76 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Actually, Clan ERLLs outrange LRMs. So do IS and Clan ERPPCs.

*barely*

ERLLs have 19 hex range. ERPPCs/CERLLs have like 23 hex range. LRMs have 21 hex range in tabletop.

The point is LRMs in MWO should have very close to the same effective ranges as those other weapons. What we have in MWO are not LONG RANGE missiles. Theyre more like medium range missiles... because theyre absurdly easy to dodge past like 500m. As "long range" missiles they should be completely viable out to their full 1000m range.

Quote

They are not and never will be effective direct fire weaponry

Um LRMs can indirect fire so why should they be as good as other direct fire weapons? LRMs need to be better at direct fire than they currently are, but they should never be as good as other direct fire weapons because they have the ability to indirect fire. LRMs can easily be turned into a viable weapon system with the following changes:

1) remove abilities like ECM's stealth that hard counter LRMs.
2) give them significantly better velocity so theyre not as absurdly easy to dodge and can actually hit things at 1000m and function properly as long range weapons.
3) buff artemis so its actually worth using (at the very least make it give SRMs/LRMs increased crit chance)
4) increase the damage per missile but also increase the cooldown by the same proportion, that would make LRMs penetrate armor much better while also making them less spammable.
5) nerf LRM indirect accuracy severely unless the target is TAGGED/NARCD. LRMs should only be able to indirect fire if the target is tagged/narcd, because otherwise theyd be too strong with the above changes, but also because it reinforces the role of tag/narc.

That basically addresses every problem with LRMs... the fact theyre hardcountered by ECM, the fact artemis is too weak, the fact lrms dont penetrate armor very well, the fact lrms are easily dodged and are more like medium range missiles rather than long range missiles, and it makes tag/narc much more worthwhile since enemy mechs that get tagged/narcd will get hit with much more powerful lrms.

Edited by Khobai, 19 January 2016 - 05:10 PM.

[Lagreskul]

So... let's talk about the bigger issue here: missiles behave as everything else would in a tabletop game.

So in a battletech tabletop, you aim with dice. If you're intending on shooting someone, you roll a dice to see if it hits and where it hits based on several different things. when that is transposed into a 3D game environment? Suddenly you have pin-point accuracy. You're not rolling to see where your high-damage weapon is hitting, it's just going to hit where you point at.

This is why missiles in general and our resident splatter-cannons, LBX, are scoffed at by the high-end meta players. The spread across the components so you're not taking 4 gauss to the chest suddenly and being done that occurs in a tabletop game doesn't happen with all of the other weapons besides missiles and LBX hitting exactly where you want them to. With a fully missle-boated mech, you just barf all ~8-10 DPS that you have onto someone's face with full spread across the hardpoints, even before you account for cover, partial obstructions that may occur when firing the missiles, such as them cruising into trees, or the several missiles in the bottom of the arc crashing into the building or hill in front of you, AMS, lost locks, and them not all hitting your target.. Same issue with LBX weapons. You're not hitting their CT, you're hitting their CT aaaand their side torsos and maybe their other body parts as well. It just doesn't compete well with pin-point weapons.

Edited by Lagreskul, 19 January 2016 - 05:07 PM.

[stocky0904]

Nice discussion lol. Sadly it appears week after week again and again. Im getting bored. I read those posts in the hope that somebody has a new idea. Im getting disappointed every time. lol this time i wont argue with you about lrms.

Only 2 things: I like the niche im in with some of my mechs. Its always fun. And its not my or the lrms fault when nobody uses the counters that are available. It seems always to be more important to put one more laser in your build.

...ah, before i forget - MWO is no FPS and was never ment to be one.

Edited by stocky0904, 19 January 2016 - 06:10 PM.

[Pjwned]

1. git gud
2. git gud
3. git gud

[Sorbic]

pbiggz, on 18 January 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

LRMs are the only weapon whos effectiveness is contingent upon a player making a mistake. I didn't get under cover in time, I get lrmed to death. Thats on me, I made a mistake. It doesn't make your weapon efficient at all. They're beyond underpowered. Except for in the most ridiculous fringe cases they're a waste of tonnage. They can't be used as a support weapon on other builds, the only way for them to work even remotely mediocre is to dedicate your entire tonnage to them and have someone spot for you, you get huge damage numbers, and maybe even a few kills that way, but nothing like the efficiency of direct fire weapons. That should be an indicator that there is indeed a problem.

