365 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Kaeb Odellas, on 16 March 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

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

>Yeah, but that's not what Clowny is really saying. He's trying to make himself look and feel big by taking shots at me. I'd be flattered, I guess, if it wasn't so, well, pathetic.

[WarHippy]

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

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.

I see this suggestion a lot and it still doesn't make sense, nor does it make "LRMS a somewhat decent weapon". The only thing LRMs have going for them is indirect fire yet the "fix" suggested always is to make them harder and more annoying to use indirectly all while they remain entirely inferior to every other direct fire weapon. Having indirect fire require TAG, NARC, and/or UAV means you will only ever see it in coordinated play and even then teams have better options then having multiple mechs carry extra gear just so they can lob some LRMs at the enemy. By more or less removing indirect fire you turn LRMs into more of noob trap than they are now for beginners or anyone in solo queue for that matter. It just isn't a good idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 16 March 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

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.

Not sure I get exactly why 2x LRM10 shoudl actually be better, but part of that is the danger when you take it to LRM5s, since 2x LRM5 also saves you a ton over a LRM10, 3 a ton over LRM15, and 4 saves you two tons over a LRM20 AND a Critical Space. While giving you 2.25 second better cooldown, way more focused damage, all at the cost of hardpoints, yes, but there are enough mechs with a plethora, and as you said, even those without, are realistically better off with the smaller racks) and a very modest heat cost. That is easy to avoid.

WarHippy, on 16 March 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

I see this suggestion a lot and it still doesn't make sense, nor does it make "LRMS a somewhat decent weapon". The only thing LRMs have going for them is indirect fire yet the "fix" suggested always is to make them harder and more annoying to use indirectly all while they remain entirely inferior to every other direct fire weapon. Having indirect fire require TAG, NARC, and/or UAV means you will only ever see it in coordinated play and even then teams have better options then having multiple mechs carry extra gear just so they can lob some LRMs at the enemy. By more or less removing indirect fire you turn LRMs into more of noob trap than they are now for beginners or anyone in solo queue for that matter. It just isn't a good idea.

there are pros and cons, to it, and overall, I do think they gloss the cons over too much, but more than anything, I think too many ideas are also just too much work to expect PGI to consider, sadly.

[Destoroyah]

yeah the LRM5 is so effective over the larger launchers cause it's spread is so low your almost garenteed to hit with the full volley however a LRM 20 will miss with about 25% of it's missles against a stational atlas. Your paying literally 5 times the weight and slots for a weapon that is far more inefficient.

Edited by Destoroyah, 16 March 2016 - 09:11 PM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

I hope PGI listens to you, and lift the LRM to the described level. Then we actually successful LRM players can enjoy the better weapon system :-). LRM's are currently unplayable lol.

[Bishop Steiner]

TrapJaw80, on 16 March 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

I hope PGI listens to you, and lift the LRM to the described level. Then we actually successful LRM players can enjoy the better weapon system :-). LRM's are currently unplayable lol.

Yes, LRM secret Mech Meta Master Race.

Lol. Keep stomping underachievers and telling yourself that makes them good.

[Andi Nagasia]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

>Yeah, but that's not what Clowny is really saying. He's trying to make himself look and feel big by taking shots at me. I'd be flattered, I guess, if it wasn't so, well, pathetic.

but Bishop we all like taking Shots at you,

in all seriousness it seems that Smaller Launchers have all the Advantages,
the only Case where they dont is with Artemis, because 1LRM20 +A=11(6) where as 5LRM5+A=15(10),
i think a Swift Buff to Artemis as well as Bishops Thoughts on LRMs would really help the weapon system,

[Lupis Volk]

i'm at a complete loss. I've had to make my 2R (s) into a srm boat and now i don't know what to do with the Tempest. LRM's are in such a bad state before the "lurmpocalypse " came.

[Clownwarlord]

BAP
Command Console
CLAP (CLan Active Probe)
Targeting Computers
and isn't there a few modules that help with lrms
Artemis
...

