43 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

this is ganna be a Quick one,
even though i usually dont do Quick ones,

Ok back to Rewrite,

I feel that LRMs are in need of a Buff,
To make them Viable as Weapons,


=So Should PGI=
Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability),
Double AMS Range(to Compensate for New LRM Velocity),

I think these Changes would make LRMs better as weapons,
without making them Too Powerful as per New AMS Range,
Making LRMs better but also Making their Counter Better,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Rewrite,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 23 January 2016 - 06:18 PM.

[Chagatay]

Indirect fire is the reason to use LRMs.......
AMS is very effective in mass vs missile spam in mass (Ton for Ton ).

But not against improved speed at the cost of some accuracy penalties on indirect fire. Certainly direct LRM fire can be buffed.

Edited by Chagatay, 23 January 2016 - 06:41 AM.

[Jabilac]

LRMs can already be buffed for "direct fire" by adding artemis which increases the tracking and clustering when you have Line of Sight (LOS) on your target.

I thought the most recent change to LRM's (increased cooldown, decreased spread) helped put them almost exactly where they need to be. LRM 5's are a little too tight compared to LRM 20's and maybe all of them should have the same spread to kinda cut back on the small launcher spam.

[Nightmare1]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 January 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

this is ganna be a Quick one,
even though i usually dont do Quick ones,

Should PGI:
1) Removed Indirect Fire(Unless you have a Tag/Narc'ed Enemy),
2) Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability)
3) Double AMS Range(to Compensate for New LRM Speed)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

How 'bout we don't touch LRMs and all agree that they're at a good spot, yes?

Got a couple dedicated LRM'ers in our Unit right now that're doing just fine. Some of us took our LRM boats out recently, after seeing their success, and were surprised at how much easier it is not to have LRM games. ECM isn't as thick as it used to be, it seems, and I was seeing some impressive scores. I really don't think that we need to buff LRMs any.

Or are you suggesting all three of those bullet points as changes that would be made together and not independently of each other? 'Cause I get the feeling that number 1 is independent of 2, but that 2 and 3 are dependent on each other.

That being said, if 1) were implemented, then I could agree to 2) and 3). However, how would you solve the issue of UAVs? Those are an LRM'ers best friend right now.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Make indirect fire default to a high firing arc and much larger spread. Make direct fire default to a lower, flatter firing arc and much tighter spread.

Make indirect fire LRMs into an area saturation thing (light field artillery, essentially). Make direct fire LRMs 5 missile groups that do bone tracking akin to the SSRM mechanic.

[Tlords]

Jabilac, on 23 January 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

LRM 5's are a little too tight compared to LRM 20's and maybe all of them should have the same spread to kinda cut back on the small launcher spam.

Great idea! 4 LRM5's should not perform better than an LRM20 - given the 20 weighs 2 more tons, and takes up one more crit space. I'd also change it so all LRMs cycle at the same rate. Currently, LRM5s have the advantage for firing 40% faster than LRM20s. Giving all LRMs the same spread and cycle rate would be one step closer to giving larger LRM launchers a place in the game.

As it is now, there is no reason (other than some niche cases) to take an LRM20 when you can take 4LRM5s.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 January 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

this is ganna be a Quick one,
even though i usually dont do Quick ones,

Should PGI:
1) Removed Indirect Fire(Unless you have a Tag/Narc'ed Enemy),
2) Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability)
3) Double AMS Range(to Compensate for New LRM Speed)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Maybe but increased firing rate would be better for lights and mediums giving them a bit of defense against streaks.

[wanderer]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 January 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

this is ganna be a Quick one,
even though i usually dont do Quick ones,

Should PGI:
1) Removed Indirect Fire(Unless you have a Tag/Narc'ed Enemy),
2) Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability)
3) Double AMS Range(to Compensate for New LRM Speed)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

1) should be renamed "Let's remove the reason LRMs exist", so how about no. TAG is a horrible way to spot for targets, meaning most TAG users are the LRM boat themselves...who would then be in direct-fire mode anyway. Good luck finding people willing to invest in NARC, I see more flamers and machineguns in any given day...
2) Give LRMs increasing velocity with flight time instead. That way they're not superaccurate at close range, but can travel longer distances with less flight time
3) AMS also has an effect on NARC- as it is, one AMS system reduces NARC range to 200m. Better to simply do #2 out of the 3 suggestions.

