212 replies to this topic

[Tsig]

Tesunie, on 05 August 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

That's basically what I said. They go for what is efficient, which often times is what is easiest and most reliable to use. Even if Dual AC20 is "effective", but if say hit registration doesn't register half the hits landed with it, then it wouldn't be used by competitive units because it isn't reliable. Same for any other weapon.

There are ways to very effectively play LRMs, even in a competitive scene. Same for balanced builds. I recall my unit's big CW group that I joined wanted to try LRM boating to victory. We nearly got it to work. In those matches, I was in my balanced LRM mechs, such as my Stalker 3F. I was actually one of the highest performers because I filled in a role. I could LRM with everyone else, and I could also deal direct damage to anyone who got too close. (My unit is very much willing to experiment with tactics, and those matches was a lot of fun to play.)

LRMs, even in competitive play, can still be used to lure opponents into a trap ("Look! An LRM noob! Charge him!") or as a fear weapon to stall and delay some enemies approach (even competitive players run for cover and breaking line of sight when they hear LRMs are incoming). LRMs are more than a damage weapon, they are a utility weapon. They can serve many purposes in a match, and it can be worth taking just a few LRMs sometimes.


Trust me. I do understand the weaknesses of LRMs. I also understand the weaknesses of more balanced builds. The problem people don't understand with balanced builds isn't that it's "weaker in a brawl than a brawler", it's the fact that it can "take a brawler outside brawling, and play outside their strengths". If you are mashing a balanced build against another specialized build within their specialty, then to quote other people "you are doing it wrong". It isn't the same typical way everyone else plays, and can backfire as much as any other build concept or loadout.


Most everything in this game is how you play it.

The problem with your theory is that most Comp teams are going to have enough ECM to cover the group effectively and if you have Tag, then they just poke from behind cover. Your LRMs are never going to be effective against a good poke comp.

[Tesunie]

Tsig, on 05 August 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

The problem with your theory is that most Comp teams are going to have enough ECM to cover the group effectively and if you have Tag, then they just poke from behind cover. Your LRMs are never going to be effective against a good poke comp.

Still don't really see how competitive play(ers) and weapons have much to do with each other. I don't play competitively, and I don't play in Group (12 man) Queue for the most part. Also, if I'm trying to play the poke game with a build/team that is designed to do it well, I'm once again probably doing something wrong. (Once again, a comparison of "if I have you pitted against their strengths, of course you would lose". The concept is, play to their weaknesses, not their strengths.)

PS: Maybe this is why I have an issue with the cloaking devise... I mean ECM... I wouldn't mind the cloak, if it didn't also stack a penalty on getting missile locks as well when I could target them. Or I wouldn't mind the increase to missile lock on times, if I could readily lock. This I see as a double penalty. One or the other is fine, but combined it's an issue.

A good LRM player still has their ways around such things, which is also why I've said I don't boat my LRMs. I find them great as a secondary support weapon, or a primary focus weapon. Never as a boated weapon (in my opinion). I always take enough other direct fire weapons to still contribute even if everything else ends up going south. It's a team game, not solo-rambo game.

All I want as an LRM user is a bit of respect for my trade. Not the continued attacks (or so it feels) just for bringing a weapon system I enjoy playing with. (I'd like to note, I don't just use LRMs, but every weapon in the game. But I do have a fondness for my LRMs, I will admit.)

[Tsig]

Unfortunately, this headache is preventing me from fully debating the pros and cons of LRMs, however, I will address your last statement.

Respect for LRM users is, unfortunately, hampered by the players that do nothing but boat said weapons and are unable to do anything but fire missiles at their opponents. Even when they can clearly see their missiles hitting a building/cliff/rock/tree and not actually doing any damage. Or firing their LRMs inside 180m and doing no damage. These players have given LRMs a bad name. Coupled with the fact that most Comp players advocate using the most pinpoint damage possible, it just doesn't leave much room for an inaccurate weapon system like LRMs. Then you have the players that always follow the "Meta". They'll jump on the bandwagon without really knowing WHY certain weapons are used and others aren't and they will mindlessly hate anything that isn't "Meta".

That last group are really the ones that you seem to have a problem with. I'll come back tomorrow after this headache is gone to further debate the merits of LRMs vs Direct Fire.

[Tesunie]

Tsig, on 05 August 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

That last group are really the ones that you seem to have a problem with. I'll come back tomorrow after this headache is gone to further debate the merits of LRMs vs Direct Fire.

