365 replies to this topic

[Nerdboard]

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 05:59 AM, said:

Take em to the training grounds. Try a 2xlrm15 vs. 6xlrm5 mech. Look at how many missiles it takes on average to destroy a given mech. Repeat a few times.

The LRM5 mech will consistently kill in less time, with less missiles.

I never said that wasnt the case. You actually went ahead and ignored everything I wrote except for my remark that most people seem to be too stupid to use LRM's. I see AMS frequently, I run it on a few of my mechs and I always use cover. And I repeat - in live battles the mechs running larger LRM racks have proven to be a greater danger to me. Your experience might differ, I am just telling you that you havent seen the whole picture. Neither am I claiming that I have.

People also seem to forget that damage spread works two ways - more spread can actually get you kills you cant get with small launchers if the enemy is twisting away the critical points.

If you want to petition to buff larger launchers... do it. But if these forums show anything (just like the fact that people learn about the launcher differences only now... and think they know about balance two days after they notice) then it is that a vast majority of all posters - including almost all forum warriors - should not be argueing on balance.

[Bishop Steiner]

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

When I mean "fast" i'm talking "near Gauss rifle projectile speeds"

Maybe give them abit of an arc, but not enough to get over taller cover.

Like in Mechwarrior Living Legends (RIP)

Maybe. Almost willing to try anything now.

Kind of boggles my mind, for as much love as MW:LL gets on these forums, that Pre-MWO, I almost never saw much traffic on their servers.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nerdboard, on 17 March 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

I never said that wasnt the case. You actually went ahead and ignored everything I wrote except for my remark that most people seem to be too stupid to use LRM's. I see AMS frequently, I run it on a few of my mechs and I always use cover. And I repeat - in live battles the mechs running larger LRM racks have proven to be a greater danger to me. Your experience might differ, I am just telling you that you havent seen the whole picture. Neither am I claiming that I have.

People also seem to forget that damage spread works two ways - more spread can actually get you kills you cant get with small launchers if the enemy is twisting away the critical points.

If you want to petition to buff larger launchers... do it. But if these forums show anything (just like the fact that people learn about the launcher differences only now... and think they know about balance two days after they notice) then it is that a vast majority of all posters - including almost all forum warriors - should not be argueing on balance.

Here's the thing my firend.

If I bring 2xLRM15, they are slow to reload, and spread horribly.

If I bring 6xLRM5? I can chainfire, and bulldoze through things. If I see AMS is swatting it? I can then switch to group fire, having those same 30 missiles (identical to 2x LRM15), to defeat your AMS, and have them 1) hit with a tighter grouping, and 2) cooldown almost 2 seconds faster and have the next group volley of 30 missiles headed your way.

That's part of knowing how to use your LRMs. The 6x5 LRMs are STILL superior, even against AMS.

[QuantumButler]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

Maybe. Almost willing to try anything now.

Kind of boggles my mind, for as much love as MW:LL gets on these forums, that Pre-MWO, I almost never saw much traffic on their servers.

I for one only tried out MWLL after having played MWO for abit, by then the community was all but dead, the only ones left being people who played it for so many years the skill gap was very large, especially map knowledge wise.

[Bishop Steiner]

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

I for one only tried out MWLL after having played MWO for abit, by then the community was all but dead, the only ones left being people who played it for so many years the skill gap was very large, especially map knowledge wise.

I tired it a few month before getting into CB for MWO. Seemed like there were the occasional event where numbers went up, but early 2012, I just didn't see much traffic, but it was a small window.

There were things about it I liked (mixed arms, map size and variety) and stuff I didn't (no mechlab, overall graphic fidelity, glowy weapon ports), and stuff that I think people way over romanticize. Can't say I played it enough (due to the low populations when I was on) to really get enough a feel to remember their LRMs. Guess I'll have to go watch youtubes of it, since ain't no real point downloading it to this computer.

[Moomtazz]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

Here's the thing my firend.

If I bring 2xLRM15, they are slow to reload, and spread horribly.

If I bring 6xLRM5? I can chainfire, and bulldoze through things. If I see AMS is swatting it? I can then switch to group fire, having those same 30 missiles (identical to 2x LRM15), to defeat your AMS, and have them 1) hit with a tighter grouping, and 2) cooldown almost 2 seconds faster and have the next group volley of 30 missiles headed your way.

That's part of knowing how to use your LRMs. The 6x5 LRMs are STILL superior, even against AMS.

Ok so just add a toggle to fire any LRM launcher in either groups of 5 missiles or all missiles at once.

Aside from that all I see is you asking for buffs to LRMs.

