365 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Also, remove missile warning and fix ECM.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Wintersdark, on 16 March 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Nerfing 5's isn't the answer, as even they are not particularly strong weapons, but clearly the larger launchers need a buff. It's just dumb that running fewer tubes in less tonnage is superior in practice by all metrics.

This, 100% !

(truth told, I run LRM10s more often than any other LRM and have no issue with them, but anything to make em better and produce more tryhard QQ)

[Zordicron]

As for the LRM system as a whole, I think-

Russ or Paul or some body there have this very stronk feeling that the ability to fire LRM without LOS, that is indirectly, is some sort of supermega balance for both LRM, and also a lynchpin of the entire gameplay design.

Logically(on paper) this could be true. In fact, maybe way way waaaay back in the 8 vs 8 days with 3 maps it actually was. Add the lack of HSR, and then the really funky version of it we got initially, and you could legitimately say LRM had a place as area control and raw dmg because most weapons had hit or miss tendancies with HSR and random hot location as well, so the nature of raw dmg was fine for the LRM system.

Enter the modern game, and the last several months leading up to where we are. NO ONE with a lick of sense is going to be in the open long enough for the old school LRM to get them, sometimes to even get a lock. Add in Radar Derp and the abundance of ECM added etc and the indirect fire ability of LRM really has turned into a fossil of previous ages. Now we compound this with the sheer potency of our laser barf alpha strikes vs the LRM raw dmg paradigm and LRM really, really have some catching up to do.

Russ, Paul- it is time to evaluate how LRM function in the game. Indirect fire of LRM NO LONGER has any real effect on the game to anyone that has played for more then 2 months. This new "power draw" thing people talk about might just be the ticket for LRMs.

Think about it, if we make it so LRM boats, well, can;t really boat: suddenly, we can really buff how LRM work without creating endless threads of the tears in the rain type because people will simply not be able to pump out 80 dmg of LRM rain anymore. WE WON'T HAVE TO RESTRICT THEM anymore through silly travel speeds and hard(and soft counters to lock times. An LRM20 might just actually turn out to be one of the more efficient ways to launch a bunch of missiles compared to a boat of lrm5's.

HOWEVER, that will NOT happen if nothing is changed on how LRM play is viewed in the overall design of gameplay mechanics. If Russ/Paul continue to view LRM's part of the puzzle in 2012 terms it is exceedingly possible that LRM might become even worse, or even more lopsided to how the launcher sizes fit into the game then they are now.

As for the current launcher size discrepancy:

LRM20 is not a powerful weapon. It is balanced through it's stats like it is. It has never been a powerful weapon, not even pre ghost heat 8v8 no HSR style play saw LRM20, even boated, outperforming even LRM15's. DAT cooldown. DEM wasted tons. Dat spread. Dat heat.

I used to think LRM15 was the sweet spot, a pair of those did decent dmg, could be put on mechs with limited hardpoints, and tonnage/heat/dmg output felt like it was ok. Not so good on smaller mechs, but on bigger ones they fit ok.

Now we have quirks.
A quirked LRM 15 mech can use two quirked launchers to put more missiles downfield then a traditional boat with more launchers equipped. This has allowed smaller size mechs to fit into the lrm boat role. Quirked LRM10 is even more potent in most cases. Quirked LRM10 mechs can borderline puke the missiles out with just a couple of the much lighter launchers.

All of this has aligned to make LRM both a niche weapon(in the quirk system so far as viability) and also exacerbated the discrepancy between launcher sizes.

Quirked LRM10> quirked LRM15>LRM5 boat>LRM15 boat>LRM10 boat>LRM20 of any kind.

The game has changed from 4 years ago, LRMs mostly haven't. PGI's new power draw system is likely the last chance for them to really change up how LRM's fit into their game.

[Otto Cannon]

Just posted about this in the other thread before finding this one, so I'll just copy over what I wrote there:

I think the Archer just needs quirks roughly equivalent to the Catapult, focused on the LRM20 on the relevant variants.

BUT

Before that will work, we need the general LRM imbalance to be fixed.

Personally, I'd do this by giving LRM5 and LRM10 the same cooldown and spread to make up for the extra ton you save using the smaller rack. I'd do the same with the others too and make the LRM15 and LRM20 share the same slightly higher cooldown and missile spread than the smaller racks. They could start off with the current values for the LRM10 on the smaller two and the LRM15 values for the larger ones. The exact cooldown/spread could always be tweaked and balanced away from that later if necessary.

That would at least give every size of LRM rack a reason to be used, and allow a moderate quirk on LRM20 for the Archer to be worthwhile.

There are other ways to do it of course, but that's the simplest I can think of which keeps the original TT weight values and balances the other factors around it.

[Kaeb Odellas]

clownwarlord, on 16 March 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

Its the pilots not the mech.

It's both. All other things equal, a Spider 5V will never compete with an ACH.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Ideas?


LRMs. Add 100 m/s to base velocity.

In any lrm thread I was writing this: "Do you know how many second lrm need to hit a target at 800 m?"

Long range missile speed 160m/s-------> 5 (five. F I V E) seconds.

Do you know how many things target can do in five seconds?

