116 replies to this topic

[Kubernetes]

Kjudoon, on 31 August 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

We started looking at dumb in the rear view mirror the instant an AC round went faster than lightning... aka PPCs.

I will say this, for all those people who want LRMs to be nerfed, I'd be fine with leaving them as is if I had a competent MRM to throw in.

Say 600-750m range, no lock, moves at 700m/s, arms instantly, no arc. I'd probably cut down on my LRMs and arm half with those instead.

MRMs are going to be complete garbage in this game. For comparison, the AC20 round moves at 650m/s. Have you ever tried to hit stuff at 600m with an AC20, even with a 10% velocity buff? PPCs go 1100m/s, and they're not easy to use at 600m against moving targets. MRMs will basically only be useable against Dires, Crabs, or stationary mechs.

[Hotthedd]

Kjudoon, on 31 August 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

Then the speed of the missiles must go up many multiples and still arc.

Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, I would like it so that if a light swarm were to get inside your minimum range, you could fire your LRMs straight up, let them arm, and then rain them down on those little ********' heads !

Winterburn, on 31 August 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

The thing is LRMs are not easy to use at all. You do not have to aim, true, but you have to plot the trajectory in your head to make sure there are no obstacles when you fire indirectly. You have to position yourself carefully and pick large targets, preferably moving directly towards you or away from you. Otherwise even with a lock half your missles will miss. You have to be aware of where your enemies are not to get separated or taken down by a sneaky light. Or a sneaky heavy.

Another thing is MWO forces you to boat. If you go Ballistics you boat Ballistics. If you do laser vomit, you boat lasers. If you brawl, you boat SRMs. With the exception of an occasional LL on a ballistic Crab having different weapon systems that allow you to engage at different ranges simply does not exist. LRMing makes you Mech artillery piece. And artillery pieces do not sport a frontal gun just for versatility's sake.

Yes, MW:O forces boating on direct fire weapons, but for entirely different reasons. Boating direct fire weapons is best due to instant pinpoint convergence. Boating LRMs is forced due to the many hard counters built in because of the lock-on.

That is another problem for another thread.

Edited by Hotthedd, 31 August 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[Scar Glamour]

Hotthedd, on 31 August 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yes, MW:O forces boating on direct fire weapons, but for entirely different reasons. Boating direct fire weapons is best due to instant pinpoint convergence. Boating LRMs is forced due to the many hard counters built in because of the lock-on.

That is another problem for another thread.

I respectfully disagree. I boat LRMs because a salvo of less than 30 missiles is ineffective. I want to produce maximum punishment in the small time window that is perfect for lurming folks to death. It is the same reason I boat any other weapon system. I couldn't care less for AMS, because they are virtually non-existent.

The reason I do not take LRMs as a support weapon is that they would eat up too much of my tonnage and give zero advantage over direct-fire weapons.

Edited by Winterburn, 31 August 2015 - 09:13 AM.

[Cementi]

To the OP.

I get it you hate LRM's and SSRM's.

Moving beyond that I would like to see MRM's work somewhat the way you suggest for LRM's but a 630 m range for LRM's that would be beyond silly and allow you to ridgehump till you made baby boulders.

LRM's are difficult to use right now but that is only because ECM is not working the way it is supposed to. It needs to be fixed. Then we can talk LRM tweaks. YOU may not find playing them enjoyable or rewarding but that is your opinion. I frequently use them and enjoy them. However I play them more as a supporting weapon instead of boating them. Also it can be very challenging to get a lock and to keep a good firing lane clear of obstructions, you actually have to know the terrain really well. That takes skill, just a different kind of skill that twitch shooters dismiss.

SSRM's are fine, I fail to see what the problem is. I am more of a medium pilot but I pilot lights alot and sure I hate streaks.....bloody frustrating at times but the fact is they are a super short range weapon and really only terrifying on mechs that can boat them, Stormcrows I am looking at you.

Honestly I find dual gauss far more annoying than pretty much any weapon system in the game. Extreme range, pinpoint damage, no heat, projectile velocity high enough that it is very hard to miss, second highest damage weapon you can use, ammo that does not explode (yes I know the gun does but who cares you lose the gun on a gauss mech you are done anyway). You may call LRM's noob tube's but I call Gauss noob cannon's. The only downside to them is a charge mechanic that takes a little getting used to, once you do it causes you to actually conserve ammo. However even with all this you do not see me campaigning for its nerf. Well I may make a post about it but I do not start threads about it.

The fact is that there is no weapon system in this game that is truely broken. ECM is broken, I think we can all agree on that. I mean if you are trying to decide which variant of a chassis to run you stop reading when you see ECM. The other thing that is broken is boating and hardpoint inflation.

Single gauss is nasty but nothing to get worked up over. Double however good grief.

No ECM on your team, and the other team has a couple mechs that have a LRM 20 or something, hurts a bit but again not a big deal. No ECM on your team and the other team has a full on LRM boat with 3000 rounds. Say good night.