I agree with you on the reasons LRMs have gained so much disdain. (They also are looked down upon because they can deal damage, and even kill, without the user even seeing their target, and with their target not being able to "defend themselves" by being able to shoot their aggressor back...)

As far as LRMs and their strengths and weaknesses, I'd like to believe I have a good grasp of what they are. I just believe that there are plenty of good reasons to take LRMs as much as any other weapons, just not always for a high pin point damage (or even damage) role. They can also be used as a fear weapon, a utility weapon, or just a natural focus fire weapon for teamwork (particularly in PUGs).

If you feel like reading, just to show I have a grasp of what makes and breaks LRMs. Just linking so as to try and not detract this thread with it all:
MWO: Forums - Lrms, Spotting, And You 6/20/13

MWO: Forums - Guide: How To Spot

MWO: Forums - Lrm Guide: Lrms Require Skill To Properly Use

MWO: Forums - Guide: A Balance Concept To Mech Building

PS: Feel better soon. Headaches are such a pain. No pun was intended.

Edited by Tesunie, 05 August 2015 - 05:41 PM.

[Tsig]

For me, personally, I don't use LRMs because I don't feel like they do ENOUGH. With ECM, you can't really rely on locks from your teammates and if you get close enough to get locks of your own, you're liable to be focused down quickly because you can't really fight back as well as a mech that's using Ballistics or Lasers.

There's also the 180m Deadzone where LRMs don't do anything at all. I understand that you don't boat nothing but LRMs, but there are many that do. As soon as those people are spotted, they're pretty much dead because they can't kill something before it gets inside 180m.

I would love nothing more than for LRMs to be usable. However, the problem becomes finding that sweet-spot right between Useless and LRMageddon. We've been to both ends of the spectrum so far and I'm not even sure where that sweet-spot is. I think the ECM reduction from 180m to 90m will help a bit with LRMs, but I still don't see them as being useful enough as a weapon system outside of PuG matches.

Anybody that survived LRMageddon should have this sense of "Oh, there's the Incoming Missiles warning, better find cover." That will also mess with LRMs being useful. Now, I don't know if you recall what Streaks used to be like back in Closed Beta, but they weren't a "Fire and Forget" weapon like they are today. They actually didn't even hit all the time. What I would like to see is a set of two different modes of fire for the LRMs. The current standard of dropping from the sky for indirect fire is fine, but I'd like to see a much flatter trajectory for firing when you have LoS on the target. I think that would go a long way in helping this weapon system.

[Kjudoon]

Really, the reason the 'sweet spot' for functionality is so thin is mostly to do with AMS. Seriously, if you set it so AMS only protected your own mech, most of the problem would be gone. Their ammo would last longer, it would not be a 'perfect shield' like it can be en masse as it currently is. This prevents small amounts of LRMs from being just a nuissance. Who puts an LRM10 on a thunderbolt? Nobody. Why? useless tonnage compared to another PPC or LPL

That would broaden the sweet spot some and make it more functional. Mechs with multiple AMS would be encouraged to run it because it still takes out 3 LRMs per launcher per salvo, give or take with no enhancements. 3 of them would protect them from anything less than an LRM10 for a little while. But it wouldn't be all encompasing sheets of AMS where 10-14 of them obliterate whole missile salvoes even when they are under cover or in a tunnel and they still hit.

As for putting the weapon on par with DF weaponry, it's one of a few options able to do this.

1. End perfect convergence for DF weapons and give spread to any grouped weapon or weapon fired in the same sliver of time.

2. End spread on missiles and have them all hit the same component, or at least like streaks all missiles hit random components, but all tubes apply damage.

3. Increase flight speed to at least 250m/s. This will improve the short range game, while rendering the long range game much more difficult because broken locks will be less likely to reaquire with the shorter time. This also is not a direct solution to the problem, but a good splint on the broken bone.

4. Return splash damage to compensate for bad spread increasing their damage and functionality by giving them 'near miss' damage. They are explosives after all.

5. Actually GIVE them true "Fire and Forget" functionality and don't change anything else. When you're locked, you're going to get some damage unless you stop the missiles or break the lock. (insert Obi Wan Kenobe quote about millions of people crying out in terror, and suddenly stopping)

It is the inefficiency of the weapon that makes it less functional. You can't depend on it to do enough damage fast enough where you need it on a consistent basis to compete against skilled players. Till this efficiency is increased on LRMs, or all other weapons are decreased in efficiency relative to LRMs, this problem will remain. Their tactical flexibility through indirect fire and guidance is what makes them valuable, but too many impediments or imbalances have been stacked on the table.