So while you may say lrms are bad there are items out there depending on which faction the mech is what you can do to help the weapon systems. Not to mention that lrms do not require line o sight.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 09:08 PM, said:

Not sure I get exactly why 2x LRM10 shoudl actually be better, but part of that is the danger when you take it to LRM5s, since 2x LRM5 also saves you a ton over a LRM10, 3 a ton over LRM15, and 4 saves you two tons over a LRM20 AND a Critical Space. While giving you 2.25 second better cooldown, way more focused damage, all at the cost of hardpoints, yes, but there are enough mechs with a plethora, and as you said, even those without, are realistically better off with the smaller racks) and a very modest heat cost. That is easy to avoid.


there are pros and cons, to it, and overall, I do think they gloss the cons over too much, but more than anything, I think too many ideas are also just too much work to expect PGI to consider, sadly.

Well using completely random numbers the idea has merit. Two LRM5s could have the same DPS as a LRM10, but since they take up more than one hardpoint they get to save weight over the LRM10 like you mentioned. Doesn't necessarily make them better, but it does open more build options with weight savings at the cost of using additional hardpoints. You could also do things the other way and have two LRM10s for example be the same weight or maybe heavier than a LRM20 but have a slightly higher rate of fire than a single LRM20. It would take a lot of work to balance things out and create interesting options to consider instead of what we have now which is to never use LRM20s and only sometimes use LRM15s since LRM5s and LRM10s are just flat out better.

[Clownwarlord]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

>Yeah, but that's not what Clowny is really saying. He's trying to make himself look and feel big by taking shots at me. I'd be flattered, I guess, if it wasn't so, well, pathetic.

No I meant it is the pilots not the mech. What I mean by that apparently is I have to spell it out.

No its the pilots because everyone knows the Archer came out ... so everyone is preped to fight against Archers. For example, I bring a Shadow Cat 3 ERLL and ECM. I stay at range so SRM Archers can do **** and while at range I can do line of sight damage and stay out of their anti ECM bubbles. See its the pilot not the mech.

Edited by clownwarlord, 16 March 2016 - 09:26 PM.

[Barantor]

I think this is a good topic and has been a long time coming.

One thing that keeps coming up anytime anyone says "LRMs are good" is that there are half a dozen ways to counter them. Wolfways and I think similar in the fact that it does take 5 seconds to get there that it shouldn't have a warning.

If you had 5 seconds to get out of the way of an AC/20... you would, especially if there was a big: WARNING AC/20 ABOUT TO FIRE! on your screen.

I've always felt that artemis should improve velocity when you fire it directly as well. One thing that I thought of as well is that the velocity could change dependent on range. Realistically the missile might use less thrust when it has to go farther in order to make corrections, whereas at a shorter range it can use it more for speed... might not be super realistic... *shrug*

The fact that we call the archer or even the Catapult C4 a 'boat' is kinda odd in a way too when they don't have an abundance of LRM hardpoints as it is. Most folks that 'boat' are using the C1 with 6xLRM5s or one of the stalkers with it's abundance of missile points.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Another thing that complicates missile balance which has been brought up already here, is hardpoint counts.

In MW4, smaller LRMs were worthless because of AMS being setup to shoot down the first LRM packet on every salvo, when that got changed to be random (and AMS made much more scarce) and interesting dynamic popped up that honestly made me wish we could pull this off since it is similar to the IS vs Clan balance (which is the reason it wouldn't work in MWO).

LRM5s you boated at the cost of either incredible heat, or lower overall damage output (both DPS and burst damage) for a much stronger and concentrated punch (8 LRM5s hitting a medium often knocked it down) while you ran 10-20s (20s being the most efficient) depending on the hardpoint sizes just to stack up a larger alpha at the expense of being a little less concentrated. I also think AMS may have to change its functionality a bit (only target missiles targeting you) with any missile revamp.

[Andi Nagasia]

clownwarlord, on 16 March 2016 - 09:16 PM, said:

BAP
Command Console
CLAP (CLan Active Probe)
Targeting Computers
and isn't there a few modules that help with lrms
Artemis
...

