365 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

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...

Yes, it does.

Just like chaining or group firing LRM15's provides the same spread pattern either way. Spread is determined by launcher, not number of launchers fired.

[Bishop Steiner]

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...

well, since they don't magically become LRM10,15 or 20s when you fire them in groups, yeah. Pretty much. You just are firing a group of LRM5s, and LRMs still home center mass, and pattern spreads from there.

Though I have noticed over the last.4-6 months the LRM5s on my MDD seem far less efficacious at coring out CTs, am wondering if they stealth tweaked the code, or I missed something? *shrugs* still better than the other options.

[Wintersdark]

Barantor, on 17 March 2016 - 08:05 AM, said:

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.

My experience, as an ON1-IIC enthusiast, is that most ON1-IIC's end up sporting LRMs due to hardpoint limitations. You've got a lot tonnage to use on light weight weapons, but few hardpoints.

It's LRM's or SRM's, it's not just hitboxes; it's heat. Up close, between the lasers and ballistics, it's hard to effectively utilize SRM's well. Not impossible, but hard. Add that to the kind of blocky form, and yeah, LRM's end up being a go-to filler. Do some damage before you get close, then rely on the lasers/ballistics.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

well, since they don't magically become LRM10,15 or 20s when you fire them in groups, yeah. Pretty much. You just are firing a group of LRM5s, and LRMs still home center mass, and pattern spreads from there.

Though I have noticed over the last.4-6 months the LRM5s on my MDD seem far less efficacious at coring out CTs, am wondering if they stealth tweaked the code, or I missed something? *shrugs* still better than the other options.

Yeah, even if they spread just as much as bigger launchers, AND only fired in a single group to remove cockpit shake, they're still doing 9 dps vs 6dps. 50% more damage output is pretty hard to overcome.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 March 2016 - 07:53 AM, said:

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.

I agree, though in theory, the only reason reason for the smaller launchers in TT was because Lighter mechs couldn't use the larger ones effectively. They provided no advantage in RoF, grouping, etc. So I can also see where LRM5 cooldown being normalized could be argued. IDK, fix the one thing, then see if they need more, I guess, right?

[Xavori]

Honestly, they should just get back to tabletop indirect fire rules.

You need a spotter. That's it. No long lock time. No needing to hold lock after firing. If a teammate can see a target, you can shoot it, and the missiles will fly to that target, and if the teammate can hold visual, they'll adjust in flight.

Much simpler.

It also brings AMS and moving in formation to the front again. When I started the game a few months ago, I considered AMS must have because I expected to need that 30-40% LRM damage reduction (I also played exclusively lights which had the very amusing side effect of dramatically slowing down my PSR growth even now when I'm more than capable of carrying teams). Now, I can get more reduction versus the overwhelming majority of LRM pilots just using cover and concealment and putting that weight towards additional offense (conversely, I've gotten really good at using LRM's since most pilots do the same things to counter, and if you counter their counters and they don't have ECM/AMS....)

Yes, there will be initially whining. "ZOMG I have to waste two tons and 2 slots to get a 40% reduction in LRM damage??? So unfair!!" But players will adjust in fairly short order to putting AMS on mechs and staying next to other AMS mechs, and the game will be better for it, and I'll still be able to kill people with LRM's because eventually, even good pilots get separated from the herd...

[Almond Brown]

Mead, on 17 March 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

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.

My point was a stream of 5's is a stream, one after another, clustered as such. 6 x 5 fired all at once should be a cloud of 30 missiles. How can any Cloud of 30 missiles have the same cluster tightness as single groups of 5.

5 -> 5 -> 5 -> 5 -> 5 -> 5 ->

vs

 5
5 5
5 5
 5

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 March 2016 - 09:09 AM.

[Deathlike]

Xavori, on 17 March 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yes, there will be initially whining. "ZOMG I have to waste two tons and 2 slots to get a 40% reduction in LRM damage??? So unfair!!" But players will adjust in fairly short order to putting AMS on mechs and staying next to other AMS mechs, and the game will be better for it, and I'll still be able to kill people with LRM's because eventually, even good pilots get separated from the herd...

Good pilots don't use LRMs for anything serious, and that's not even a joke.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 March 2016 - 09:10 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Good pilots don't use LRMs, and that's not even a joke.

Guess Jman5 is a bad pilot then.

I'd like to see you go solo against him.

[QuantumButler]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Good pilots don't use LRMs for anything serious, and that's not even a joke.

Really it's more like "Don't bring lrms to SERIOUS games".