The options are there to balance this garbage. My personal choice would be the first one because that is also the same problem that is causing low TTK in the game and then the inefficiencies of LRMs become much more equal, but you still won't have relieved the AMS issue which really also needs to be addressed even more than ECM, but people don't realize it or care because they want some sort of "force field" to protect them from missiles.

Edited by Kjudoon, 06 August 2015 - 06:05 AM.

[Tsig]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

Really, the reason the 'sweet spot' for functionality is so thin is mostly to do with AMS. Seriously, if you set it so AMS only protected your own mech, most of the problem would be gone. Their ammo would last longer, it would not be a 'perfect shield' like it can be en masse as it currently is. This prevents small amounts of LRMs from being just a nuissance. Who puts an LRM10 on a thunderbolt? Nobody. Why? useless tonnage compared to another PPC or LPL

That would broaden the sweet spot some and make it more functional. Mechs with multiple AMS would be encouraged to run it because it still takes out 3 LRMs per launcher per salvo, give or take with no enhancements. 3 of them would protect them from anything less than an LRM10 for a little while. But it wouldn't be all encompasing sheets of AMS where 10-14 of them obliterate whole missile salvoes even when they are under cover or in a tunnel and they still hit.

As for putting the weapon on par with DF weaponry, it's one of a few options able to do this.

1. End perfect convergence for DF weapons and give spread to any grouped weapon or weapon fired in the same sliver of time.

2. End spread on missiles and have them all hit the same component, or at least like streaks all missiles hit random components, but all tubes apply damage.

3. Increase flight speed to at least 250m/s. This will improve the short range game, while rendering the long range game much more difficult because broken locks will be less likely to reaquire with the shorter time. This also is not a direct solution to the problem, but a good splint on the broken bone.

4. Return splash damage to compensate for bad spread increasing their damage and functionality by giving them 'near miss' damage. They are explosives after all.

5. Actually GIVE them true "Fire and Forget" functionality and don't change anything else. When you're locked, you're going to get some damage unless you stop the missiles or break the lock. (insert Obi Wan Kenobe quote about millions of people crying out in terror, and suddenly stopping)

It is the inefficiency of the weapon that makes it less functional. You can't depend on it to do enough damage fast enough where you need it on a consistent basis to compete against skilled players. Till this efficiency is increased on LRMs, or all other weapons are decreased in efficiency relative to LRMs, this problem will remain. Their tactical flexibility through indirect fire and guidance is what makes them valuable, but too many impediments or imbalances have been stacked on the table.

The options are there to balance this garbage. My personal choice would be the first one because that is also the same problem that is causing low TTK in the game and then the inefficiencies of LRMs become much more equal, but you still won't have relieved the AMS issue which really also needs to be addressed even more than ECM, but people don't realize it or care because they want some sort of "force field" to protect them from missiles.

Unfortunately, there's a very serious flaw with your #1 solution. You would have far more people crying foul about not being able to hit what they aim at, than you would have jumping for joy that LRMs are now on par with everything else. You would lose a significant chunk of the playerbase for no real gain.

[Wingbreaker]

Kjudoon, on 06 August 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

4. Return splash damage to compensate for bad spread increasing their damage and functionality by giving them 'near miss' damage. They are explosives after all.

This is a perfect example of the level of mechanical understanding in most of these posts.

You are now advocating the return of a bug.

[Kin3ticX]

I think LRMs should be improved but I guess the whole deal is trying to write a prescription for two different ailments. Making LRMs viable in the upper Elo brackets would easily create LRM massacres in the bottom feeder Elo. It was the same kind of deal with AC2's when they had 4 DPS still. They were damage sandblasters but nubs would just sit there and get insta cored.

With that said, I also think the IS LRM-20s spread is way too high and clearly not worth 10 tons.

A scaling weapon quirk system can promote bracket builds for those that like that style. For example, 1 LRM-20 should have a better lockon, tracking/spread than a bunch of LRM packs.