[Lugh]

Moomtazz, on 17 March 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ok so just add a toggle to fire any LRM launcher in either groups of 5 missiles or all missiles at once.

Aside from that all I see is you asking for buffs to LRMs.

Chainfire already does this with 5s and on Some chassis Tube counts do this as well...

[Nerdboard]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

Here's the thing my firend.

If I bring 2xLRM15, they are slow to reload, and spread horribly.

If I bring 6xLRM5? I can chainfire, and bulldoze through things. If I see AMS is swatting it? I can then switch to group fire, having those same 30 missiles (identical to 2x LRM15), to defeat your AMS, and have them 1) hit with a tighter grouping, and 2) cooldown almost 2 seconds faster and have the next group volley of 30 missiles headed your way.

That's part of knowing how to use your LRMs. The 6x5 LRMs are STILL superior, even against AMS.

Ok, if you keep not actually reading the whole post I dont need to bother answering I guess.

[Bishop Steiner]

Moomtazz, on 17 March 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ok so just add a toggle to fire any LRM launcher in either groups of 5 missiles or all missiles at once.

Aside from that all I see is you asking for buffs to LRMs.

......................... wow.

[Wintersdark]

Nerdboard, on 17 March 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

I never said that wasnt the case. You actually went ahead and ignored everything I wrote except for my remark that most people seem to be too stupid to use LRM's. I see AMS frequently, I run it on a few of my mechs and I always use cover. And I repeat - in live battles the mechs running larger LRM racks have proven to be a greater danger to me. Your experience might differ, I am just telling you that you havent seen the whole picture. Neither am I claiming that I have.

People also seem to forget that damage spread works two ways - more spread can actually get you kills you cant get with small launchers if the enemy is twisting away the critical points.

If you want to petition to buff larger launchers... do it. But if these forums show anything (just like the fact that people learn about the launcher differences only now... and think they know about balance two days after they notice) then it is that a vast majority of all posters - including almost all forum warriors - should not be argueing on balance.

I have seen the whole picture. I have thousands of drops, and I've used LRM's extensively throughout. I've done that over every level of play, except for higher end competitive play where you're just not bringing LRM's at all.

I read your whole post, I just didn't comment on the rest of it.

But if you think I - or Bishop, or any other the others here commenting on it, are somehow surprised by the results with the Archer, you're wrong.

The point of Bishop's thread is how the Archer really highlights the issue in a way that basically no other mech does. This, because unlike the lighter multi-M hardpoint mechs, the archer has total choice over what it runs. It's perfectly capable of packing on lots of larger launchers, or a mix, or basically anything else. Very few mechs have full choice.

Now, we were well aware of the situation. This isn't a surprise. But what it is, is frank confirmation of something we already knew.

And the end result is very simple: There are no situations where running fewer, larger launchers is superior to running more, smaller launchers. Not any.

And no, I'm going to flatly deny this:

Nerdboard, on 17 March 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

People also seem to forget that damage spread works two ways - more spread can actually get you kills you cant get with small launchers if the enemy is twisting away the critical points.

Damage spread is never good. If someone is twisting, they're rotating on their centerline. LRM's track to the center, and spread from there. There are two options:

1) The mech is equal/longer than it is wide, such as a Stalker. You get a similar hit count.
2) The mech is shorter than it is wide, such as a Centurion. It's profile shrinks as it twists, and you get fewer hits because the increased spread results in more missiles missing.

Increased spread is NOT an advantage, not a "mixed bag", it's objectively bad. You don't ever want more spread.



You personally mayar 2xLRM15's more, but that's because you haven't done the math and don't understand the situation. 6xLRM5 is objectively superior.

But, you say, if there's AMS and you're group firing the 6xLRM5, then you're generating ~19 heat per 30 tubes vs. 10 heat with 2xlrm15!

That's true. However!

6xLRM5 = 9.24 dps; grouped tighter = more useful damage.
2xLRM15 = 6.32(!!) dps

One AMS vs. chained LRM5's will destroy roughly 1 in 5 missiles. That reduces the (chainfired!) LRM5 damage output to 7.39dps - still higher than the group fired 2xLRM15 without accounting for the (minimal) AMS loss.

Once there's 2 AMS, the LRM5 mech needs to switch to group fire or lose out in damage output (but still do more focused damage!) Switching to group fire severely impacts heat efficiency, but when herfing LRM's that's less important overall.

After 2 AMS, it's not really worth firing LRM's at all anymore. You just lose too many missiles to them.

It's simple math.