Speed (velocity?) should be at least doubled.

[Novakaine]

We demand fair and equal treatment for Archers!

[CK16]

I want this....cause it might actually start something with people actually strating to use missile hard points again and not be forced to boat. Like Running a Timberwolf Prime it's not a bad build! But the LRM's make or break it and many drop them cause also they add the hit boxes, in the end they are not worth as much on the TBR as they should be.

[WarHippy]

Prosperity Park, on 16 March 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think the bigger problem is this:

A Mech that has LRM20 as stock will have many missile hardpoints, and so they would be better using twn LRM10 or triple LRM5s. Twin LRM10 should be better than a single LRM20 because they command twice as many hardpoints

A Mech with LRM5 as stock will not be able to mount many missiles (they will probably have 1 missile hardpoint), so they are best with a LRM15 or LRM20. They only have 1 hardpoint to use.

It's backwards. Mechs with Big LRMs as stock are best-off with using small LRMs; Mechs with small LRMs as stock are best-off with Big LRMs.

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this thinking because on a mech with only one or two missile hardpoints you are still better off using an LRM5 or LRM10 over a LRM20. I think you are putting way too much weight on the value of the hardpoints without taking into consideration exactly how utterly crappy the LRM20 really is. You are right that twin LRM10s should be better than a single LRM20, but the problem is a single LRM10 is better than a LRM20 as well right now.

[Malleus011]

A 50 ton HBK-4J is currently far more dangerous than a 70 ton ARC-2R as an LRM bombardment 'mech. The ARC-2R should be throwing about twice the missile firepower, on average. That's how broke things currently are.

Wish I could like the OP more than once.

[topgun505]

The only thing I could think of would be to not permit LRM racks to chainfire. But I'm not sure how difficult that would be to code.

[Aresye]

Bishop, we've tried faster missile speeds. If you remember, the forums basically EXPLODED with rage, and most of it was coming from lower tier players. The higher tier was pretty much unaffected because the hard counters for LRMs remained unchanged, so the faster speeds were merely a slight inconvenience if anything.

The simple fact of the matter is that as long as the "Press R for locks" mechanic remains in place, there's only so much PGI can do for the weapon system. I know it's in the TT rules, but it hasn't been in any other MW games, and it probably wasn't included for a reason.

You can't increase the missile speed and/or reduce the targeting times without making the game virtually unplayable for the majority of players in the lower tiers, and it still wouldn't do anything to make them viable in higher tier play.

Personally, I think they should do this:
- Remove the indirect spotting mechanic.
- LRMs can still be fired indirectly, but only for locks acquired via TAG, NARC, or UAV.
- Increase missile speed by 100-150m/s for indirect fire.
- Increase missile speed by 200-250m/s for direct fire.
- Keep the same lock time for indirect fire.
- Decrease lock time for direct fire.
- Lock must be maintained for indirect fire.
- Fire & Forget mode for direct fire.

It's not a perfect solution, and it would obviously piss off a lot of players who can no longer sit back and rely on their teammates for locks, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now, and it just might make LRMs a somewhat decent weapon.

[Lugin]

Aresye, on 16 March 2016 - 07:55 PM, said:

The simple fact of the matter is that as long as the "Press R for locks" mechanic remains in place, there's only so much PGI can do for the weapon system. I know it's in the TT rules, but it hasn't been in any other MW games, and it probably wasn't included for a reason.

Wrong. Not sure on the first game, but I know that you could fire LRMs indirectly in 2 and 3. Not terribly accurate, but a way to pepper some armor off while closing. 4 was when the lock system was changed as well as made LOS only.

Edited by Lugin, 16 March 2016 - 08:07 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Artemis LRMs should not arc more than 10-15 meters higher than the launching mech so long as Line of Sight is maintained. Travel times would be shortened, LRMs could be used under bridges and enclosed areas. Artemis is a LoS required system so no reason the missles should arc high.

Since, I think January 2015, LRMs have had their angle of attack on the Center Torso reduced to ridiculous levels. With Clan LRMs if you are shooting from as little as 10 degrees off center they hit the target mech's shoulder. Since there are 360 degrees in the AoA pie it should be 30 degrees to either side even for the dumbest tracking missiles. I think 20 degrees would be a fair angle to guarantee a CT hit. I mean all the targeted mech has to do is torso twist to guard the CT and they have several seconds to do so on average.

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 16 March 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

In any lrm thread I was writing this: "Do you know how many second lrm need to hit a target at 800 m?"

Long range missile speed 160m/s-------> 5 (five. F I V E) seconds.

Do you know how many things target can do in five seconds?

Speed (velocity?) should be at least doubled.

can't agree with doubled because at shorter ranges they could too easily get OP. But they do need an increase.

And because of Lock Decay, NARC, etc, we really can''t make them super rapid, nor do they need it. If I can use chained LRM5s fine NOW, out to 7-800 meters (because I pay attention to things like LoS, etc) then the speed, while bad, is not the mitigating factor to their uselessness. Their Spread on larger racks, and cooldown, cause far more issues than their speed.