[Lykaon]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 January 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

this is ganna be a Quick one,
even though i usually dont do Quick ones,

Should PGI:
1) Removed Indirect Fire(Unless you have a Tag/Narc'ed Enemy),
2) Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability)
3) Double AMS Range(to Compensate for New LRM Speed)

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

I would have indirect fire require the targeting (spotter) mech have special equipment to do so.

TAG
NARC
Command Console
Active Probe
UAV

I like the increase in LRM velocity.I was already thinking that if LRMs had a significant velocity increase when fired directly at LOS targets (perhaps linked to artemis effects) this would improve LRM performance as a direct fire weapon making them more desireable and hopefully reduce the dependance on indirect fire that is largley based on compensating for the poor LRM projectile speeds.

Doubling AMS range may have some unntended side effects. Such as shooting down LRMs that would not even hit a target or LRM vollies destined to strike cover a significant distance away.If this is done it may also be worth considering increasing AMS ammo counts to compensate for the increase ammo demands.

[Lykaon]

wanderer, on 23 January 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

1) should be renamed "Let's remove the reason LRMs exist", so how about no. TAG is a horrible way to spot for targets, meaning most TAG users are the LRM boat themselves...who would then be in direct-fire mode anyway. Good luck finding people willing to invest in NARC, I see more flamers and machineguns in any given day...
2) Give LRMs increasing velocity with flight time instead. That way they're not superaccurate at close range, but can travel longer distances with less flight time
3) AMS also has an effect on NARC- as it is, one AMS system reduces NARC range to 200m. Better to simply do #2 out of the 3 suggestions.

1) This is a solo pug issue. Because most pugs are to self centered or limited in their capacity to use larger strategy it shouldn't dictate the entire game...oh wait it already does the whole game is tailored to ineptitude.Solos want any easier time at anything PGI caves no matter how detrimental to the overall game it may be.

2) Why shouldn't LRMs fired at short ranges not be accurate? Shouldn't a 7 ton LRM15 be able to compete with 7 tons of direct fire weapons? as it is now this is not the case. At under 180m the LRM launcher is dead weight. with direct line of sight at mid range (300-400m) the LRM launcher would have locked fired and landed one volley in the time an AC5 has landed 3 hits. Part of the issue with why LRMs are used indirectly is to try to trade direct fire is boarderline suicidal to try.Faster LRM projectile speeds allow the LRMs to be used directly without it being just plain dumb to try.

3) Your AMS vs NARC issue is an interesting point. Easily repaired though. Double AMS range also double NARC health.The AMS now does the same equivilent damage to a single NARC projectile.

[Trauglodyte]

I'll summarize your post with a single answer, "No", and then tell you why not.

1) Indirect fire was a function in TT which means that it should be a viable strategy in the game. The problem with how TT differs from in-game is that, in TT, you had such an insane reduction in chance to hit that it wasn't viable to use it. That was mainly because you had to have a spotter that did nothing that turn just to give you the ability to fire indirectly and then you took a -8 chance to hit on top of every other modifier (i.e., your movement, your target's movement, etc.). So, removing it isn't really an option that should be considered.

2) LRM velocity should be nudged up to match that of Streaks, probably, but the bigger thing is that LRMs, while usable indirectly, are absolutely horrid as direct fire weapons because the arc that is utilized is that extreme. Why am I firing way up in the air if my target is out in the open? Why does the angle of my missiles change the closer my target is to me when they should just the same arc? If Artemis only works when I have direct LOS to my target and thusly makes it quicker for me to lock and also has the benefit of making my clusters tighter, why shouldn't it also make my trajectory flatter? A slight bump in missile speed and a slight increase in range of AMS is likely justified but the issue is more on how the weapon acts. Change that and you've got a better weapon system that doesn't get stronger when fired indirectly.

3) Finally, WHY aren't LRMs set to target bones like Streak missiles? Both are guided and require locks. It is just as easy to apply the "miss" factor to bone targeted LRMs as it is to do so with the benefits of NARC, TAG, and Artemis. Change that up and now we're talking about LRMs landing correctly instead of having a flight fired from a target in front of me hitting me in the face only to tear off my rear armor. It makes no sense.