9.24dps from 6s/12t > 6.32dps from 6s/14t, even on the face of it. When you add nonstop cockpit shake and more effective damage to the LRM5's, it's not even in the ballpark.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nerdboard, on 17 March 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Ok, if you keep not actually reading the whole post I dont need to bother answering I guess.

K bai.

[Wintersdark]

Moomtazz, on 17 March 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ok so just add a toggle to fire any LRM launcher in either groups of 5 missiles or all missiles at once.

Aside from that all I see is you asking for buffs to LRMs.

Dude. How does this address the issue above?

2xLRM15 spreads more, does only 2/3 the damage, and weighs more than 6xLRM5. The cockpit shake is an advantage, but not the issue. Just adding a burst fire mechanic to large LRM launchers is ridiculous.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

Damage spread is never good. If someone is twisting, they're rotating on their centerline. LRM's track to the center, and spread from there.

But BRO!!! I got like 2 kills on my 1000 pt UberLRMboat MEgaMEch match!!!! That proves they are good!

(ignoring the guys on team who landed shots in concentrated manner and got 4 kills for 500 damage, and didn't take 10 minutes/and or have to vulture off already cored mechs, to get it)

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Dude. How does this address the issue above?

2xLRM15 spreads more, does only 2/3 the damage, and weighs more than 6xLRM5. The cockpit shake is an advantage, but not the issue. Just adding a burst fire mechanic to large LRM launchers is ridiculous.

there's a reason homebiscuit has resided on my ignore list for quite some time.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

Well, not directly, no

Because if the larger racks where more competitive in some ways (but not objectively better), the Griffin and Kintaro still probably wouldn't use them because of tonnage concerns. the LRM5 is, in terms of tons:tubes, way more efficient.

In the case of the Archer, with 15 more tons available you still don't want to use larger launchers. In fact, you're more effective simply not spending that tonnage at all vs using larger launchers. Of course, you'd get ammo/engine/dhs/whatever instead with the tonnage, but when larger launchers are so bad that you simply won't consider using them at all vs. the small ones, there's a serious issue.

Well, there are better examples as well.

We have the Maddog... of which the Archer is loosely based off of (hitboxes+shape), and that has never been a serious thing (soft large side torsos) and then there's the Stalker-5M (5 missile hardpoints)... you hardly see them used for mass LRM boating (people try and fail, because they spent it all on LRMs and not enough on backup weapons). Of course, there's the occasional splattering of the Awesome-8R (which... is so not awesome).

Then there's the Catapults with missile racks... the C4 being rather meh and mediocre with the C1 being closest to relevant and the A1 being virtually dependent on the team. Of course, we have the Onions... I mean Orions where the only time they seem to matter in a leaderboard event is with LRMs, LRMs, and more LRMs.


This isn't new territory... it's people not looking over mechs that have used LRMs across various platforms and to eventually put together what the Archer would be like is not entirely farfetched. If you even ignore the chapter and verse of the obvious alternatives... then drawing the conclusion about the Archer should've been obvious based on the alternatives.

That's only if our balance overlord had a clue.

[1453 R]

I’ve been pondering LRMs for a while now, off and on. Reading this thread has given me a few possible ideas, and reminded me of a few others. Lessee how this flies…:

TAG: change Tag to a burntime/recharge weapon, like a conventional laser. 0.25s burntime, 4s cooldown, and if the entire 0.25s burntime hits a target, it’s TAG’d for the next five seconds. Yes yes, I know that’s not how spotting lasers work IRL. IRL spotting lasers also aren’t “Squishy Spotter HERE” beacons. Allowing a spotter to TAG something, then get the hell out rather than stand there waiting for all the twitchy cats to jump on the red laser pointer would drastically increase the utility of the TAG system for originally intended use. To counteract how much more dangerous TAG would be in this state, it loses its ECCM capability. ECM is intended to fox advanced electronics, which TAG nominally counts as. Yes, this means ECM is more problematical for LRM machines again. Deal w/it, we’re buffing the hell out of the things.

And yeah – if possible, which it wouldn’t be at this point, I’d love to see TAG, NARC, and similar systems converted to use ‘Utility’ hardpoints rather than weapons hardpoints, for a number of reasons.

ANYWAYS.

NARC: NARC is mostly good where it’s at, methinks, even with enhanced TAG. A unit tagged by a NARC pod is tagged far longer and generally more strongly than a TAG shot. That said, if we wanted to differentiate it more, we could give a NARC’d enemy the same real-time update facing/direction radar marker enemies suffer under a UAV. That allows NARC to be a handy Information Warfare™ tool as well as a missile marker – NARC a Dire Whale and people know where the angry end is pointed, makes the thing much easier to outmaneuver even if it’s not subsequently pelted by missiles.

