82 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Bilbo, on 10 September 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

If you make a single lrm20 as "useful" as 4 lrm5, it will be well beyond useful in multiples.

It's a ten-ton weapon system. If you can spend 20 or 30 tons on missile launchers, plus attendant ammo...don't you think those launchers should be useful?

Seriously, Bilbo. Are you honestly telling us that the current state of LRMs is acceptable? Because if you are, I have a couple words for you. Those words are "you're wrong."

[Alek Ituin]

Bilbo, on 10 September 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

If you make a single lrm20 as "useful" as 4 lrm5, it will be well beyond useful in multiples.

Or, and this is a great option, you swap the accuracy scale around.

LRM20's have the accuracy of LRM5's
LRM15's have the accuracy or LRM10's
LRM10's have the accuracy of LRM15's
LRM 5's have the accuracy of LRM20's.

This way if you dump the tonnage for an LRM20, you get results.

[Yosharian]

Nobody uses LRM20s precisely because of this reason. Bigger missile launchers are a horrendous waste of tonnage.

[Bilbo]

1453 R, on 10 September 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

It's a ten-ton weapon system. If you can spend 20 or 30 tons on missile launchers, plus attendant ammo...don't you think those launchers should be useful?

Seriously, Bilbo. Are you honestly telling us that the current state of LRMs is acceptable? Because if you are, I have a couple words for you. Those words are "you're wrong."

I didn't say they were good. I'm saying the op's suggestion would make the larger launchers too good. In the end, no matter what adjustments are made they will never be preferable to a direct fire weapon unless they are made so powerful that not taking them would be silly.

[wanderer]

If you want to have fun, compare the tonnage spent with direct-fire weaponry.

Take those four LRM 5s and mount an AC/5 instead. Or even more appropriate, an LRM 15+ Artemis.

That lovely aimed fire will shred the target before the LRMs do. That being said, LRMs should be killing slower due to having indirect fire capacity,but with all the drawbacks in landing a hit, either accuracy needs help or LRMs need a heavier punch.

That it's the only weapon system I see people whining about 15 (yes, 15) extra velocity or a tenth of a point of damage per missile generally leads to facepalming every time I read the forums.

[Satan n stuff]

1453 R, on 10 September 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

It's a ten-ton weapon system. If you can spend 20 or 30 tons on missile launchers, plus attendant ammo...don't you think those launchers should be useful?

Seriously, Bilbo. Are you honestly telling us that the current state of LRMs is acceptable? Because if you are, I have a couple words for you. Those words are "you're wrong."

Are you telling me that effectiveness should scale linearly with tonnage/slots invested? Because that is exactly how you get overpowered minmaxed loadouts. There is a reason nearly every game or game system there is gives diminishing returns the more you invest in a particular item.

[wanderer]

It certainly worked for the Gaussapult.

30 tons of guns, one of the first dominant heavy designs in the game and it's cousin the Gaussjager is still one of the supreme snipers. Or the 28-tons-for-two-guns Boomjagers, for that matter.

3 normal LRM 5's (6 tons) should not outperform a single Artemis LRM-15 (8 tons) by such a margin.

[1453 R]

Satan n stuff, on 10 September 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Are you telling me that effectiveness should scale linearly with tonnage/slots invested? Because that is exactly how you get overpowered minmaxed loadouts. There is a reason nearly every game or game system there is gives diminishing returns the more you invest in a particular item.

I'm saying that the LRM-20 has worse spread, worse refire, worse ammunition efficiency, worse accuracy/tracking, worse weight, worse critslots, and worse durability than the equivalent of four LRM-5s. It has absolutely no area whatsoever in which it stands out or even competes, save that it uses a single hardpoint rather than four. Given the fact that absolutely no one with a brain in their heads uses the LRM-20, clearly this is an insufficient gain in light of the weapon system's multitude of penalties.

Your claim that diminishing returns are necessary for larger weapons is what leads to boating, not the other way around. Smaller weapons being more efficient per ton/crit means that carrying large numbers of smaller weapons gives you much better return on invested equipment. With the other weapon classes, there are mitigating factors to stacking lighter weapons - 'light' autocannons are not actually that much lighter than heavier guns, lightweight lasers have significantly less range than larger energy, etcetera...but in the case of LRMs?

The LRM-20 has, very seriously, no redeeming qualities whatsoever when compared to four LRM-5. If you have the hardpoints for it, it's 100% superior to take quad 5s over a single 20. If you don't have the hardpoints for massed LRM-5s, guess what? You don't take LRMs at all. The larger launchers are that disastrously inefficient and lossy compared to the smaller launchers, and it renders singleton missile hardpoints which might otherwise comfortably add to a 'Mech's capabilities with larger LRM racks essentially worthless. It's completely ridiculous and it needs to be corrected. Perhaps not as much as other, more egregious balance issues, but it does, in fact, need to be addressed.