You can do well with lrms, and have fun with them if they are your style, but they are sub par and worse than just bringing direct fire guns or lasers most of the time.

There are a lot of generally sub par to bad weapons in MWO that are still fun to use, like Megaguns, pepsis, ac/2s of all sorts, lbaxes, and such.

[Xavori]

And just some fun stats since I suspect I'm one of the few pilots who hasn't abandoned LRM's.

My accuracy with LRM's:
LRM5 - 37.63%
LRM15 - 30.33%
(my stats page is missing my LRM10&20)

LRM5+art - 57.14%
LRM10+art - 38.54%
LRM20+art - 33.34%
(I might very well never have tried LRM15+art, so not surprised it wasn't listed)

CLRM10 - 33.58%
CLRM20 - 35.23%

CLRM20+art - 39.23%

And just to put those accuracy numbers in persepective:
LPL - 78.96%
ERLL - 79.70%
ERPPC - 62.40% (I take pride in that one since I'm using that weapon at 1000+m most of the time)

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I agree, though in theory, the only reason reason for the smaller launchers in TT was because Lighter mechs couldn't use the larger ones effectively. They provided no advantage in RoF, grouping, etc. So I can also see where LRM5 cooldown being normalized could be argued. IDK, fix the one thing, then see if they need more, I guess, right?

Well, consider the case of autocannons. An AC/10 has less damage than an AC/20 in TT, but it also has longer range and more ammo/ton, which means that there are actual specifications-type reasons to select it for some machines over the AC/20, outside of simple slots/weight considerations. Same with the AC/5 and the AC/2 (sort of) - each autocannon has its own distinct characteristics that give it room to exist alongside other autocannons, even on the same machine at times.

LRMs? The LRM-5 has the exact same range/targeting profile, in TT, as the LRM-20. It has the same ammo/t, as well. It...basically has no reason to exist, outside of being smaller/lighter for use on smaller 'Mechs, as you said. IN a system where all LRMs are normalized on spread and cooldown both, the LRM-5 becomes kinda strictly inferior to the LRM-20 in a combat sense, only used if you don't have room/weight for an LRM-20...at which point you probably don't bother with the LRM launcher at all.

That's mostly what I'm figuring we should try and avert, if possible. Shorter cycle times for LRM-5s, at the expense of requiring much greater proportional investment for Artemis direct-fire bonuses under some variation of my original ideas, would possibly make sense as a balancing tool. 1t Artemis for an LRM-20 vs. 4t Artemis for four LRM-5s is a pretty massive drawback for small launchers - they should get something to offset that onus, perhaps?

[QuantumButler]

1453 R, on 17 March 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Well, consider the case of autocannons. An AC/10 has less damage than an AC/20 in TT, but it also has longer range and more ammo/ton, which means that there are actual specifications-type reasons to select it for some machines over the AC/20, outside of simple slots/weight considerations. Same with the AC/5 and the AC/2 (sort of) - each autocannon has its own distinct characteristics that give it room to exist alongside other autocannons, even on the same machine at times.

LRMs? The LRM-5 has the exact same range/targeting profile, in TT, as the LRM-20. It has the same ammo/t, as well. It...basically has no reason to exist, outside of being smaller/lighter for use on smaller 'Mechs, as you said. IN a system where all LRMs are normalized on spread and cooldown both, the LRM-5 becomes kinda strictly inferior to the LRM-20 in a combat sense, only used if you don't have room/weight for an LRM-20...at which point you probably don't bother with the LRM launcher at all.

That's mostly what I'm figuring we should try and avert, if possible. Shorter cycle times for LRM-5s, at the expense of requiring much greater proportional investment for Artemis direct-fire bonuses under some variation of my original ideas, would possibly make sense as a balancing tool. 1t Artemis for an LRM-20 vs. 4t Artemis for four LRM-5s is a pretty massive drawback for small launchers - they should get something to offset that onus, perhaps?

In fact some Battletech videogames did away with different missile launcher sizes entirely, in Mechcommander the LRM and SRMjust come as 5/2 variants, with mechs like the mad dog and catapult just boating like 6 launchers or so.

Edited by QuantumButler, 17 March 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 17 March 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

That's mostly what I'm figuring we should try and avert, if possible. Shorter cycle times for LRM-5s, at the expense of requiring much greater proportional investment for Artemis direct-fire bonuses under some variation of my original ideas, would possibly make sense as a balancing tool. 1t Artemis for an LRM-20 vs. 4t Artemis for four LRM-5s is a pretty massive drawback for small launchers - they should get something to offset that onus, perhaps?

