with a team... "the solo Artist" and yes this applies to the almighty "Russ" too

This is a team game... hence why you drop with a team...... Learn to play as a part of the dam team ..... stop crying for nerfs because your too dam lazy to change your playstyle.

Sure, it's a team game. But why should LRMs have to be team-only weapons when no other weapons are?

The missile code in MWO is a hot mess, there's no disputing that. From flight mechanics to missile clustering to targeting and lock-on code, there's really no part of it that works satisfactory. Never has, as can be evidenced by the fact that it is the single most patched weapon type in the game. I'd bet good money almost half of the patches MWO has ever had has had some kind of tweak to LRMs in it.

Last night showed us a bug - and a bug must be fixed, of course - that also by accident showed us an alternative way of achieving locks with LRMs. Some of us liked it and think with a bit of polish it could be re-introduced as a feature.

Hence this thread.

[Madcap72]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

The lack of effective counters isn't really a problem, and I dare say you're wrong about the most effective one too. The most effective one is just staying near cover, shooting anyone with LRMs in the face with lasers and ballistics, and then moving into cover before their LRM return fire arrives, ten seconds later.

The reason I'm starting this thread is, as stated in the OP, because they're good against new players but terrible against skilled players. They're not underpowered or overpowered, they're just very poorly implemented.

Effective counters are irrelevant to this thread.

The moment a person says "x is irelevent" when talking about a combat simulation in which combined arms are used as a team against another team is the moment that person exposes themselves and forgetting the entire purpose of the game.

Posts like yours and threads like this really confirm my opinion that people complain about LRMS because they don't have the chops to think asymetrically and utalize the game to it's full advantage.


Meanwhile, post hotfix I just had a great game in my LRM catapult brawling other heavies with LRMS at 300M getting 3 kills, 7 assists and a 107 match score just goofing around.


I think the more competative LRMS are, the more people like to hate on them. Anytime LRM boats aren't easy gimmie kills I always see the forum light up "LRMS OP PGI PLZ NERF"


Case in point, your thread where you state that a bug breaking the LRMS makes them better... right...

Edited by Madcap72, 18 March 2015 - 12:59 PM.

[monk]

The accidental change yesterday wasn't really that big of a deal, in my opinion. I didn't mind it, but I don't think it goes towards fixing the real problem with LRMs in that they affect players of different skill levels very differently. If you think they were somehow made less effective by the change here was the game I played yesterday. I just happened to screenshot this because I thought it was funny how people always say LRMs are useless. I suppose I'm not pro tier in MWO, but for the record, it's very rare to see LRMs in the matches I play.



Still, I am in the party that thinks these changes would improve LRMs

1. Increase duration between firing.
2. Increase flight speed.
3. Improve damage (tighter spread, more damage, it doesn't matter. Currently it's too much like throwing bbs at mechs.)
4. Allow players to modify flight trajectory (I like the idea that artemis would give you more options. Just high angle and a more straight path would be useful, but I'd prefer 3 angles.)
5. I'm find with the idea of allowing LRMS to not make use of friendly targeting if they could be more useful as a weapon. Again, maybe something that could be a module or piece of gear (C3? I realize I'm getting into an argument about what systems were really for, but I like the idea that players could carry information warfare gear to assist their team).

Still, I find them just fine. You just have to know how to use them properly. My Stalker, btw, was an LRM 40 with 2 ERLs for "backup".

Edited by monk, 18 March 2015 - 01:12 PM.

[COOL HANDS]

I seem to forget from time to time. But what is it that these pro players that are complaining in these lrm threads keep throwing in every players face weather old or new. When it comes to Cw, or the clans are op type threads please nerf ect.I think that same thing applies here with the lrms, how do u guys say ( learn to adapt).

Edited by xxXKryotech OneXxx, 18 March 2015 - 02:06 PM.

[Something Wrong]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

Cool banana bro. Fax me the rest.

[Alistair Winter]

@1453 R: I appreciate that, and commend your post on the lack of ellipses.

@MadCap72: It seems you misunderstood the thread. You should read St Jobe's post above, it's quite good.

Sum Ting Wong, on 18 March 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

Cool banana bro. Fax me the rest.

How did you get that Dezgra title? Don't think I've seen one before.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 25 March 2015 - 03:03 PM.
Unconstructive

[Something Wrong]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

@1453 R: I appreciate that, and commend your post on the lack of ellipses.

@MadCap72: Like Fonzie, it seems you misunderstood the thread. You should read St Jobe's post above, it's quite good.


How did you get that Dezgra title? Don't think I've seen one before.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

Trust me, you don't want this title.