Oh look there is a locust well he is annoying, try and leg him because he will spot us and poke at our backs. Oh look there is a firestarter with 8 small pulse laser GOOD GOD EVERYONE KILL IT NOW.

More of a CW thing but uh oh here come 12 streakcrows. Lets turtle under our drop ships and see if that will helps thin them out or we can wait till they run out of ammo.

See the problem. Name any situation where a weapon or mech is over powered and it is not the weapon system or even the mech. It is the fact that they can boat a weapon system till it becomes silly.

They tried to put in ghost heat to stop this but it was an abysmal failure. Especially with cool shot consumables. I do not know what the solution is. People say sized hard points but that will not do anything to balance the Firestarter with its 7 or 8 small pulse lasers. The only thing I can think of would be to derive your weapon cooldown off of several factors. Give engines a power output. The bigger the engine the more power output. If you run a few small weapons they will recharge quickly. If your run alot of small ones it will take longer for you to recharge all of them. Run large amounts of weapons and or large weapons and they draw more power so take longer to cooldown. This might get people to play more varied weapon loadouts. ie an lrm 20 paired with an AC 10 and 4 medium lasers. People will still play the big alpha builds but they will be limited because they will have a much longer recharge if they fire everythign at once on top of dealing with the heat. Eh, people probally would hate that though and it would take significant balancing.

Sorry got off topic there.

[Hotthedd]

Winterburn, on 31 August 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

I respectfully disagree. I boat LRMs because a salvo of less than 30 missiles is ineffective. I want to produce maximum punishment in the small time window that is perfect for lurming folks to death. It is the same reason I boat any other weapon system. I couldn't care less for AMS, because they are virtually non-existent.

The reason I do not take LRMs as a support weapon is that they would eat up too much of my tonnage and give zero advantage unless I am in a fairly squishy or slow Mech and thus expect have reasons to

We can disagree. It all depends on your definition of effective. I have seen a single 'mech chain fire LRM5s and effectively corral the enemy while our main body was able to flank them unseen because they were too busy ducking for cover every 3.5 seconds.

[Nacho Cat]

Quick question:

I've seen "fire and forget" mentioned several times in this thread. I was under the impression that I have to maintain my lock while the LRMs are in flight in order for them to actually hit the target; that if I lose the lock, the salvo will end up landing harmlessly on the (mostly) indestructible terrain.

Does fire and forget mean that I can actually switch targets as soon as I've fired a salvo and the LRMs will still find the target? If so, I've been doing this all wrong and I'm about to get a lot more dangerous with my LRMs. If this is not the case, fire and forget is a little bit of a red herring.

[Kjudoon]

Mostly correct Serene. When lock is lost, the missiles will impact the "last known location". Now whether the mech you were aiming at, or another mech is there when they hit... that's a different matter.

Fire and Forget would mean that the target locked would stay locked even if you lose or switch targets.

[Hotthedd]

SereneChaos, on 31 August 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

Quick question:

I've seen "fire and forget" mentioned several times in this thread. I was under the impression that I have to maintain my lock while the LRMs are in flight in order for them to actually hit the target; that if I lose the lock, the salvo will end up landing harmlessly on the (mostly) indestructible terrain.

Does fire and forget mean that I can actually switch targets as soon as I've fired a salvo and the LRMs will still find the target? If so, I've been doing this all wrong and I'm about to get a lot more dangerous with my LRMs. If this is not the case, fire and forget is a little bit of a red herring.

Guilty.

Although I would say it was more hyperbole than an attempt to sidetrack the argument.

So, No, not fire and forget. Fire and pay slight attention to.

[Nacho Cat]

Kjudoon, on 31 August 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

Mostly correct Serene. When lock is lost, the missiles will impact the "last known location". Now whether the mech you were aiming at, or another mech is there when they hit... that's a different matter.

Fire and Forget would mean that the target locked would stay locked even if you lose or switch targets.

Hotthedd, on 31 August 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

Guilty.

Although I would say it was more hyperbole than an attempt to sidetrack the argument.

So, No, not fire and forget. Fire and pay slight attention to.

Thank you both!

For my two cents, I like LRMs. I find that I need to have much more situational awareness, both in finding my targets and avoiding those seeking me as a target. With proper positioning I can rain LRM hell, but the trade off for an effective indirect offense is a really weak ability to defend myself when focus fire is directed at me or if even a single light gets within 180m.

The reason I brought up the fire and forget is that I am constantly manouvering and trying to be aware of my immediate surroundings while my focus is actually on maintaining the lock on a target 400-600 m away for several seconds - most often with direct line of site that has me far more exposed than I'd like to be. This makes it far from the fire and forget of a pinpoint ballistic (yeah, turning the tables on that one )

I do like the idea of MRMs, if only as a way to add another mechanic to the game, but I don't think the LRM mechanic needs to be replaced.