The artemis difference is very minor. Well, I mean, it's a major cost difference (4:1t) but Artemis actually has fairly minimal effect on LRM's. If they normalized LRM group size between all launchers first, it would matter more but as things stand LRM5's group tighter than ALRM10's, let alone ALRM20's.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

Guess Jman5 is a bad pilot then.

I'd like to see you go solo against him.

No, he's an exceptional Hunchback pilot.

The 4J has qualities (and quirks) that make sense for LRM builds. The alternatives are all closer to dumb/bad/awful.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 March 2016 - 09:36 AM.

[1453 R]

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

The artemis difference is very minor. Well, I mean, it's a major cost difference (4:1t) but Artemis actually has fairly minimal effect on LRM's. If they normalized LRM group size between all launchers first, it would matter more but as things stand LRM5's group tighter than ALRM10's, let alone ALRM20's.

Heh...well, recall that in my original bit which Bishop was quoting when I responded to him (follow the quote chains, boyz!), I had proposed that Artemis basically completely alter LRM flight profiles. An ALRM-10 is essentially a completely different weapon than a standard LRM-10 - enormously flattened trajectory, faster missiles (potentially), tighter grouping/better tracking, but no indirect-fire capability whatsoever.

In that system, Artemis tonnage costs for ganged smaller launchers becomes a very big deal, since it makes it much more difficult for ganged smaller launchers to obtain the same heavily enhanced direct-fire performance of singular/paired larger launchers. Tradeoffs across the board, really.

Edited by 1453 R, 17 March 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Moomtazz]

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.

What I am saying is treat LRM launchers of any size as multiple LRM5 launchers. So an LRM 20 would take up 1 hardpoint but could be toggled to fire in 4 groups of 5 missile, or one group of 20. Have different heat profiles depending on 5 or 5x groups. That should fix the problem you are all complaining about.

So even if 2 LRM15 weigh more than 6 LRM5, they only take up two hardponts.

Edited by Moomtazz, 17 March 2016 - 09:45 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

Guess Jman5 is a bad pilot then.

I'd like to see you go solo against him.

Back when I still solo queued, if he was on the other side in his 4J, I had him dead to rights if I could peel him away from the team.

Although I am a light pilot.

[wanderer]

Quote

I agree with most of that except for adding 100 m/s to base LRM velocity. Assuming no NARC/TAG is applied, LRMs already fly fast enough as is.

So you're saying that a weapon that takes over six seconds to travel to it's maximum range is fast enough?

Even NARCs have velocity boosters because they're painfully slow projectiles as a module (and quirk, in the Raven-3L)...and NARCs travel at 500 velocity, which means even with the module, they're slower projectiles than an AC/20.

And an LRM travels at less than a third of that. +100 velocity wouldn't even make them travel as fast as a Streak SRM. For a weapon that goes three times as far.

It's already scattered damage, had it's cooldown repeatedly increased, and is one of the most inefficient damage sources in the game (that's why people strap so many tubes on to try and compensate). At the least, it could be accurate damage delivery. Velocity and cluster size are the gold standard for LRM fixes right now.

[Bishop Steiner]

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

In fact some Battletech videogames did away with different missile launcher sizes entirely, in Mechcommander the LRM and SRMjust come as 5/2 variants, with mechs like the mad dog and catapult just boating like 6 launchers or so.

MC2, missile boats was pretty much the norm since it was the most reliable way to get friendly AI to focus your targets.

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

No, he's an exceptional Hunchback pilot.

The 4J has qualities (and quirks) that make sense for LRM builds. The alternatives are all closer to dumb/bad/awful.

aw, so there's holes in that there blanket statement.... might wanna invest in mothballs!

[Bishop Steiner]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 17 March 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

Back when I still solo queued, if he was on the other side in his 4J, I had him dead to rights if I could peel him away from the team.

Although I am a light pilot.

Yeah, down side to his running an XL in a HBK. If you could solo him in a Light. It's why I also ran less ammo, and an STD engine in mine. I might not be in his league (not delusional here!) but the 3x Slasers/2x Mlasers I ran for point defense usually was enough tobeat back all but the best Light pilots, unless I got wolf packed.

I just ended up spending a lot more matches having to pewpew leftovers to death than Jman, because if the match lasted more than 6-7 minutes, I sure as heck was gonna be out of ammo, lol.

Sadly, the nerf to the 4J has left it collecting dust for me. Because, ya know, it was sooooo OP before.