LRM-10 +25% tracking, -25% lockon
2xLRM-10 +15% tracking, -15% lockon
4xLRM-10 +0% tracking, -0% lockon

Granted I don't like bracket builds but I think you should get something if you dedicate 10 tons to a pile of crap LRM-20 anyways.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 07 August 2015 - 07:23 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Wingbreaker, on 07 August 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

This is a perfect example of the level of mechanical understanding in most of these posts.

You are now advocating the return of a bug.

The return of a bug? No. An aspect that was incorrectly applied. Splash damage was intended at first, but it incorrectly applied and acted as an extreme multiplier that actually caused the first LRMaggedon. It was rapidly fixed. Besides, I said it was an option to equalize. I did not say it was best, or preferred. But it IS an option.

Quote

Unfortunately, there's a very serious flaw with your #1 solution. You would have far more people crying foul about not being able to hit what they aim at, than you would have jumping for joy that LRMs are now on par with everything else. You would lose a significant chunk of the playerbase for no real gain.

From those who want Call of Doody style FPSs and are refusing to admit they're playing the wrong game, yes. I doubt highly there would be a significant exodus from that small group leaving, though player experience would probably improve as those people would be back playing the FPS they love instead of trying to transform other games into that FPS they loved.

Edited by Kjudoon, 07 August 2015 - 07:31 AM.

[Tesunie]

Wingbreaker, on 07 August 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

This is a perfect example of the level of mechanical understanding in most of these posts.

You are now advocating the return of a bug.

The mechanic of splash damage with LRMs wasn't a bug, but it caused a few bugs. Such as damage multipliers that wasn't intended to happen, making all missile weaponry (most notable for the SRMs actually) quick killers because instead of causing (at the time) 2.5 damage per missile (for SRMs), they were instead dealing upwards of 4-6 damage per missile instead.


Personally, I'm just waiting for Thunder LRMs. I'd love to be able to lay down a quick mine field along a commonly traveled path, or quickly place one down in a tight and narrow passage the enemy are actively trying to go through. However, that's future technology we don't even know exists quite yet (in game time).

Kin3ticX, on 07 August 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

With that said, I also think the IS LRM-20s spread is way too high and clearly not worth 10 tons.
anyways.

My personal thoughts on this recently is a realization that the larger launchers should be actually better than the smaller ones. They should all actually share the same cool down and spread, no matter what the launcher size is. If an LRM5 spread as much as an LRM20, and shot as often, the 20 would regain a proper place.

I probably would base the spread and launching speed either as though it was an LRM10 (a good middle ground) or between an LRM 10 and 15. (Edit: Possibly even have Artemis be like an LRM10 spread, no Artemis be like an LRM15 spread currently?)

AKA: If the LRM10 spreads its missiles out so that it hits 3 components with about 3 missiles each, then the LRM5 would now spread out and also hit three components (on average) instead of mostly one, making about 2 missiles hit each component.
(Am I making sense here still? Don't know if I'm explaining this very well.)


The concept would be to balance out the LRM launchers weight to efficiency.. Right now, it is more efficient to take smaller LRM5 launchers due to reloading speed and accuracy, and there is very little to no purpose (besides some fringe cases) to take anything over an LRM15, forget the LRM20. The spam of LRM5 launchers is also annoying to many users do to the screen shake that they can cause, and the blinding. Also, do to how AMS (which probably could use a bit of tweaking as well, but that's a different subject) works, spammed chain fired LRM5s can have entire volleys slip past and still hit their targets.


I dream of a time when a single LRM launcher can become worth it. I'd love to be able to effectively field a single large LRM launcher, and have it be worth it's weight in comparison to the same tube count on smaller launchers (if not a tad bit better due to weight savings of massed smaller launchers). Although I still use launchers of all sizes, I recognize the strengths of the LRM5 over just about any other sized launcher.

Edited by Tesunie, 07 August 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Wingbreaker]

I repeat, these posts are a perfect example of the level of understanding of mechanics in this thread.

Kjudoon, on 07 August 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

From those who want Call of Doody style FPSs and are refusing to admit they're playing the wrong game, yes. I doubt highly there would be a significant exodus from that small group leaving, though player experience would probably improve as those people would be back playing the FPS they love instead of trying to transform other games into that FPS they loved.

I have played every MW game since the original in 1989. I am not refusing to admit anything, as no MW game has ever forced Cone on the player.

I would almost certainly leave, as would a good deal of people from simple frustration. That being said, it wouldn't solve the issue you intend it to. It would merely become a matter of being patient enough to learn the cone locations as players long did in counterstrike.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 August 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Wingbreaker, on 07 August 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

I repeat, these posts are a perfect example of the level of understanding of mechanics in this thread.