Except they are not contingent on someone making a mistake to get hit unless you're talking something like 1v1. But I specifically said "Puglandia". It's easy enough to maneuver into a position to hit people who are playing smart. Period. I mean sure you have a few people who entirely rely on others to take dmg so they can farm good numbers by they are also going to get hit. in Puglandia you often have to follow the team and the simple truth is on many maps you will be exposed to LRMs. I mean we could make the same "making a mistake" argument about direct fire weapons as most of the hits people were avoidable.

And lets remember that you're often being fired upon by multiple LRM'rs from different directions. This is the part that I think really makes certain people dislike LRMs. They go to duel some mech and also end up contending with 2-5 different streams of missiles.

"the only way for them to work even remotely mediocre is to dedicate your entire tonnage to them and have someone spot for you..." heh, then I must be hacking because I don't rely on spotters and never dedicate all (the bulk sometimes) of my tonnage to them. I'm not saying their good or that they need nerfed but they're not nearly as bad as some folks pretend.

[Variant1]

lol at some of these scrubs saying lrms are garbage. They are not, course thats not without saying they are not the best weapon either. To put it simply they are not as effective as direct weapons because of indirect fire being hard to balance. Instead of being nubs and saying "omg op git gud scrub lurms r bad" we could probably talk about this map maybe needing some rework. Perhaps pgi could instead add some snowy pillars or something not in the middle but perhaps at the sides. As for you op i don't think we should change lrms just because a map favors them, i'm sure the pugs will take to sticking more in the trenches than the open fields.

Edited by Variant1, 19 January 2016 - 07:25 PM.

[Novakaine]

Novakaine wet dream.


Novakaine nightmare.
Balance solved.

[Dino Might]

My ideas:

-Increase missile velocity
-Decrease time for incoming missile warning. You get warning when they are 500m away, not when they are launched (unless within that range obviously).
-Decrease flash and screen shake when getting hit (stop making it look like all hit the cockpit in a continuous stream of nonsense)
-Require TAG or NARC for indirect fire past 500m. (but why? 80s era targetting computer "reasons")
-Increase AMS effectiveness (would be great if there was a toggle for emergency mode on AMS - you choose when to turn it on, lasts for 1 second, doubles/triples/quadruples? # of missiles shot down in that window of time vs normal, but cuts effective range in half so you have to time it right)

Edited by Dino Might, 19 January 2016 - 08:50 PM.

[Galenit]

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

My ideas:

-Increase missile velocity

Was done, should have done again, but was drowned in tears.

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

-Decrease time for incoming missile warning. You get warning when they are 500m away, not when they are launched (unless within that range obviously).

The warning is ok, but should be tied to ams, no ams, no warning.

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

-Decrease flash and screen shake when getting hit (stop making it look like all hit the cockpit in a continuous stream of nonsense)

All the flash and shake should be "normalized", its sometimes irritating that some light weapons have more visual bang then bigger weapons

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

-Require TAG or NARC for indirect fire past 500m. (but why? 80s era targetting computer "reasons")

Or just increase the spread of all missiles and let direct fire decrease the spread (artemis!) and narc and tag decrease it futher more. If you fire your lrms at max range indirect you will splat them over a big area, maybe hitting more mechs but only with a few missiles for each of them making them a lot less effective. And on the way, give all launchers the same spread, making bigger launchers better.

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

-Increase AMS effectiveness (would be great if there was a toggle for emergency mode on AMS - you choose when to turn it on, lasts for 1 second, doubles/triples/quadruples? # of missiles shot down in that window of time vs normal, but cuts effective range in half so you have to time it right)

Changing the ams code would do a lot.
Let ams target the next max missile, not the next missiles, this would make ams a lot more effective and prevents the overwhelming effect we have. Cutting the range, even with more firerate, would lead to a more effective overwhelming with less ripplelaunchers.

[Strum Wealh]

Dino Might, on 19 January 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

-Increase missile velocity...

