146 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Am I reading this right, lock-on behavior function much like MW4 missiles?

If so, Im pretty sure there has been a decent chunk of the community clamoring for missiles that function similar to how they did in MW4 for a couple years now.

[Novakaine]

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.

Crap and you know it.
Buff them back to 1.5 with splash damage and call it even.

[oldradagast]

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.

Lol...

LRM's are considered all but useless at the top levels of play. They also spend a huge amount of ammo to deal the damage they do - damage scattered all over the targets - AND they have hard counters (not counting cover) unlike every other weapon in the game... and a warning when you're being rained on.

So, you're saying they should have remained nerfed even further? Right... Here's an idea - use cover and Radar Derp and - barring high levels of enemy teamwork - you'll never really need to fear LRM's again.

[dimachaerus]

My idea for LRM's is that we do away with this crazy "every mech gets free C3" crap for indirect targetting. You want to do IDF with your lrm's? Have someone spot with a tag (Which would need the "beam" removed, just a laser "dot" on the target) or whack them with a Narc. Otherwise, you're outta luck. This would mean that you could increase the speed on LRM's without causing lurmageddon, maybe tighten their groupings up close (ESPECIALLY for direct-line-lock-and-fire) with an LBX-like spread so that they'll be fairly potent at short to mid ranges, and still manage to rain some hits in even through partial cover at long ranges. Added missile speed would also make dumb-firing LRM's a viable tactic.

I'd also slightly improve the damage LRM's cause, but also greatly increase their reload times to reduce the missile spamming blur/shake lock crap that is all the rage.

Would also allow LRM users to "hot load" their missiles, nullifying the minimum range, but if that launcher takes a crit hit, ouch. Ammo explosion.

Missile arcs would be a very slight upward arc, but we're talking maybe 5 degrees or so for a direct line lock, making them usable in more places than JUST in the open flat spaces of maps( and further improving dumb firing). For indirect fire, you yourself should lock and then have a second or two to crank back and fire them upwards, they'd travel until they could get a line of sight to the designated target and then they would arc back down towards the target with a somewhat more gradual arc than we have now. Could even go one better and make it so that if the target is narced they have an even steeper angle of attack available to them than if it were just Tagged.

On the downside for the LRM mechs, this would mean that no longer can you just sit in the back playing lock on red box warrior, you'd be much better served actually being in the fight and carrying some support weapons. I'd also keep the "actually put the reticle on the MECH to lock, not just somewhere near it" behavior we just experienced.

This would make it a decent choice to pack a launcher or two onto your mech, sort of like a semi-guided LBX to pepper your foes with while closing range to get down to the nitty-gritty of laser-hell-death.

[wanderer]

Quote

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!

What makes you think a smaller lock-on box would have given PGI some magical blessing to increase missile velocity?

Or fixed ECM? Altered radar deprivation? Somehow made LRMs able to aim for specific locations?

Making LRMs harder to lock-on would have done none of this other than made them more frustrating to fire on the move. Nothing more fun than flicking your torso up to clear the launchers of terrain and having your lock break off, eh? Cause that's what was happening to me.

LRMs, as long as there are as many "no-skill" (ECM, radar dep modules, terrain blocking before the slowboat missiles arrive) methods to counter them don't need it worse. It's already trivial to negate for experienced teams and in CW.

Quote

My idea for LRM's is that we do away with this crazy "every mech gets free C3" crap for indirect targeting.

You know what's crazy? Thinking C3 even works like that in TT, assuming you're just not a grognard that hasn't read a rulebook since the previous real-life century.

IDF takes two things in Battletech.

1) Someone else with LOS to the target. Even a single infantryman.
2) You don't have LOS.

That's it. In MWO for indirect fire?

1) Someone else has LOS to the target. Moreover, they have to have sensors on-target: ECM neatly kills this outside of 200m.
2) You don't have LOS.

It's actually harder to do IDF mode in MWO than in TT.

Edited by wanderer, 18 March 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[oldradagast]

wanderer, on 18 March 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

LRMs, as long as there are as many "no-skill" (ECM, radar dep modules, terrain blocking before the slowboat missiles arrive) methods to counter them don't need it worse. It's already trivial to negate for experienced teams and in CW.

Exactly.