ARTEMIS: Here’s where things get sorta fun. Artemis is intended to improve the direct-fire capabilities of attached LRM launchers, yes? Okay, so do that. A lot. Flatten/outright eliminate missile arcing, improve velocity (moderately, to start with), perhaps improve clustering…but here’s the thing. Artemis-equipped LRM launchers are no longer capable of indirect fire. Once the Artemis system is hooked up to your machine, you’re trading away bombardment capabilities for direct-fire missile hammers.

A lot of folks want this sort of direct/indirect swap to happen automagically, in the game – if you’re firing indirect you get the indirect spread; if you’re firing direct you get the direct spread. I don’t know as that’s something Piranha can readily do – it’s a lot of nebulous code to write. It seems like a simple enough decision for the game to make, but think about it – what happens when an indirect shot turns direct LOS halfway through? Does the game treat blocking ‘Mechs between you and the target as indirect fire? When does the game decide to make the switch?

I propose turning all that automagical mid-match shenanery into a single, binary MechLab decision – do you want indirect-capable, bombardment LRMs that have lousy direct-fire performance? Leave the Artemis off. Do you want direct-fire LRMs capable of competing with direct-fire autocannons and direct-fire lasers? Throw Artemis on – but be prepared to get your own locks, because other people’s locks don’t help you anymore.

TAG and NARC can improve tracking/grouping for both styles of launcher, but it’s not used to enable indirect fire mid-match, the way several people have recommended. Again, that’s the sort of thing that might tie Piranha’s codemonkeys in knots trying to figure out. This way, all Piranha needs to do is create two missile flight/lock profiles in the system – normal LRM, and Artemis LRM. Once you save a ‘Mech in the Mechlab, the game knows which profile to use. End of story.

Clean, simple, fits (mostly) within the lore of the Artemis system, and helps bring LRMs back into the fold. It’s not ideal, of course, but I think it would have a better shot than fiddly, mid-match behavior change gimmicks people keep trying to propose.

The only trouble would be ECM, which nominally ‘cancels’ Artemis’ effects. In this instance I would posit that ECM degrades the quicker locks of an Artemis launcher and nullifies any tracking/grouping bonuses it provides, but does not alter the Artemis-enabled flight profile of Artemis LRMs. The player is making a conscious choice on a specific style of play when she enables Artemis in this system; the enemy shouldn’t be able to deny her that choice mid-match with ECM. Besides which – once again, the intent is to eliminate as many mid-match behavior changes as possible, as they’re usually much more difficult to code up into working properly.

And finally…:

LRMs: I’m a fan of normalizing LRM launcher spread on the LRM-10 template – there’s no reason for LRM-20s to be as utterly putrid as they are, especially given their weight premium. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to normalize all LRM systems on the same 5s cooldown – remember, we’re already hammering the LRM-5’s spread, we don’t need to double its cooldown and make it completely useless – but with power draw incoming, hopefully they can balance things such that one LRM-20 utilizes noticeably less power to fire than four LRM-5s do.

This allows the player a choice (hardpoints permitting, of course) between one large, somewhat inflexible, excessively heavy launcher that has very accommodating power requirements, or four smaller, leaner launchers that draw a lot more power to continuously use. Combined with the Artemis changes, and using large packs of small launchers is no longer nearly as attractive for direct-fire engagements as using one or two larger, more power-efficient, Artemis-equipped launchers. Penny-packeting Artemis LRM-5s will quickly eat up all the weight savings you gain by using ganged smaller launchers instead of a single 15 or 20, which leaves LRM-5 chainspamming as the domain of old-fashioned semi-indirect Mad Doges and the like. The Artemis-equipped Archer becomes a violently capable midrange direct-fire Macross Missile Massacre with feet (fitting, really), and LRMs in general become a more interesting, choice-laden option.

Anyone figure there might be something to that plan?

[Barantor]

I've gotten results in games with the current LRMs, I do it in spite of the way they are, much like how I'm using the Archer now. I don't claim to be some 'master at every level' with LRMs, but those who know me know I've been through every iteration of changes the LRMs have had in this game.

That said, they aren't right currently.

We've had times where the LRMs were changed and the community backlash was so huge that PGI reacted like a little girl you sneak up behind and yell "boo!" and completely nerfed them down to oblivion.

Any time they get moderately good, people use the piss out of them. Then folks who either don't like that or want to claim they are 'easy mode' come out of the woodwork and complain too.

There is a middle ground, but it seems the forums, twitter and general populace has screamed about it so much that PGI has put it on the back-ist of back-burners and we are left with what we have.