[VirtualRiot]

Lots of good points floating around in here, read every post. Try some experiments yourself if you have the bills, would like to see some results from other people.

Edited by VirtualRiot, 10 September 2015 - 01:52 PM.

[Roosterfish]

https://youtu.be/IEbsKs6IiUc

You blinded me with science.

[LordNothing]

Alek Ituin, on 10 September 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

Untrue for Ballistic weapons. It's actually better to just stick with larger guns instead of stacking smaller guns.

If you've got the tonnage, you generally get higher DPS and range... at the cost of increased heat, ammo expenditure, and damage spreading.

ballistics are the exception to the rule. usually because you just dont have the tonnage, slots or hardpoints for arrays of 5 (2s are lack luster even in 6 packs) class cannons and often opt for a single big gun instead. there are a select few mechs where it is actually possible to do that (dire, ctf-im, crab, mauler, bansh 3e), and those are the best ballistics platforms in the game.

[Yokaiko]

Actually the Gausspult's rise was mainly in reaction to 5-6 brawler Atlases per game, but it was "too powerful" because people refused to get the hell out of their Atlases (which hit a LOT harder) and or LRM boats, both of which the gausskitty was the natural predator to.

I used to tear gauss kitties to pieces with my Hunchies or Jenners bump them (Cats were easy to knock over) and mash till explosion.

On that note CAN I HAVE MY BULLDOZERS I mean Dragons back.

[Davers]

Yokaiko, on 10 September 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

Actually the Gausspult's rise was mainly in reaction to 5-6 brawler Atlases per game, but it was "too powerful" because people refused to get the hell out of their Atlases (which hit a LOT harder) and or LRM boats, both of which the gausskitty was the natural predator to.

I used to tear gauss kitties to pieces with my Hunchies or Jenners bump them (Cats were easy to knock over) and mash till explosion.

On that note CAN I HAVE MY BULLDOZERS I mean Dragons back.

You also forget to mention that at the time Gauss had no charge up time and 100 HP so it was indestructible. Gausskitties and to a much lesser extent Boomkitties ruled the roost for so long because they were the only mechs able to carry 2 powerful ballistics. If the first heavy mech had been a Jagermech, the development of MWO might have been very different.

[Matthew Ace]

IMO, the spread for LRMs should be normalised to a single value between the extremities of LRM10 and LRM15; let larger launchers be used for concentrated damage and the smaller ones more for harassment and suppressive fire.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 10 September 2015 - 06:55 PM.

[Radbane]

Matthew Ace, on 10 September 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

IMO, the spread for LRMs should be normalised to a single value between the extremities of LRM10 and LRM15; let larger launchers be used for concentrated damage and the smaller ones more for harassment and suppressive fire.

Also, give all launchers across the board more punch, but also greater ghostheat to prevent boating?

[TwentyOne]

Mcgral18, on 09 September 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

Nah, it would just make them less terrible weapons.


They've always suffered.

Lrm's arent even that bad damage wise. You can murder a dire with lrm boats. If you can get a reliable 1 minute straight lock you can pound people to dust with 4 lrm15 easily. The weapon isn't that bad, its not getting constant reliable locks that makes them bad.

[Matthew Ace]

Radbane, on 10 September 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

Also, give all launchers across the board more punch, but also greater ghostheat to prevent boating?

I can agree to that.

1.5 per missile instead of 1, with slowing down of refire by +1 sec across the board?

[Hotthedd]

TwentyOne, on 10 September 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

Lrm's arent even that bad damage wise. You can murder a dire with lrm boats. If you can get a reliable 1 minute straight lock you can pound people to dust with 4 lrm15 easily. The weapon isn't that bad, its not getting constant reliable locks that makes them bad.

Exactly!
The thing that makes LRMs a sub-optimal choice, but ALSO can make them OP is the lock mechanic.

Get rid of the lock mechanic (and the NEED for locks), and you can balance LRMs (and ECM). "Guide" the missiles with the reticle for indirect fire. LRMs would need a speed boost for this.

[wanderer]

Honestly, you could double the reload time and increase missile damage/velocity to compensate. LRMs stop being a spam weapon, and people get more time to get out of the rain after a launch warning.

Would people be as ticked off about LRMs if they had a 6.5 cooldown, 2 damage per missile, and say 180-200 velocity for an LRM 5? 15's would have 8.5(Clan 9) second reload cycles.

No matter what, ECM utterly throttling lock-on has to go. Reducing tracking strength? Sure. Negating weapon systems entirely is categorically unfair.

[Lightfoot]

LRM-5's are for Light mechs or back-up. LRM-10's are for Medium mechs or back-up. 15's and 20's are for Heavy and Assaults. It's driven by hardpoints available and tonnage of the launcher. Artemis will greatly improve results with the 15's and 20's.