I love the "Skillz" crowd who wine about how LRM's "lack skill." Yeah - try using them against a team outfitted with anti-LRM counters while still being useful... or on a map covered with buildings. There is NO other weapon system in the game that is so easily negated... and the methods of negating it require truly NO SKILL. You buy ECM or Radar Derp, put it in your mech, and there you go... barring certain specific circumstances, you can ignore LRM's and hide from radar in general. Yeah, so much skill there; it makes aiming LRM's look like rocket science in comparison.

[Alistair Winter]

oldradagast, on 18 March 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

So, you're saying they should have remained nerfed even further? Right... Here's an idea - use cover and Radar Derp and - barring high levels of enemy teamwork - you'll never really need to fear LRM's again.

You seem to fall neatly into the category of people who don't understand what's actually being discussed here.

Read my posts again, I think it's abundantly clear that I'm not asking for LRMs to be nerfed and I do not fear LRMs either.

[Insidious Johnson]

Spent all day yesterday in a 4J with 2x LRM10 w/ Artemis. Didn't notice any bug.

[Madcap72]

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

My idea for LRM's is that we do away with this crazy "every mech gets free C3" crap for indirect targetting. You want to do IDF with your lrm's? Have someone spot with a tag (Which would need the "beam" removed, just a laser "dot" on the target) or whack them with a Narc. Otherwise, you're outta luck. This would mean that you could increase the speed on LRM's without causing lurmageddon, maybe tighten their groupings up close (ESPECIALLY for direct-line-lock-and-fire) with an LBX-like spread so that they'll be fairly potent at short to mid ranges, and still manage to rain some hits in even through partial cover at long ranges. Added missile speed would also make dumb-firing LRM's a viable tactic.

I'd also slightly improve the damage LRM's cause, but also greatly increase their reload times to reduce the missile spamming blur/shake lock crap that is all the rage.

Would also allow LRM users to "hot load" their missiles, nullifying the minimum range, but if that launcher takes a crit hit, ouch. Ammo explosion.

Missile arcs would be a very slight upward arc, but we're talking maybe 5 degrees or so for a direct line lock, making them usable in more places than JUST in the open flat spaces of maps( and further improving dumb firing). For indirect fire, you yourself should lock and then have a second or two to crank back and fire them upwards, they'd travel until they could get a line of sight to the designated target and then they would arc back down towards the target with a somewhat more gradual arc than we have now. Could even go one better and make it so that if the target is narced they have an even steeper angle of attack available to them than if it were just Tagged.

On the downside for the LRM mechs, this would mean that no longer can you just sit in the back playing lock on red box warrior, you'd be much better served actually being in the fight and carrying some support weapons. I'd also keep the "actually put the reticle on the MECH to lock, not just somewhere near it" behavior we just experienced.

This would make it a decent choice to pack a launcher or two onto your mech, sort of like a semi-guided LBX to pepper your foes with while closing range to get down to the nitty-gritty of laser-hell-death.

This sums it up well.


LRM's are a support weapons system. If EVERYONE gets the benifit of having free zero ton C3i, LRMS and thier ability to lock should be allowed to make use of it.

I think C3/ C3i should be fully implemented. No more gettin to scan the minimap to see where guys are. Now that we all have voip, there should be no lock and target sharing.

Then LRMS can be implimented with direct fire, and only targeting via tag, narc, and C3/C3i.

[Alistair Winter]

wanderer, on 18 March 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

What makes you think a smaller lock-on box would have given PGI some magical blessing to increase missile velocity?

Nothing. I'm just saying there was a bug that accidentally put PGI closer to a good solution. I am under no illusion that PGI is planning to drastically change the way LRMs work. Especially not after spending countless hours trying to balance quirks.

[dimachaerus]

wanderer, on 18 March 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

You know what's crazy? Thinking C3 even works like that in TT, assuming you're just not a grognard that hasn't read a rulebook since the previous real-life century.

IDF takes two things in Battletech.

1) Someone else with LOS to the target. Even a single infantryman.
2) You don't have LOS.

That's it. In MWO for indirect fire?

1) Someone else has LOS to the target. Moreover, they have to have sensors on-target: ECM neatly kills this outside of 200m.
2) You don't have LOS.

It's actually harder to do IDF mode in MWO than in TT.

You wanna know a little secret man? LRM's in TT, DID NOT TRACK.

Let me emphasize this for you:

Tabletop LRM's did not have any kind of tracking, homing, or even flight altering ability, except for two very specific and very rare ammo types: Semi Guided (which requires tag), and heat seeking.

They were quite literally dumbfire "artillery" rockets fired in volleys to increase the probability of a hit. What this game, and every other MW game before it has had in terms of LRM tracking is pure BS when it comes to the "rules" you just referenced.