PS> AMS also can shoot down NARCs, which are already hard to land, so let's not make the heavy SOBs worse. It is alreay strange that they deal damage to me when the ammo explodes but don't deal damage to my target. TT shenanigans!

Edited by Trauglodyte, 23 January 2016 - 12:23 PM.

[wanderer]

Lykaon, on 23 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

1) This is a solo pug issue. Because most pugs are to self centered or limited in their capacity to use larger strategy it shouldn't dictate the entire game...oh wait it already does the whole game is tailored to ineptitude.Solos want any easier time at anything PGI caves no matter how detrimental to the overall game it may be.

Considering the usual attitude towards LRMs on most teams, the reaction there is "stop wasting tonnage on situational gear and mount more lasers". Also, TAG requires you to keep the target painted- which is long seconds for a scout to sit there with a laser pointer showing precisely where to shoot for even one salvo, never mind a team, in the open, in good range.

This generally kills the scout. It's also generally not healthy for a self-TAG missile boat either, mind you.

Quote

2) Why shouldn't LRMs fired at short ranges not be accurate? Shouldn't a 7 ton LRM15 be able to compete with 7 tons of direct fire weapons? as it is now this is not the case. At under 180m the LRM launcher is dead weight. with direct line of sight at mid range (300-400m) the LRM launcher would have locked fired and landed one volley in the time an AC5 has landed 3 hits. Part of the issue with why LRMs are used indirectly is to try to trade direct fire is boarderline suicidal to try. Faster LRM projectile speeds allow the LRMs to be used directly without it being just plain dumb to try.

It's generally not the flight time at 300-400m that causes a miss. It's having to lock, during which point your opponent has already fired and is likely moving back into cover in a direct trade and if he's good, has radar dep to instantly kill the lock. That's a firing delay for every LRM launcher. On the other hand, having LRMs increase speed as they travel means they gain long-rang accuracy to match the short-range ones. At this point, you don't fire accurately outside 500m. I'd like to see 500+m shots be accurate, too.

Quote

3) Your AMS vs NARC issue is an interesting point. Easily repaired though. Double AMS range also double NARC health.The AMS now does the same equivilent damage to a single NARC projectile.

I'm OK with that.

[Alistair Winter]

[wanderer]

Trauglodyte, on 23 January 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

I'll summarize your post with a single answer, "No", and then tell you why not.

1) Indirect fire was a function in TT which means that it should be a viable strategy in the game. The problem with how TT differs from in-game is that, in TT, you had such an insane reduction in chance to hit that it wasn't viable to use it. That was mainly because you had to have a spotter that did nothing that turn just to give you the ability to fire indirectly and then you took a -8 chance to hit on top of every other modifier (i.e., your movement, your target's movement, etc.). So, removing it isn't really an option that should be considered.

You mean you didn't take a platoon of rifle infantry (or a light VTOL), split them by squads, and just set them up someplace where they could spot for effect for your LRM carriers/missile boat 'Mechs? Zero movement, dedicated cheap spotter, minimal firing penalty (read: +1 over normal).

We must have used a lot more combined arms than most people did, then.

[Trauglodyte]

My group was more into Shadowrun than Battletech. So, when we did TT, it was nothing more than a single person in a single mech kind of map rumble. We tried the whole mercenary unit thing but it burned out pretty quickly. We also tried playing MechWarrior to mix the whole RPing with Btech but that, too, fell out pretty quick like. "What do you mean that I have to do stuff outside of my mech? I don't get it!"

[stocky0904]

The daily "nerfe lrms' thread. Lol

Lrms are good as they are. remove the indirect fire and you will remove a whole weapon systeme from this game.

[Wolfways]

Most important change to LRM's? Fix ECM.

[MerryIguana]

Andi Nagasia, on 23 January 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

2) Double LRM Velocity(160 up to 320, for Better LRM Reliability)

This was done before. It didnt end well.

[hammkers7]

lrm just fu1kin op because ams suck

[Rhent]

LRM's are only useful in very narrow situations such as when the opposing team is lacking ECM, no AMS, not running radar depravation and is primarily made up of brawlers, there is long exposed areas with little to no cover AND you have at least 3 dedicated LRM mechs. In that scenario they can get kills almost on par with teams using snipers and brawlers. Otherwise, LRM's are absolutely terrible, they are for padding your score and that's about it.