So while you may say lrms are bad there are items out there depending on which faction the mech is what you can do to help the weapon systems. Not to mention that lrms do not require line o sight.

BAP=CAP=
+25% more Sensor Range, +25% Faster Target Doll, Counters ECM & Can Identify shut down Mechs,
its more for Nullifying ECM than is is to help LRMs, Having the Doll doesnt help LRMs Aim, Sadly,

Command Console=OnlyIS= +6% more Sensor Range, +42% Faster Target Doll,
Targeting Computers=OnlyClan= +2-7% more Sensor Range, +22-75% Faster Target Doll,
the Quicker Target Doll does help Aiming just not Aiming with LRMs,

Artemis= -50% Targeting Time, +50% Missile Tracking, -66%Spread when target is with in LOS,
all LRM Buffs, & Missile Tracking is how fast your Missiles get back on Track after Losing & Regaining lock,

Mech Modules include,
Adv/TargetDecay= adds 3.5 seconds to your 3.5 second Lock Hold Time(after Losing LOS),
RadarDep= removes 3.5 seconds from Enemy Lock Hold Time(after losing LOS on you),

Weapon Modules include,
Range= Maxed gives +10%LRM Range,
CoolDown= Maxed gives -12%CoolDown,

there seems to be Many LRM Misconceptions, hopefully this will Enlighten some,
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 16 March 2016 - 09:51 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

Sensor Range ... hmm that helps does it not. So it helps.

[Andi Nagasia]

clownwarlord, on 16 March 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

Sensor Range ... hmm that helps does it not. So it helps.

LRM Range Mod, makes LRMs fire up to 1100,
that helps but not really because you'll almost Never Fire from that Distance,
if you do, thats 12 seconds of Betty yelling in your Targets Ears to get to cover,
sensor Range is ok, but no amount of sensor Range will make LRMs Viable,

[Imperius]

Meh, saw this coming Archer could have been better but because LRM's can't be comp, it will always be a lower tier mech unless LRM's get good or IS XL engines get good, side torsos are to big for XL etc. Now if the XL on IS was like Clan it could give it the SRM brawler potential.

https://twitter.com/...227679783882752
https://twitter.com/...227852459204608

[Clownwarlord]

lrms are op when you have team work and team work is op

[xVLFBERHxT]

No offense here, but in my opinon the LRM is a skill based weapon system (specifically in Pug matches) that shines in coordinated teamplay.
One can easily go for 600 (1000) damage in (meta) LRM boats with a spotter, tag/ narc or by supporting brawlers. Thats why everybody talks about the lurmageddon when PGI runs an event. But it needs work to make them work and one can easily loose in the wrong build and the wrong position. I would go so far and say, that LRMs are currently in a good shape and pretty balanced. If they get more love, the players that are used to them will have much much better results.

Edited by TrapJaw80, 16 March 2016 - 10:19 PM.

[Imperius]

clownwarlord, on 16 March 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

lrms are op when you have team work and team work is op

We don't have team work anymore (bad players ruined team play, LRM's, and <insert anything that kills them here> unless you like the 12 man black jack team...

I'm just waiting for single player / co-op campaign to come out.

TrapJaw80, on 16 March 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

No offense here, but in my opinon the LRM is a skill based weapon system (specifically in Pug matches) that shines in coordinated teamplay.
One can easily go for 600 (1000) damage in (meta) LRM boats with a spotter, tag/ narc or by supporting brawlers. Thats why everybody talks about the lurmageddon when PGI runs an event. But it needs work to make them work and one can easily loose in the wrong build and the wrong position. I would go so far and say, that LRMs are currently in a good shape and pretty balanced. If they get more love, the players that are used to them will have much much better results.

1000 DMG in a LRM boat is junk sorry it will never be good. LRM's are spread DMG to the point where you actually did about 300 "useful" DMG to the other team, and I'm being nice about that number...

Edited by Imperius, 16 March 2016 - 10:21 PM.