Again, with a TOTAL targeting revamp, we might be able to talk about really ramping up speed. But that ain't gonna happen. So I don't see the point wasting my time debating it.

Malleus011, on 16 March 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

A 50 ton HBK-4J is currently far more dangerous than a 70 ton ARC-2R as an LRM bombardment 'mech. The ARC-2R should be throwing about twice the missile firepower, on average. That's how broke things currently are.

Wish I could like the OP more than once.

and this is a HBK-4J that has been nerfed from it's former place of glory (and even then, no good player called it OP)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 March 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

can't agree with doubled because at shorter ranges they could too easily get OP. But they do need an increase.

Yea, now lmr are used at medium range, so at 400m the fly time is 2.5 sec.

What about doubling the speed, but to avoid OP use, let's add high spread at short ranges (the shorter the higher)?

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 16 March 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

Yea, now lmr are used at medium range, so at 400m the fly time is 2.5 sec.

What about doubling the speed, but to avoid OP use, let's add high spread at short ranges (the shorter the higher)?

It's possible, but to have any chance of changes, I find we have to keep them as simple as possible. I would love to see them get more accurate in their clusters the longer they fly, because that would kinda fit with their guidance getting more locked in telemetry. Whereas at close range they don't have enough time to adjust.

>Possibly at 180-300 or so they would still be clustered pretty close just due to their natural clustering in the launch rack, but as they fly further and adjust, it widens at 300-600 and then from 600 on gets tighter til it hits it's "optimal" spread at like 800 meters.

Numbers are just placeholders, but it would possibly allow higher speeds, though another thing could be have them designed with constant acceleration through their flight, so at shorter ranges they are actually going slower, while at longer ranges, they have built up more speed. Make the speed scale as it flies. Start them at current speed, then have them accelerate in a linear manner to say, 800 m/s by the time they reach 800 meters and that is their peak velocity the rest of the way.

Thoughts?

[Destoroyah]

I got to agree larger LRM launchers are needlessly penalized by the spread mechanic making the lrm5 far too good for no real reason.

I also agree all LRMs should be patterned off the LRM10 spread as the baseline as it's noy to big but big enough to make the various spread reduction upgrades still worth it in battle. I see only one real problem and that is volley animation a IS LRM20 would look way to clustered all at once so I say change IS Launchers to fire in rapid volleys of 5 so they are still much faster then a clan LRM of similar size. While a slight nerf to IS LRMs they can compensate by lowering the heat a bit.

One change I would really like to see is for LRMs to not constently need a lock to preform. The missles themselves should be able to take care of guidance after a given point like say after the missles travel 500m they switch to auto tracking and the auto tracking will kick in sooner if artemis is equipped and you fire while in line of sight.

Edited by Destoroyah, 16 March 2016 - 08:58 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Destoroyah, on 16 March 2016 - 08:50 PM, said:

I got to agree larger LRM launchers are needlessly penalized by the spread mechanic making the lrm5 far too good for no real reason.

I also agree all LRMs should be patterned off the LRM10 spread as the baseline as it's noy to big but big enough to make the various spread reduction upgrades still worth it in battle. I see only one real problem and that is volley animation a IS LRM20 would look way to clustered all at once so I say change IS Launchers to fire in rapid volleys of 5 so they are still much faster then a clan LRM of similar size. While a slight nerf to IS LRMs they can compensate by lowering the heat a bit.

Might could, although you look at the actual spread on an LRM20, at 6.2 meters, that's between half to one third the size of a whole mech. And way larger than the actual racks are.

So I don't think it would really be that huge a "crowding" issue. But I also could be wrong.

Prosperity Park, on 16 March 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Nope.

Weapons in this game demand 3 resources. Weight, Slots, and Hardpoints.

6 LRM5 launchers command 6 hardpoints, but 2 LRM20 command only 2. That means 6 LRM5 command three times as many hardpoint resources as the twin LRM20.

Bishop left that out of the analysis, and therefore has to rework it to include Hardpoints as a resource right along side weight and slots.

This isn't BattleTech, this is MWO. Battletech has Weight and Slots. MWO has Weight, Slots, AND Hardpoints. Balance in this game has that extra resource variable to consider, and balance discussions that omit the hardpoint resources value are moot.

actually I left it out, because in actual practice, it proves all but irrelevant.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 16 March 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

Hardpoints are funny though.

LRM5's group tighter, get more tubes per ton/slot, and fire faster. They do so so much better than 20's, that is, 20's are so bad, that 20's aren't worth using at all - they spread way too much, fire way to slow. You run 5's, or maybe 10's, or just do t bother. 20's require such an investment that they cannot offer a sufficient return.

And due to ghost heat and other limits, hardpoint value is very mixed.

And it's not like "Oh well you have less hardpoints, so just use the bigger rack" derp a derp a derp.

Because the difference in performance is so extreme, that instead of using the next size rack, people just don't use that variant and stick to using whatever CAN boat LRM5s. And THAT is why PPs post is irrelevant in actual practice, and why I didn't waste time touting the supposed "hardpoint allotment" factor. Heck, the only decent non LRM5 build out there, was a hunchback with 2xLRM10... and only then because of insane quirks to cooldown.