Every now and then someone comes on the forums and has some 'grand idea' of how to change them which includes some weird system that would have to be coded. I'm more for doing really stupid simple things like trying it out without the missile warning or decreasing spread on the bigger launcher first... and done slowly over time.

I've been patient and will continue to be patient. The archer has folks in a tizzy and I'm like some old man on his porch going "It's been like that all along, where ya been?"

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

Well, there are better examples as well.

We have the Maddog... of which the Archer is loosely based off of (hitboxes+shape), and that has never been a serious thing (soft large side torsos) and then there's the Stalker-5M (5 missile hardpoints)... you hardly see them used for mass LRM boating (people try and fail, because they spent it all on LRMs and not enough on backup weapons). Of course, there's the occasional splattering of the Awesome-8R (which... is so not awesome).

Then there's the Catapults with missile racks... the C4 being rather meh and mediocre with the C1 being closest to relevant and the A1 being virtually dependent on the team. Of course, we have the Onions... I mean Orions where the only time they seem to matter in a leaderboard event is with LRMs, LRMs, and more LRMs.


This isn't new territory... it's people not looking over mechs that have used LRMs across various platforms and to eventually put together what the Archer would be like is not entirely farfetched. If you even ignore the chapter and verse of the obvious alternatives... then drawing the conclusion about the Archer should've been obvious based on the alternatives.

That's only if our balance overlord had a clue.

Yeah, as I said above, this isn't news. It's just very blatant confirmation, being the largest multi-launcher mech we've got, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when you've got a Catapult comparison with more tonnage, and yet you still wouldn't consider running larger launchers.

As Bishop says, it just highlights the already existing, known issue.

[Barantor]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

Well, there are better examples as well.

We have the Maddog... of which the Archer is loosely based off of (hitboxes+shape), and that has never been a serious thing (soft large side torsos) and then there's the Stalker-5M (5 missile hardpoints)... you hardly see them used for mass LRM boating (people try and fail, because they spent it all on LRMs and not enough on backup weapons). Of course, there's the occasional splattering of the Awesome-8R (which... is so not awesome).

Then there's the Catapults with missile racks... the C4 being rather meh and mediocre with the C1 being closest to relevant and the A1 being virtually dependent on the team. Of course, we have the Onions... I mean Orions where the only time they seem to matter in a leaderboard event is with LRMs, LRMs, and more LRMs.


This isn't new territory... it's people not looking over mechs that have used LRMs across various platforms and to eventually put together what the Archer would be like is not entirely farfetched. If you even ignore the chapter and verse of the obvious alternatives... then drawing the conclusion about the Archer should've been obvious based on the alternatives.

That's only if our balance overlord had a clue.

Funny thing is the Orion isn't really an "LRM mech" but is used as such because of it having some easy to hit hitboxes. It got a bit better with some structure, but it isn't the IS Timberwolf. Arguable the ON1-M is the most 'LRM' like stock.

Awesome is in the same "boat" (pun intended) in that it is a barn door so the LRM variant ends up being one of the better ones.

Catapult actually is a primary LRM mech, but the one with all missiles uses multiple LRM 5s (or splats SRMs!)... hmm makes you wonder why? The other primrary version only has two launchers and you don't see it as often....

The mad dog I can't comment on because I am IS to the core, but you don't see many of those and like the catapult it is cramming as many small launchers in as possible.

[Almond Brown]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

Here's the thing my firend.

If I bring 2xLRM15, they are slow to reload, and spread horribly.

If I bring 6xLRM5? I can chainfire, and bulldoze through things. If I see AMS is swatting it? I can then switch to group fire, having those same 30 missiles (identical to 2x LRM15), to defeat your AMS, and have them 1) hit with a tighter grouping, and 2) cooldown almost 2 seconds faster and have the next group volley of 30 missiles headed your way.

That's part of knowing how to use your LRMs. The 6x5 LRMs are STILL superior, even against AMS.

Never ran many 6 x 5 LRM setups but are you saying that chaining 6 5's and Alpha'ing 6 5's provides the same spread pattern upon reaching the target, regardless of firing method? That sounds pretty whack...

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 March 2016 - 08:29 AM.

[Mead]

Almond Brown, on 17 March 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Never ran many 6 x 5 LRM setups but are you saying that chaining 6 5's and Alpha'ing 6 5's provides the same spread pattern upon reaching the target, regardless of firing method? That sounds pretty whack...

Why wouldn't it? They're still 5s with the spread of a 5. Firing them at the same time doesn't turn them into a different weapon.

But yeah, all the lrms ought to group up into batches of 5 and have a consistent spread across the launchers.