[Duke Nedo]

My take would be to:

1. Nerf ssrm damage a fair bit
2. Make both lrm and ssrm hit very tightly where the tag points

This makes both systems benefit from aiming and direct fire.

Profit?

Edit: I. E. Without tag it would work like now

Edited by Duke Nedo, 31 August 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Hotthedd, on 31 August 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, I would like it so that if a light swarm were to get inside your minimum range, you could fire your LRMs straight up, let them arm, and then rain them down on those little ********' heads !

LRMs USED to have a 90 degree angle of attack. It was one of the first things nerfed

Duke Nedo, on 31 August 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

My take would be to:

1. Nerf ssrm damage a fair bit
2. Make both lrm and ssrm hit very tightly where the tag points

This makes both systems benefit from aiming and direct fire.

Profit?

Edit: I. E. Without tag it would work like now

http://www.sarna.net...issile_Launcher

requires a lock to fire

[M4rtyr]

Hotthedd, on 31 August 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, I would like it so that if a light swarm were to get inside your minimum range, you could fire your LRMs straight up, let them arm, and then rain them down on those little ********' heads !


Yes, MW:O forces boating on direct fire weapons, but for entirely different reasons. Boating direct fire weapons is best due to instant pinpoint convergence. Boating LRMs is forced due to the many hard counters built in because of the lock-on.

That is another problem for another thread.

Actually MWO encourages/forces boating in generally. Since it allows for custom loadouts and the natural desire for gamers to min/max all the basic loadouts get tossed out. This is also why the chasis with mixed weapon type hardpoints are pretty pointless.

But yes Convergence etc etc... all problems.

[Kjudoon]

SereneChaos, on 31 August 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Thank you both!

For my two cents, I like LRMs. I find that I need to have much more situational awareness, both in finding my targets and avoiding those seeking me as a target. With proper positioning I can rain LRM hell, but the trade off for an effective indirect offense is a really weak ability to defend myself when focus fire is directed at me or if even a single light gets within 180m.

The reason I brought up the fire and forget is that I am constantly manouvering and trying to be aware of my immediate surroundings while my focus is actually on maintaining the lock on a target 400-600 m away for several seconds - most often with direct line of site that has me far more exposed than I'd like to be. This makes it far from the fire and forget of a pinpoint ballistic (yeah, turning the tables on that one )

I do like the idea of MRMs, if only as a way to add another mechanic to the game, but I don't think the LRM mechanic needs to be replaced.

Thank you for illustrating why it takes skill to use LRMs moreso than a Derp Whale 2Gauss/ERPPC.

[Duke Nedo]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 31 August 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

LRMs USED to have a 90 degree angle of attack. It was one of the first things nerfed



http://www.sarna.net...issile_Launcher

requires a lock to fire

Sure, I am not saying fire without lock, I am saying that when fired it would hit very concentrated over the component where the tag is pointed (if present) making it less splash, more aimed together with tag (which is direct fire).

[Lightfoot]

PGI is not allowing anything other than Lasers to work. You can back-up the Lasers with whatever is cooler. MRMs will be junk like PPCs and SSRMs and Gauss Rifles that charge-up. They don't have mechs that are tough enough for the 2xRecycle they use for MWO so they can't allow tactics to emerge other than laser-brawl. When they try everyone whines they were killed by the META and not a tactic.

I don't see LRMs changing because only a few LRM-haters are complaining about them now. SSRMs are not even missiles in MWO, they are a random chance roll of 14-16% to hit any mech section except the Head. Anything that simulates a missile would be better.

[Hotthedd]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 31 August 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

LRMs USED to have a 90 degree angle of attack. It was one of the first things nerfed

Because having both lock-on AND a 90 degree angle of attack took away the best defense against LRMs.

I say they took the wrong thing away....

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd like to have SRMs be guided and ripple fired. Having them follow the Cross-Hair / Reticle. Streaks only use the Locks to save ammo.

MRMs can be like Hydras, 739 m/s, basically current but faster SRMs.

LRMs, why not explore fire and forget, also ripple fired with longer cooldowns across the board and once you acquire and hold lock for say a second, they Missiles keep tracking that target until impact or reaching max range.

[Vlad Ward]

ITT: People who assume Mechs using direct fire weapons don't require good positioning, a working knowledge of intervening obstacles and cover, acute situational awareness, and countermeasures for their inherent weaknesses at certain range profiles.

As if using lasers is easy mode.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 31 August 2015 - 01:06 PM.

[M4rtyr]

Vlad Ward, on 31 August 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

As if using lasers is easy mode.

Well easier mode, yeah.

[Vlad Ward]

M4rtyr, on 31 August 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

Well easier mode, yeah.

How exactly?

After all, they require everything that LRMs require - positioning, situational awareness, topographical insight, range countermeasures - but they also require aiming.

LRMs don't. They require fewer skills than direct fire weaponry. That's why they underperform, because balancing them to the point where they're comparable weapons systems is disingenuous.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 31 August 2015 - 01:28 PM.