Yes, you could call out to your allied mechs/tanks/aero/vtols/emplacements "hey there's X target in X spot moving in X direction at X speed" and they could feed those numbers into their targetting computer, get a solution, and fire. But I don't see PGI wanting to totally do away with the tracking missiles we have now because the other more "rule" friendly iteration would be immensely more complicated to program.

So how about we try and make the system we have now be a bit more useful at higher levels of play, and actually promote some skill growth at the lower ends.

[wanderer]

Quote

If EVERYONE gets the benifit of having free zero ton C3i,

Do you even comprehend how C3/C3i works in Battletech?

It renders everyone's accuracy equal to whoever has the best range-to-target. A C3 Master gets the ability to work like TAG for free.

It has nothing to do with LRM fire in TT otherwise, and someone else with LOS in MWO does not magically increase my missile velocity so a 600m shot hits in the time it'd have taken them to go the 60m the Raven hugging my target's backside instead.

See my previous post. It is actually harder to fire LRMs indirectly in MWO than in TT.

Nothing in MWO gives people "free C3i" or "free C3". This is a fallacy so bluntly wrong, I wish I could reach through the Internet and shake the stupid out of the people posting it. Not for LRMs, nor anything else. Even in double blind rules, a unit visible to one enemy unit is known to all of them, and that's all MWO does. Paints a dorito on the map showing enemies that are visible to someone's sensors.

[wanderer]

Quote

Tabletop LRM's did not have any kind of tracking, homing, or even flight altering ability, except for two very specific and very rare ammo types: Semi Guided (which requires tag), and heat seeking.

Incorrect. LRMs could and did get fed course-corrections in-flight from the launching 'Mech. Artemis is in fact an advanced version of this very system and yes, LRMs are capable of course-correction while active even with standard launcher systems.

It's a very simple and "robust" guidance system, which is why ECM doesn't bollix it like it does Artemis or NARC in tabletop. Again, in MWO it's actually nastier- as ECM negates even standard LRM guidance. LRMs with things like Listen-Kill, semi-guided, etc. are "extras" above and beyond normal LRM guidance systems.

Medium range missiles (MRM) indeed do NOT have a guidance system- in fact, it's specifically stated that said systems can pack more missiles per ton because they lack the guidance packages both LRMs AND SRMs are equipped with.

Edited by wanderer, 18 March 2015 - 04:02 PM.

[stjobe]

Madcap72, on 18 March 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

LRM's are a support weapons system.

No, it's a weapon system just like any other. The only thing "support" about it is that it's also able to fire indirectly, which lasers, ballistics, and dumb-fire (don't get me started on the difference between rockets and missiles...) SRMs can't, for obvious reasons.

Madcap72, on 18 March 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

If EVERYONE gets the benifit of having free zero ton C3i, LRMS and thier ability to lock should be allowed to make use of it.

I think C3/ C3i should be fully implemented. No more gettin to scan the minimap to see where guys are. Now that we all have voip, there should be no lock and target sharing.

Do you think it takes a C3 system to fire LRMs indirectly in TT? It doesn't. All you need is a unit with LoS to the target, and the firing unit cannot have LoS to the target itself. There's no other requirements, and the spotting unit can be any kind of unit, be it 'mech, armour, aerospace fighter, or even infantry.

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

Tabletop LRM's did not have any kind of tracking, homing, or even flight altering ability

Patently false.


(Tech Manual, p.229)

Let me point out the key word there: "self-guided". It says "usually", because MRMs are dumb-fired. Every other missile type is guided.

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

except for two very specific and very rare ammo types: Semi Guided (which requires tag), and heat seeking.

Semi-guided missiles gets a bonus from TAG, which no other missile type does. In TT, TAG is for guiding artillery, not missiles. SGMs are LRMs with the Arrow IV laser-homing system added.

dimachaerus, on 18 March 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

They were quite literally dumbfire "artillery" rockets fired in volleys to increase the probability of a hit. What this game, and every other MW game before it has had in terms of LRM tracking is pure BS when it comes to the "rules" you just referenced.

No, all missiles except MRMs are guided. Read the Tech Manual. There's a reason they're called "missiles" and not "rockets".

Edited by stjobe, 18 March 2015 - 04:04 PM.

[dimachaerus]

@ Jobe and Wanderer:

So, I stand corrected, everything I had read had said they were unguided, but whatever.