Galenit, on 20 January 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

Was done, should have done again, but was drowned in tears.

Indeed.

At their current velocity (160 m/s), it takes LRMs a whopping 6.25 seconds to get to their maximum range (1000 meters).
In fact, it takes LRMs 1.13 seconds just to clear their minimum range (180 meters), and it would take 3.94 seconds to reach what should be their effective range (630 meters, representing the LRMs' TT "long" range of 21 hexes).

By contrast, standard SRMs have a velocity of 400 m/s & Streak SRMs have a velocity of 250 m/s; with both having a maximum range of 270 meters, it takes standard SRMs 0.68 seconds (that is, just over two-thirds of one second) to reach their maximum range & 1.08 seconds for Streak SRMs to do the same.

I'd like to see PGI experiment with increasing the LRMs' velocity to 200 m/s:

• It would take 5.00 seconds (versus 6.25 seconds) to reach maximum range (1000 meters).
  
• It would take 3.15 seconds (versus 3.94 seconds) to reach the TT "long" range (630 meters).
  
• It would take 0.90 seconds (versus 1.13 seconds) to clear minimum range (180 meters).

Personally, I might even be interested in seeing the LRMs' velocity go up to 250 m/s (4.00 seconds to 1000 meters, 2.52 seconds to 630 meters, 0.72 seconds to 180 meters).

In either case (200 m/s or 250 m/s), it should be left in place for a minimum of one month (e.g. 30 days) - long enough, IMO, for the "novelty factor"/"try-it-out phase" (and the initial "reflexive QQ phase" ) to pass & allow for the acquisition of some real and useful data.

Thoughts?

[Khobai]

From what Ive read, this is pretty much what most of us agree on...

LRM Velocity
Ideally the way LRMs should work is they should have a much higher max speed BUT they should GRADUALLY accelerate upto that max speed.

So like LRMs might start at like 160m/s but then gradually accelerate upto twice that speed 320m/s. Say they accelerate at 40m/s per second. So it would take 4 seconds of being in the air to reach max velocity.

That would make LRMs much better at long range without making them significantly better at shorter ranges. And LRMs need to be better at long range because what we have now doesnt qualify as long range missiles.

LRM Spam/Screenshake/Lack of punch
Again the way I would fix this is simply to increase the damage per missile and reduce the cooldown by the same proportion. That makes LRMs less spammable, it makes them shake your screen less as a result of being less spammable (although shake might possibly need to be reduced too), and it gives LRMs significantly better ability to punch through armor which is one of their severe limitations right now.

ECM/AMS
ECM should not hard counter missiles so severely. It should not grant AOE stealth. It should not prevent missile locks. All ECM should do is soft counter missiles by doubling lock-on time and only give stealth to the mech its equipped on.

AMS needs to be improved simply because were increasing the velocity of missiles. AMS should remain at about the same relative level of potency its currently at (shooting down 3-4 missiles per volley). Additionally missile warnings should require AMS; If you dont have AMS you dont get missile warnings.

Artemis/Indirect Fire/NARC/TAG
Artemis is simply not worth the extra ton and crit slot PER launcher. Artemis should give SRMs/LRMs the same +7% crit bonus that energy/ballistic weapons get from targeting computers.

Also because of the above changes, indirect fire needs to be significantly nerfed. LRMs should more or less be incapable of indirect fire unless the target is Tagged/NARCd. That would help encourage TAG/NARC as a role and make it more rewarding because of the stronger LRMs.

Edited by Khobai, 20 January 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Galenit]

Khobai, on 20 January 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Artemis/Indirect Fire/NARC/TAG
Artemis is simply not worth the extra ton and crit slot PER launcher. Artemis should give SRMs/LRMs the same +7% crit bonus that energy/ballistic weapons get from targeting computers.

Also because of the above changes, indirect fire needs to be significantly nerfed. LRMs should more or less be incapable of indirect fire unless the target is Tagged/NARCd. That would help encourage TAG/NARC as a role and make it more rewarding because of the stronger LRMs.