I have played every MW game since the original in 1989. I am not refusing to admit anything, as no MW game has ever forced Cone on the player.

I would almost certainly leave, as would a good deal of people from simple frustration. That being said, it wouldn't solve the issue you intend it to. It would merely become a matter of being patient enough to learn the cone locations as players long did in counterstrike.

What other mechwarrior game allowed a 1 shot kill on anything? I don't recall a single one. Nope.

As for memorizing patterns, that's why I do like the World of Tanks random cone of fire, if we can't have dynamic convergence. Want a smaller circle? stop moving and train your gunner. Accuracy should be reflected in the equipment you mount and skill packages you buy, not just considered "as read".

Edited by Kjudoon, 07 August 2015 - 08:53 AM.

[Wingbreaker]

Kjudoon, on 07 August 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

What other mechwarrior game allowed a 1 shot kill on anything? I don't recall a single one. Nope.

Actually, all of them prior to 4 had possible one shot kills, simply because prior to 4 they used standard armor and weapon values.

Headchoppers, bruh.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 August 2015 - 08:59 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Wingbreaker, on 07 August 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

Actually, all of them prior to 4 had possible one shot kills, simply because prior to 4 they used standard armor and weapon values.

Headchoppers, bruh.

Okay, there's that. But, barring that very special and rare circumstance, nope. I don't recall any mech being able to cut through a CT of another mech with one shot.

[Wingbreaker]

Kjudoon, on 07 August 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

Okay, there's that. But, barring that very special and rare circumstance, nope. I don't recall any mech being able to cut through a CT of another mech with one shot.

Mechwarrior 2 and 3 both had easily possible CT one shots for anything under 75 tons. If you were a sufficient shot with them, CERPPCs were murderous.

And to be fair, MW4 basically brought this back with its completely imbalanced mechlab experience. It often wasn't a strict one-shot, but the general rule of online play was "Under 80 tons is a scout."

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 August 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Wingbreaker, on 07 August 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

Mechwarrior 2 and 3 both had easily possible CT one shots for anything under 75 tons. If you were a sufficient shot with them, CERPPCs were murderous.

And to be fair, MW4 basically brought this back with its completely imbalanced mechlab experience. It often wasn't a strict one-shot, but the general rule of online play was "Under 80 tons is a scout."

Obviously you played the games different than I ever did.

[Tsig]

Kjudoon, on 07 August 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

Obviously you played the games different than I ever did.

Funny thing is, I played the games the exact same way Wingbreaker did. I thought it was freaking hilarious to load up a Diashi with as many PPCs as I could and melt somebody in one shot. Granted, I overheated for a little while, but it was still a one-shot kill if I hit them.

I would also leave if they tried to force a CoF on the players. Literally no other MW game has done it, why should this one be the one to start?

Kjudoon, on 07 August 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

The return of a bug? No. An aspect that was incorrectly applied. Splash damage was intended at first, but it incorrectly applied and acted as an extreme multiplier that actually caused the first LRMaggedon. It was rapidly fixed. Besides, I said it was an option to equalize. I did not say it was best, or preferred. But it IS an option.



From those who want Call of Doody style FPSs and are refusing to admit they're playing the wrong game, yes. I doubt highly there would be a significant exodus from that small group leaving, though player experience would probably improve as those people would be back playing the FPS they love instead of trying to transform other games into that FPS they loved.

I play MWO because it's the first Mechwarrior game in 10 years to come out to scratch that Stompy Robot itch. The fact that you categorize everyone that doesn't like CoF as a "Call of Doody" player is ******* insulting.

[Tesunie]

I'll leave that I recall the Novacat in MW3/4 (I get those two confused a lot) loaded with nothing by CERLLs being a thing, and one shot killing most everything...


We appear to have gone massively off topic though. Maybe it might be good to create a new thread for this discussion? (And just quote the relevant posts in that thread to get everyone's attention there, and keep the conversation on track from it's origins?)

[Chados]

Thank you for this guide. It should be a pinned topic. I'm trying to learn the ins and outs of blind firing, missile bending, Artemis direct-fire, and after-launch lockons and frankly, it's making the game feel fun. LRMs are easy to learn, hard to master, and lend dignity to an otherwise vulgar brawl. Artillery: King of Battle!