The super efficient and altogether super easy indirect lock on of tracking "missiles" is what raises such an outcry about LRM's and "lurmageddon". What I propose will change that (promoting teamplay even more as well), and make it a better overall weapon system, EVEN when it's varied counters are present..

Targets under ECM? Fire your missiles without a "lock". Yeah, harder to aim, but with a significantly increased flight speed and a tighter spread you can at least DO something to the target with them as compared to now.

AMS? Faster flight speed means less engagement time, which means fewer missiles destroyed and more missiles on target.

Need to hit that dude in cover? Have a friendly mech paint him with tag (without that idiotic "beam" making it ultra obvious) or whack him with a narc, and commence the rain. hell, it'll actually be easier to get them on target because YOU YOURSELF can pick the angle they fly at to pass over the target, instead of the hilarious rainbow arc we have now. Also, faster LRM's with a tighter spread at short to medium ranges, means less response time on the target's end and more concentrated hits than we have now, though the indirect fired missiles should have some extra "bloom" to their swarm.

As I said in my original post, I want LRM's to be a better weapon system at ALL levels of play, not a nerf.

[Uncl Munkeh]

kf envy, on 18 March 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

why y not use LRMs then?

Yes, you y not use LRMs then?

[Reitrix]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 March 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Well, it basically needed the person to aim at the enemy mech to gain the lock-on, instead of aiming somewhere in the general direction of the enemy.

I, to be honest, kind of liked the way it worked. Felt more involved and actually more *fun* to use the LRMs.

Aiming for center of the red square and waiting for the red lock felt more involved than ... aiming inside the red square and waiting for that red lock?

Madcap72, on 18 March 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

This sums it up well.


LRM's are a support weapons system. If EVERYONE gets the benifit of having free zero ton C3i, LRMS and thier ability to lock should be allowed to make use of it.

I think C3/ C3i should be fully implemented. No more gettin to scan the minimap to see where guys are. Now that we all have voip, there should be no lock and target sharing.

Then LRMS can be implimented with direct fire, and only targeting via tag, narc, and C3/C3i.

While I'm a fan of the C3 system, the problem is can you find someone in the solo queue willing to sacrifice guns to take a system that ONLY benefits someone else and could could end up as dead weight because no one has LRMs.

Edited by Reitrix, 18 March 2015 - 04:37 PM.

[stjobe]

Make them fire-and-forget.

No more of this having to keep the lock for the entire flight time. Standing out of cover facing the same direction for up to 10 seconds isn't conducive to a long, healthy life for a MWO MechWarrior - and yes I know, you can do it on the move, while in cover. The point still stands, it's ridiculous to have to maintain a lock on a target for what should be a self-guided missile.

Make them lock on faster and guide themselves to the target. As compensation, when you fire you lose your lock and have to re-acquire it for the next salvo. Use the bone-targeting that was developed for Streaks to target groups of 5 missiles (with a chance of individual missiles missing completely).

If fired indirectly, increase the amount of missiles that misses in the bone-targeting code, which represents the +1 to-hit modifier you get from indirect fire in TT. Or just make the lock take a bit longer - either one works.

Then do the same for SRMs, only with individual missile bone-targeting (including a chance of individual missiles in a salvo missing) - in effect SRMs should be what SSRMs are today.

SSRMs? Their only unique point as compared to SRMs in TT is that they refuse to fire before all tubes have hard lock - so make their lock take twice as long (or 1.5, or whatever makes sense) but make all missiles hit if you do get a lock.

That would be a pretty close to TT implementation, and a lot better than the one we have now.

Edited by stjobe, 18 March 2015 - 04:38 PM.

[dimachaerus]

stjobe, on 18 March 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

Then do the same for SRMs, only with individual missile bone-targeting (including a chance of individual missiles in a salvo missing) - in effect SRMs should be what SSRMs are today.

Yeah, no thanks, I'd much rather keep my non-locking SRM's exactly as they are, being able to actually put them more-or-less where I want them is why I prefer them to streaks.

As for fire and forget, sure, I'm down with that, but leave the bone targetting out of it so that there's at least some directionality on the receiving end, and when it comes to TT? Yeah this is Mechwarrior Online, TT has very little to do with the way a pinpoint aimed multiplayer arena shooter with funny-moving avatars wearing 3d meshes over their POV's plays out.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Wiat wut? Wut they change on LRMs? Quicker locks with higher arc so you can lock on in a fraction of the time and hit significantly more with little effort?