Thats why i say increase the spread of missiles, it nerfs them until you use artemis(decreases spread+locktime)+los or tag/narc (decreases spread+locktime), problem solved with one single change.
ECM: More locktime and more spread for enemy lockonmissiles, no stealth

Now you have a soft counter and countercounter system with lrms, artemis, narc, tag, bap, ecm and radarderp, no stealth and reduced indirect fire damage if not using tag or narc or artemis+los.

If all launchers would have the same spread, this would be even better in this system and make the big launchers better then spamming small launchers that hit nearly only the centertorso.

Edited by Galenit, 20 January 2016 - 11:56 AM.

[Roadkill]

Sorbic, on 18 January 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

You know, no matter how many times people say something like "LRMs effectiveness is entirely dependent on the target's skill rather than the shooter." it still won't be true. At least no more so than any other freaking weapon in the game. Seriously, I've dropped tons of LRMs are many a folk who makes such statements. Yes, there are counters which help reduce the threat and individually they definitely aren't OP but lets not pretend like LRMs can't be a threat in Puglandia. I mean before the ECM nerf I'd agree that they were total poo but not now.

LRMs are a threat in Puglandia because Puglandia is overrun with bads. Bads make easy targets for LRM boats.

That doesn't mean that LRMs are good, and in fact reinforces the fact that LRMs are more dependent on the skill of the target than on the skill of the firer.

Note that this says nothing about the skill level required to use LRMs well. It just means that it is far easier to abuse bads with LRMs than with other weapons, and that it is far more difficult to be successful with LRMs against really good players than it is with other weapons.

LRMs are primarily target skill dependent. The firer's skill is also a factor, but the biggest factor is the skill of the target.

Lasers and ballistics are firer skill dependent. The target's skill is also a factor, but the firer's skill is far more important.

[MechWarrior5152251]

I have been running several build on the Great White Map Whale. LURMS are not significantly better than lasers even when boated with tag and BAP.

[Dino Might]

I like the idea of more damage per missile and slow down the reload rate.
I could even go so far as double per missile damage and double the time to reload. A LRM-20 would be something to fear, but it wouldn't fire very often. It would make the shooter want to position and time his shot more carefully, and it would make the target more likely to try some tactics (like using cover during the approach) against the shooter.

[wanderer]

I'd honestly prefer more punch and slower reloads versus lurmspam. LRMs are opportunity shots as it is, though I wouldn't go so far as straight up doubling the reload time and damage. CLRM20's are already the longest reload cycle in the game (6.5 vs. even the 5 + .75 cooldown of a Gauss), and anything more than 7.5 sec or so is insanely long in MWO terms for firing. Bump everyone up .25 seconds for LRM 5's, .5 for LRM 10s, .75 for LRM 15's, a full second for 20's.

[AnimeFreak40K]

sensen, on 18 January 2016 - 05:22 PM, said:

1. Missiles need more weight (a lot more) 2. Missiles launching should cause a lot more heat. 3. Missile Launchers should take more slots. I believe this is fair considering the new map is nothing but a snowy "no man's land" (learn your history if you don't know what that is). Also it will stop people from heavily relying on LRM boats...honestly I wish they didn't add LRMs because there are only 12 v 12 maps. If it was 50 v 50 then I can understand the need for artillery.

no. No! NO!!!

Polar Highlands is one of the *FEW* maps that favors and cultivates almost strictly long-range combat, LRM or otherwise. Yes, there is short/medium range brawling and fighting to be had, but this map clearly, *CLEARLY* favors the long-range fight (unless you're a sneaky git and/or good at pulling off flanking maneuvers).

This is good! Amazing even!

Most (if not all) of the other maps have some sort of massive central feature that "must" be held to win, so people flock to or around it. The maps that don't have such massive/central features have terrain designed such that everyone is pretty much funneled into kill-zones that favor short/medium range combat. While there is nothing wrong with those sorts of maps, it makes combat boring after awhile and things start becoming very rote and expected.

Polar Highlands is the sort of map that *PUNISHES* you for not being aware of your positioning or what's going on around you. It is literally a test of how good you are at this game on some of the more fundamental levels.To excel on this map, you need to master the art of proper movement, positioning and patience...especially if you're a short/medium range brawler.

Don't like it? Fine, vote for your favorite map that favors your play-style.